No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The “Continuous Voyage” Doctrine During the Civil War, and Now
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
Extract
Mr. Atherly-Jones, in his Commerce in War, says that what the courts of the United States did, during the Civil War, was not to apply the principle of a continuous voyage (which had been originally asserted in support of national monopolies of colonial trade), to the carriage of contraband goods, still less to blockades; but to depart from the old rules of evidence.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1915
References
1 Page 255.
2 See Professor Holland’s criticisms in Takahashi’s Cases on International Law During the Chino-Japanese War, xxi.
3 The Springbok, 3 Wall. 1, 20, 22.
4 Hoxie v. Home Insurance Co., 32 Conn. 21, 37; Letter of Sir William Scott and Sir John Nicoll of September 10, 1794, to John Jay, Minister of the United States to England, appendix to Chitty, Law of Nations, 302.
5 Reports of the International Law Association, XXVI, 118.
6 Jecker v. Montgomery, 13 How. 498; 18 How. 110, 114.
7 3 Wall. 514.
8 5 Wall. 28, 56.
9 See The Imina, 3 C. Rob. 167.
10 The Adula, 176 U. S. 361, 370.
11 The Springbok, 3 Wall. 1, 26, 27.
12 Vol. IV, 829, note.
13 Stockton, “ International Naval Conference of London”, this Journal, III, 604, 608.
14 See the German Imperial Prisenordnung, as revised in 1915, Art. 39.
15 See Moore, Int. Law Digest, VIII, 731.
16 In 1882, though it came to a different conclusion in 1896.