"accepted well founded surmise as to a vessel's destination in lieu of proof," and he adds, "the danger of such a departure needs no further comment."[7] [Footnote 6: Op. cit., p. 45.] [Footnote 7: Commerce in War (1907), p. 255.] The first position taken by Great Britain to support her right of seizure of foodstuffs bound for Delagoa Bay seems to have been based upon this departure of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the _Springbok_ in 1863. It was found, however, that this basis of justification would not be acceptable to other Powers generally nor to the United States when the doctrine of "continuous voyages" was given such an application as practically to include foodstuffs as contraband. Without the taint of contraband there could be no justification even upon the _Springbok_ decision as a precedent, since there was no blockaded port in question. In the seizure of American goods which were being conveyed by British ships there was the possibility of a violation of a municipal regulation which forbade British subjects to trade with the enemy. But the charge of trading with the enemy to gain plausible ground necessarily carried with it the further presumption that the ultimate intention was that the foodstuffs should reach the Transvaal by a later stage of the same voyage. With reference to the arrest and detention of German mail steamers bound for Delagoa Bay, the English Government found the attempt to substitute possibly well-grounded suspicions for facts no more acceptable to third Powers than the assumption with regard to foodstuffs had been, if the emphatic statements of the German Government indicate the general opinion upon the subject of the carrying of analogues of contraband and unneutral service in general. GERMAN SEIZURES. BUNDESRATH, HERZOG AND GENERAL.