clearances may properly be considered as a fraudulent evasion, and as, in effect, the direct trade; but the High Court of Admiralty[1] has expressly decided that landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country breaks the continuity of the voyage, and is such an importation as legalises the trade, although the goods be re-shipped in the same vessel, and on account of the same neutral proprietor, and be forwarded for sale to the mother-country or the colony."
But his Lordship admitted that the decision of Sir William Scott by no means went so far; that distinguished judge remarking in the most guarded manner that it was not his business to determine "what was a bonâ fide importation." However, from Lord Hawkesbury's commentary upon the judgment, presuming that he indorsed the Judge-Advocate's opinion, by sending it to America as an extract, it came to be universally understood in the United States that the mere landing of the goods, and paying the duties in the neutral country, were sufficient to break the continuity of the voyage and to legalise the trade; whereas the landing and the payment of the duties were only deemed the best criteria or the best evidence obtainable of a bonâ fide importation. This distinction became afterwards of great importance, although the peace of Amiens put an end for a time to all controversies on the subject. But when hostilities recommenced between France and England, the American merchants, recollecting
- ↑ This decision is called the "Polly" case, for which see 'Robinson's Reports,' vol. ii. p. 368, for the judgment of Sir William Scott (Lord Howell).
