invoked from the cases of the Stephen Hart and Gertrude (which her majesty’s government have now seen for the first time) in which the same parties were concerned,” had convinced his Government that the decision was justifiable under the circumstances.[26] The fact was pointed out that the evidence had gone “so far to establish that the cargo of the Springbok, containing a considerable portion of contraband, was never really and bona fide destined for Nassau, but was either destined merely to call there or to be immediately transhipped after its arrival there without breaking bulk and without any previous incorporation into the common stock of that Colony, and then to proceed to its real destination, being a blockaded port."[27] The “complicity of the owners of the ship, with the design of the owners of the cargo,” was “so probable on the evidence” that, in the opinion of the law advisers of the Crown, “there would be great difficulty in contending that this ship and cargo had not been rightly condemned.”  The only recourse of the owners was consequently the “usual and proper remedy of an appeal” before the United States Courts.

[Footnote 26:  Sessional Papers, Miscl., No.  I (1900), C. 34, pp. 39-40; Russell to Lyons, Feb. 20, 1864.]

[Footnote 27:  Ibid.  Italics our own.]

The next point that Count Hatzfeldt made was not so squarely met by Lord Salisbury, namely, that the manual of the English Admiralty of 1866 expressly declared:  “A vessel’s destination shall be considered neutral, if both the point to which she is bound and every intermediate port at which she is to call in the course of her voyage be neutral.”  And again, “The destination is conclusive as to the destination of the goods on board.”  Count Hatzfeldt contended that upon this principle, admitted by Great Britain herself, Germany was fully justified in claiming the release of the ship without adjudication since she was a mail-steamer with a fixed itinerary and consequently could not discharge her cargo at any other port than the neutral port of destination.[28]

[Footnote 28:  Sessional Papers, Africa, No.  I (1900), C. 33, p. 6.]

The only reply that Lord Salisbury could make was that the manual cited was only a general statement of the principles by which British officers were to be guided in the exercise of their duties, but that it had never been asserted and could not be admitted to be an exhaustive or authoritative statement of the views of the British Government.  He further contended that the preface stated that it did not treat of questions which would ultimately have to be settled by English prize courts.  The assertion was then made that while the directions of the manual were sufficient for practical purposes in the case of wars such as had been waged by Great Britain in the past, they were quite inapplicable to the case which had arisen of war with an inland State whose only communication