I concur with the Comptroller-General of Customs that the Secretary of State's cable is not very lucidly expressed.

Enemy goods at sea on neutral ships are immune from capture under the Declaration of Paris, and this would I think cover a call at a British port. The Declaration does not however legalise trade with the enemy, and if the destination of the goods were a British port, they would be liable to capture. The question of the position of goods shipped to a British port for trans-shipment by some other vessel is a somewhat doubtful one, and the Government in England has evidently been advised that such goods are liable to seizure. The Secretary of State however indicates that such cases are in general to be treated as on the same footing as enemy goods proceeding to their destination by the same ship. It must I think be clearly established that there is substantially a continuous adventure: the indulgence could not be applied to goods which were brought here to await orders concerning their further destination. Nor do I think it can be intended to extend the indulgence to goods to be trans-shipped to an enemy port.

I do not follow the Comptroller-General's note that 'the application of the instructions appears to be confined to enemy goods landed in British ships for trans-shipment'. It is not easy to see how there could be an operation of this kind without a breach of the rules against trade with the enemy. The same observation would apply to trans-shipment into a British ship.

I take it that the cable has no reference to contraband of war.⁽¹⁾

[Vol.13, p. 151]

(1)In forwarding this opinion Mr Garran,Secretary, Attorny-General's Department,stated that 'this Department concurs' with it.

See Preface.