enemy's goods. Ward reduces this argument to its simplest expression, which makes it a reductio ad absurdum. It amounts to this: because a (say) Swedish ship belongs to Sweden therefore it is not a ship at all but a part of Sweden. Again, if the neutral ship is to be invested with the territorial character, what becomes of the undisputed belligerent right to seize contraband of war on board?
The fact is that the power of locomotion of a ship invests it with a character which is peculiar to it, and its power of harbouring enemies' goods is a very different one from that possessed by the neutral's territory. A bale of cotton stored at Charleston is a very different thing from that same bale invested with locomotive power (by means of the neutral's ship) and going to Liverpool or Havre to be exchanged for money and the sinews of war.
(2.) It is said that no nation has a right to exercise dominion over the seas, which
