¹ The author has misconstrued a statement of mine at page 38 where he indicates that I have referred to the Eagle (1803) “as a case in which the doctrine of continuous voyage was applied to contraband,” and also at page 39 where he says: “Thus the statement of Woolsey that, 'The earliest case mentioned [by Justice Elliott] in which the doctrine was applied to contraband is that of the Eagle decided in May, 1803' . . . seem to be based on a misapprehension.” The context of my article shows that I was merely reviewing Justice Elliott's article on “ The Doctrine of Continuous Voyages,” and not stating my own views.