ness of the objection falls to the ground, and the objection is reduced to pleading for the immunity of what is called the lawful trade of the neutral. As, however, the question of what the law should be is the very point in question, we are not advanced a step in the decision of the question as to whether the lawful trade of the neutral should or should not include the carrying trade of the enemy, a trade which the enemy would not be able to carry on himself.
That part of the trade of the neutral which consists (with the limitation as to blockades and contraband of war) in selling his own produce to the enemy and buying the enemy's produce in return for his own, is not interfered with by the old maritime rule which we are at present considering.
What the rule does forbid is that a neutral should undertake the carrying of the enemy's property, in order to enable him to carry on a trade which otherwise would be
