Trade from Great Britain to the Bahamas and Mexico was ostensibly trade
from one neutral port to another neutral port in the same sense as was
trade from the United States to Holland and Denmark. Yet the fact is
that the "neutrality" of this trade, in the Civil War, from Great
Britain to the Bahamas and Mexico, was the most transparent subterfuge;
such trade was not "neutral" in the slightest degree. It consisted
almost entirely of contraband of war and was intended for the armies of
the Confederate States, then in arms against the Federal Government.
What is the reason, our Government asked, that these gentle and
unwarlike inhabitants of the Bahamas have so suddenly developed such an
enormous appetite for percussion caps, rifles, cannon, and other
instruments of warfare? The answer, of course, lay upon the surface; the
cargoes were intended for reshipment into the Southern States, and they
were, in fact, immediately so reshipped. The American Government, which
has always regarded realities as more important than logic, brushed
aside the consideration that this trade was conducted through neutral
ports, unhesitatingly seized these ships and condemned both the ships
and their cargoes. Its action was without legal precedent, but our
American courts devised a new principle of international law to cover
the case--that of "continuous voyage" or "ultimate destination." Under
this new doctrine it was maintained that cargoes of contraband could be
seized anywhere upon the high seas, even though they were going from one
neutral port to another, if it could be demonstrated that this
contraband was really on its way to the enemy. The mere fact that it was
transshipped at an intermediate neutral port was not important; the
important point was the "ultimate destination." British shippers
naturally raged over these decisions, but they met with little sympathy
from their own government. Great Britain filed no protest against the
doctrine of "continuous voyage," but recognized its fundamental
soundness, and since 1865 this doctrine has been a part of international
law.

Great Britain's good sense in acquiescing in our Civil War practices now
met its reward; for these decisions of American courts proved a godsend
in her hour of trial. The one neutral from which trouble was anticipated
was the United States. What better way to meet this situation than to
base British maritime warfare upon the decisions of American courts?
What more idea