IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // ^ >^^ 1.0 I.I 11 SK |3 2 m .;. i: M M 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 ^ f," _ ► p /i <^ /2 ^;. VI ($>i ^> Hiotographic Sciences ■ Corporation ^ iP V «^ \\ % V 73 WEST MAIh STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14S80 (716) 873-4503 6^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliosraphic Notaa/Notaa technique* et bibliographiques T t( The Institute ha* attempted to obtain the beet original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which mey significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagAe Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurAe et/ou pelliculAe r~l Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes gtkographiques en couleur Colo'ired ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intArieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutAes lors d'une restauraticn apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque eels Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas AtA filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires aupplAmentaires: L'jnstitut s microfilm^ le meilleur exempleire qu'il lui a At* possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exempleire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une imege reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modificetion dans la mAthode normele de filmege sont indiquAs ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ a n Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagAes Pages restored and/oi Pages restauries et/ou pellicul6es I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ T P o fi G b tl s o fi s o Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color4es, tachet6es ou piquAes ! I Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary materit Comprend du materiel supplAmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I I Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ [~~| Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ T 8 T ly/ d ei b ri re IT Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuiilet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont M filmies A nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* su taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X aim [7 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here hat been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce k la ginArositi de: BibliothAque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Las images suivantes ont «t« reproduites avec le plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition at de la nettetA de l'exemplaire film*, et en conformity avjc las conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and endinj on the last page with a printed or illustratea impres- sion, ot the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sont filmte en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmAs en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol y (meaning 'END "), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparahra sur la derniire image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols —*> signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols ▼ signifie "FIN ". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmAs A des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, il est film* A partir de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant la nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 r ON THE LAWS OF BLOCKADE; A TH ESIS FOR THB ■ Degree of doctor of Civil Law, PRESENTED TO MoGill University, Montreal, BY THOMAS NICHOL, B.C.L., February A tSSf. i pontreat : PRINTED BY JOHN LOVELL & SON. 1887. TABLK OF CASES. Aiielnido, 2 Rohin^on ! 1 1 Ailoni!", 5 Hobindoii 256..., Aiitlicm, I I>od«on 425..., fAUR BetDoy, 1 Robinson «2 10 •' 1 Rol)ins(.n 92 25 •' I l{..l.iiis«ii <.)3 ;<() " I Kobinson .•{34. , - 'AH Ryfield, Kdwards 188 27 Ciily|iso, 2 Robinson 298 2(i Charlotta, 1 Edwards 252 . 37 Charlotfp Chrictinc, Kobinson 101 39 ChriKtiansbcrK, 6 Robinson 378 48 Culuiitiiia, I Kobiiii^on 155... 22 " I Robinson 156 36 " I Robinson 154 40 • " I Robinson 154 49 Drio Vriondon, I Dodson 259 27 EM>,'ic, I Acton 65 31 Kunroni, 2 Robinson 9 45 Kl!, 5 Robinson 173 50 E.xcliange, Kdwurds 42, 43 24 " i Edwards 43 48 Fortunn, 5 loliinson 27 23 Fox, E.lwards, .■i2l 9 •' 1 Edwards 320 :i4 Friuicisl •fongc I'otroiicllii, 1! Robinson 131 20 JoRgo Pietor, 4 RobuiHun 8tt 40 .lungfriiii Miirili SohrtBdor, 3 Ilobinson 147 10 " '• " .T Robinson 147 60 " «' " .'{ Robinson 152 , 60 Lis»!i.ti', « Robinson .S95 43 Mnj?niin, I Robinson :{1 42 Mnriii. « Robinson 201 42 Muliiniu, 2 Dodijon 130 31 Mentor, 1 Robinnon 183 16 Morouriuii, I Robinson 82 18 " 1 Robinson 80 47 Niincy, 1 Acton 58 32 " I Acton 64, 65 32 Xeptunus, 2 Robinson 113 17 '' 2 Robinson 110 28 Norcido, 5 Crancb 343 36 Neutralitut, 6 Robinson 30 38 Ocean. 3 Robinson 297 40 Potsdam, 4 Robinson 89 27 RoUa, 6 Robinson 367 16 " 6 Robinson 367 25 Sliepherdess, 5 Robinson 262 23 Spos and Irene, 5 Robinson 79 22 " " 5 Robinson 76 38 Stert, 4 Robinson 66 28 Vrow Judith, 1 Robinson 151 28 '* 1 Robinson 151 ; » 39 Wolvaart Van Pillau, 2 Robinson 130 26 " '' •' 2Robin»oul28 46 ON THE LAWS OF BLOCKADE. TIiu Blockade of tlio Midillo Ai^ns dift'cri'd radically from the Bloi'kade of to-day. When aljout to enj^astd and cargo. Thus Urotius tells us that during the long ;ind bloody war carried on by the United Provinces for the recovery of their liberties, the}' refused the English permission to trade with Dunkirk before which the Dutch Heel lay. (a) liut even after this UKulern Doctrine of Blockade was devel- oped to a considerable extent, standard writers on International Law devoted very little .sjtace to it. Thus N'attel gives it pre- cisely thirteen linefi, the essential part being as follows : — " All commerce is entirely proliibiled wiiii a besieged town. If 1 lay siege to a place, or oidy form the blockade, I hav{) a right to hinder any one from entering, and to treat as an enemy who- ever attempts to enter the [ilace, or carry anything to the be- seiged, without my leave ; for he opposes my enterprise, may (a) Vattel'e Law of Nations, B. 3, Ch. 7, § 117. contribute to the iniscarringe of it, and thus cause me to fall into all tlie evils of an unsuccfssful war." (a) Martens, still more economical of spaeo, gives this important doctrine just Kii'^i/trs / Towards the close of tlie eighteenth cei»tury the stronger maritime ])OW(;rs, notably Clreat Britain and France, endeavoured to stretch the tloctrine of Blockade unduly. Great liritain, for instance, would declare the French coast blockaded from Brest to Dunkirk, station a frigate here and there, and in all serious- ness endeavor to make the mercantile world believe in this Idockade. Blockades of this nature led to the famous declaration by the Empress Catherine II. of I'ussia, that "the blockade of a port can exist only when, through the arrangements of the power which attacks a jjort by means of vessels stationed there and suHiciently near, there isaneviilent danger in entering." Hence arose the A^'itied NcidraUtij which, in 1780 and again in 1800, asserted the rights of neutral commerce. In addition to this grievance concerning blockade, the Armed Neutrality claimed that Great Britain liau enlarged tiie list of contraband goods bevond just bounds, that their merchant vessels had been stib- jected •() vexatious examinations, and especially that the old r-'le that tututral uli ips make neutral cavgoes had been systema- tically set aside. The principles ol this liimoiis league may Ix' thus summarizccl : 1. That neutral powers liave a right to a fn^e trade with the ports of the belligerent powers ; 2. that neutral vessels make neutral goods, that is, that enemy's go(xls found on board neutral vessels ought not to be confiscated; 8. that no giods shall be rej)utt'd contraband which have not been so declared in treaties made with the belligerent j)owers, or one of them ; 4. that a place shall not be looked npon as blockaded, except when sur- rounded by the enemy's vessels iu such a manner as to render all entrance manifestly dangerous ; and, lastly, that these prin- ciples shall serve as the basis of all decisions touching the (a)Oi). cit. B. III,Ch Vir.,§117. legality of prizes. It will be noted that the section relating to blockade is nmrvellously similar to tlie statement of the Treaty of Paris, formulated two generations later — " Blockades in order to be binding must be effectual, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient in reality to prevent access to the coast of the enemv." Denmark was the first to join the league on June 9th, 1780 ; followed by Sweden, August 1, 1780; the United Provinces, January 5, 1781; Prussia, May 8, 1781; the German Empire, October 0, 1781; Portugal, July 13, 1782; and the Two Sicilies in 1783. The Emperor Paul was the ruling spirit of the second Armed Neutmlity, just as his mother had been of the first, and it was dissolved by his violent death. Finally, all the points of dift'er- ence between these Neutral Powers and Great liritain were amicably settled, but the Mistress of the Seas did not abandon her peculiar views on the subject of Blockade. Phillimore sarcastically remarks that " the most remarkable fact connected with the Armed Neutrality of 1780, is that every one of the powers composing this hallowed league for the maintenance of International Justice upon the principles of the Russian edict departed from the obligation which they had con- tracted as Neutrals as soon as they became Bdlhjerents, and returned without shame or hesitation to the ancient law." (a) But though the Northern Powers and tlieir allies desisted from their opposition to the policy of Great Britain, the French Government intensitied its opposition. In the year 179G all the porta of Genoa and of the Roman States were closed to British commerce by sjtecial treaty with the French Republic, and in 1801 Naples and Portugal were induced to adopt the same line of action. Still Great Britain did not abate one jot of her pretensions, so in 1806, Prussia, which at that time lield Hanover by the gi-ace of Napoleon, was forced by him to close all her ports to British (a) Pliillimore's Commentaries upon International Law, CXCI. sliipiiinj,'. SiHiii after PnisNiii 1 roke witli France, nn«l after tlie disastrous ratni)ai,i;n (if.Icna the Hiii|rt'r<»r Xa| olenii (Nov. 21, 1H(I(») issiunl the llcrliii Dcin-e (Uuilariu^' the whoK; of tho Ihitish Kiupire in a state of hluckatle ; and ail vessels, no matter (»f what ci.nntry, tradini,' with liritish jmrts, were deelaresiM|uent J)ecn'e all neutral vesscds W(U'e required to carry artifimfes nf or'ujlti, that is to say certilicates from the; French consuls of the ports fntni which they saileil that Ho ^tortUni of flie rartjo < lirl- tish — really, a revival of an expedient which <»rij,Mnated with the Directory in the year IV. of the Frencdi IJepulilic (ITOd). The lierlin Decree vas ]>romptiy followed (Jan. 7, ISlt?) hy a IJritish Order in Council, conmiaiidin^' the seizure <»f all neu- tral vessels tradiiij^ from (tne hostile ]iort to another haviu*^ enenjv's j,'oods on Itoard. To this, the French EmiM-ror rei»lied l)y new elVorts to eid'orcc; the IJerlin Decree. A nundier of neutral vessels were ca])liiicd and c(»iiliscated for violatin}^ its jirovisions, and the niauufaetiirini,' interests of tlreat liritain Seem to have sullered severely. The liritish pivernnient issued fresh (h'ders in Council (Xov. 11 and L'l, ISUT;, declaring,' tho jtorts of the French Empire and of all its trihutary states in a state of hlockade, and ordiirin^ the contiscation of all ships carryin<^ French ('('rtifi(Uf<'>i of oi'Kj'ni and of all shii>s attempt- in*^ to trade witii the ports blockaded. And this was backed 1)y a navy carrying' one hundred and eii^'hty thousand seamen and forty thousand nuirines. Further, all neutral vessels purjws- \\v^ to trade with lu)stile ports, that is, inyrtx hoxtile to Great Jh'ifd.in, were ordered in all cases to touch at a liritish port, pay custom dues there, after which they were, in certain cases, ])ermitted to sail for their destination ! And in all aises, vessels sailing from a hostile port — and all countries under French sway were counted hostile — were ordered in the lirst place to touch at the nearest liritish port. Those Orders in Council won; follitwod (Dec. 27, 1807) by the ^liliin Drcree, by which the entire liritish donunions, in all «|U!iilers of the ^dobe, were declared to be in a state of block- ade, so that all vessels trading with Great liritain or her colon- ies were liablo to conliscation. Further provisions of the same Decree declared that all vessels makin;^ a voyage, for any pur- pose whatever, to Great Britain, or sulmiitting to be searched by a IJritish cruiser, or paying any duties or dues to the liritish Crown, had lost its right to its own Hag, and. i/>.voyW(7o, liad become 15riti.sh, and that all such vessels, falling u » the hands of Frencli cruisers, or entering a French i)ort, weri ] iwfnl prize. At tliis time, say from 1807 to 1812, so "iiny oi the Con- tinental stat'-s had bt^en absorbed into tlio F'rencb I'^u'pire, or were dirt'cily under its control, that the jirincipul, uay, ahnost the >nly neutral power still remaining, was the United States of America ; consequently, the Americans weie the chief suilt-r- ers by these Decrees and Orders in Council by which, in reality, neutral )»owers were punished by the respective belligerents for the aggressions of their opponents. Accordingly, the American government apjdied to tlie French government, and obtained a kind of senii-olHcial assurance that tlie obnoxious Decrees would not be enforced against American vessels. This was ileemed satisfactory ; but on application to the Jiritish G(n'ernment, the American authorities were «lirected to insist upon a public renunciation l)y France of both Decrees. Justly incensed at tliis treatment the American government procecdetl to lay an embargo (Dec, 1807) on allFreiich and British commercial shi])ping in American ]»orts, and in March, 1809, Congress ])a.ssed an Act forbidding all commert'ial inter- course with i)oth Great Britain and France, until such time as these countries should remove their restrictions on neutral com- merce. In April, 1809, inconsequence of the Spanish insurrection, a fresh Order in Council was issued which confined the blockade to France itself, to Holland and to parts of the German and 8 Italian coasts, opening all the rest of the coast blockaded by previous Orders in Council to neutral trade. By subsequent Orders tlie plan of licensing neutral vessels to proceed to hostile ports after liaving ])aid duties at a British one was extended and systematized, till at length no fewer than sixteen thousand licenses were issued in a single year. But the Emperor Napoleon did not relax his continental system in the least, but owing to the deficiencies of the French marine, liritish goods were conveyed into France in neutral bottoms, and in 1810 the Imperial authorities ordered the burn- ing of all British goods on French soil. Finally, in 1812, the French government annulled all its obnoxious Decrees, and, on being informed of that fact, the British government rescinded all its Orders in Council. But, by this time, the government of the United States had declared war against Great Britain. There can be no doubt whatever but that all these Decrees and Orders in Council were so many violations of International Law. The gi'and leading princi}»le which regidates all such matters is that no neutnd j^oiver shall be annoyed or incom- moded by any ivarllke open Ui on ivhich shall not have a greater tendency to benefit the belligerent than to injure the neutral, and, very clearly, all tliese arbitrary extensions of the rights of war were calculated to sacrifice neutral rights to the retaliation of the belligerents. And it seems to us, looking at the subject from a distance of time and possibly with cooler heads, that the reasoning, even of eminent publicists, on this subject is faulty and one-sided in the extreme. Even Lord Stowell could find no better reason than Napoleon's Decrees for condemning American vessels for trading with Italian ports which most certainly were not block- aded. " This retaliatory blockade " (if blockade it is to be called), said he, "is co-extensive with the principle ; neutrals are proiiibited to trade with France, because they are prohibited by France from trading with England. England acquires the 9 right, which it would not otherwise possess, to prohibit inter- course by virtue of the act of France " {The Fox ; Edwards 321) And again in a heading case, that of The Anthem, in which he gives the standard definition of a legal blockade, he states that the Order in Council of the 2()th of April in that year (1809) was, amongst others, issued in the way of retaliation fur the measures which had been jircviously adopted by the French government: — "Tlie blockade imposed by it is ajtplicable to a very great extent of coast and was never intended to be main- tained according to the usual and regular mode of enfurcing blockades, by stationing a number of ships, and forming, as it were, an arch of circumvallation round the mouth of the \n'o- hibited port. There, if the arch fails in any one part, the block- ade itself fails altogether." (1 Dodson, 425.) During the long period between the close of the Na])oleonic wars and the Itussian war of 1854-56, the doctrine of Blockade remained in the position in which it was left by Lord St(jwi'll, and during that war a British Order in Council permitted neu- trals to trade to all ports and places, wheresoever situated, that were not in a state of blockade. Finally, the jiowers assembled in congress at Paris declared (April 1(), 1850) that " Blockades in order to be binding must be etlectual, that is to say, main- tained by a force sufficient in reality to prevent access to the coast of the enemy." In all cases the question remains as to whether or not a blockade has been maintained in such a manner as to fulfil the terms of tins declaration ; but each case would require to be investigated on its own merits. The older doctrine of Blockade exchuled ships of war as well as merchantmen from blockaded ]>orts, but during the war of the Rebellion the United States government j)ermitted neutral ships of war to enter the blockaded Southern j>orts, tind this is the only marked innovation of this duct'-ine that lias been intro- duced in our day. Lord Stowell's famous three thingsuiuat ever remain the lead- ing idea of the doctrine of BLjckade, at least as understood by 10 British and American pul>lici.st.s. " On the question of blockade," he says, " three things must be proved : first, the existence of an actual blockade ; second, the knowledge of the party ; and third, some act of violation, either by going in or coming out with a cargo laden after the commencement of the blockade." {The Bdsei/, 1 ]tol)inson,.92.) Actual bl(jckade is the essential element of legal blockade. The blockade of Havre was ])roclaimed by Great JJritain, Febru- ary 23, 1708, for the alleged purpose of jn-eventing an invasion by the French; but as late as November, 1701), no lihjckade of Havre was known to the 15ritish naval authorities to be existing; between these dates, vessels were invariably j)ermilted to ])a33 in and out of that port. Many vessel, were stojijuMl and examin- ed as to the nature of the cargo, and their destination, and on other ]toints, but no objection a}>pears to have bt'en taken on the ground of blockade; some were proceeded against on other gr(»unds, and others were released. The shiyj Jaiif/frauMdria ^cln'oi'iler went into Havre in May, 17c)f,», having l)een met by TJw Sf((f/ frigate, and sutTcred to jiass unmolested; she came out again on June 14, and saw no ship for forty-eight hours, and was seized at last olf the North Foreland, by 'llm Co iiiper; 17, 1799, the British Admiralty transmittinl orders to the cajitain of The Afdiaiita, "to ])roceed as expeditiously as possilile t(j Havre, there to taKe under his connnand the s\\\\)H he should find on that station, for the j)urpose of blocking U[i the ciast, and watch- ing the motions of the liuemy, and jirotectiug the island of St. Marcou till further orders," but it was not till Seiitemb(!r 27, that tilt! Admiralty sent orders t(j this otlict'r, " not to ])';rmit any vessel, whatever, to enter Havre." It was contended that this was the first declaration since November, 1798, that Havre was considered to be under a mercantile blorkatle, and that, con- se([Uently, between November, 179.S, and the reeeiiit of the Ad- miralty order of yeptend)er 27, 1799, off Havre, the blockade 11 M'as to be Cfiiisidored as totally relaxed, which alone by the law of nations is lield to operate as a let^'al cessation. " A l)lock- ade," writes liynker.sboek, " is virtnally relaxed, >' m/iilun orae ohservantfc siiit." lAml Stowel', in restoring the vessel, suid : " It is ] erfeetly clear that a blockade had taken place some months before; and that the notification was conimnnicated to the claimant's government, not only that a blockade wonld be imposed, bnt of the most rigorous kind; and 1 cannot enteitain the least doubt that the orders whi^h were given by our Ad- miralty were conformable to it. It in impossilde to su])pose that the orders for carrying into eflect a great measure, so materially affecting other states, would not l)e given by government with the utmost exactness. Yet, I cannot shut my eyes to a fact that presses upon the court, that the blockade had not been duly carried intc^ efl'ect. A tem[)orary and forced secession of the lilockadiug force, from the accidents of wintls and storms, would not be sufficient to constitute a legal relaxation. l>ut here ships are stoinicd and examined and allowed to go in. The master of this particuhir vessel says, that, in coming out, he saw no ships for forty-eight hours. That might be accidental ; but when ho entered, they were on the station ; yet no attempt was made to prevent him from going in. In other cases, also, it appi'ars that no force was applied for the purpose of enforcing the blockade. There can be no doubt of the intention of the Ad- miralty, that neutral ships should not be permitted to go in; but the fact is, that it was not in every instance carried into effect. What is a Uockade, but .3 prevent access by force ? If the ships stationed on the spot to kee[> up the blockade will not use their force for that purpose, it is impossible for a con it of justice to say there wu . a Idockade actually existing at th.it time, so as to Itind this vessel. I: is in vain for government to ini- ])Ose blockades, if those enqiloyed in the service will not enforce tiiem. Tlie inconvenience is very great, and spreads far l)i'\ond tlie individual case ; reports are eagerly circulatc'd that the blockade is raised; foreigners take advantagi? of the informal ion ; the property of innocent persons is ensnared, and the honour of 12 our own country is involved in the mistake.'' (3 Robinson 147.) All nominal blockades, variously styled, " paper blockades " and " cabinet blockades," fire unlawful, as being stretches of belligerent rights, and it makes no difference whether they are or are not preceded by a proclamation. " A notice of blockade," writes Professor Bernard, " must not be more extensive than the blockade itself. A belligerent cannot be allowed to proclaim that he has instituted a blockade of all the ports of the etjomy, within certain specified limits, when in truth he has nnly block- aded some of theui. Such a course would introduce all the evils of what is termed a " paper-blockade," and would be attended with the grossest injustice to the commerce of neutrals. Accord- ingly, a neutral is at libtirty to disregird such a notice, and is not liable to the penalties attending a breach of blockade for afterwards attemptiug to enter one of the ports which really are blockaded." (a) The popular idea is that paper blockades are a Brtish in* vention, but in reality the French were the first to hit upon that happy substitute for an efficient fleet. Thus she pro- claimed a paper blockade of Great Britain in 1739, and again in 1756, in 1796, in 1797, and once more in 1800, but all these blockades were totally disregarded by the neutral powers. It is certain that at the present day, no prize court would condemn a vessel for breach of such a blockade. Blockade, to use Phillimore's epigrammatic expression, arises from " the right of tiie belligerent to prohibit the commerce of the neutral with all besieged and blockaded places, and the duty of the neutral scrupulously to abstain from all intercourse with them." (b) The right of blockade is looked upon by all British writers on International Law as being one of the clearest and most incontrovertible rights of belligerents, but most Continental writers take a very different view of the matter, and there is at the present day a strong tendency to modify the harshness of (a) Bernard's Neutrality of Great Britain, p. 231. (l.)Op. Cil. CCL.,XXXV. 13 duty the doctrine of Blockade, as elaborated during the Napoleonic wars when Great Britain practically ruled the seas. On the one hand nearly all the British and American writers uj)hold the right of a belligerent to annoy the enemy, even though, within eertiiiu limits, he inflicts injury upon a third i)arty. On the other hand many Continental writers uphold the doctrine that neutrals ought not to be interfered with at all, or at least to a very limited extent. Blockade is a clear limitation of the rights enjoyed by neutrals during time of peace, for it is the assertion of the right of a belHgerent to prevent the passage of all neutral vessels into a luirticular seaport at that belligerent's will and pleasure. Neutral trade suiters immensely by a blockade, when, as in the late civil war in the United States several thousands of miles of coast are blockaded, and Cauchy remarks that a blockade is " la 2>^h« grave atteiute qui piusse itre porUe par la guerre an droit de neatref*." (a) The bloi;kading force must be actually present, sufficiently near to the blockaded port to prevent communication, and this common-sense view of the matter has been continued l»y numerous treaties, particularly by that between Great Britain and Itussia in 1801, which terminated the Armed Neutrality. But if the blockailing force is driven off' by a storm, the opera- tion of the blockade is not suspended, and vessels attempting to run the blockade would be liable to capture and condemnutiun. Blockade-runners are liable to capture at a great distance from the blockaded port. Thus during the war between Russia and Turkey (1854-50) the latter power proclaimed a lilockade of the entire Russian coast of the Black Sea, and maintained that blockade by an adequate force. In addition, two cruisers were stationed in the Bosphorus, so that blockade-runners escajjing the Black Sea squadron would almost certainly be captured be- fore reaching their home-port. The owners of some captured blockade-runners, mostly Greeks, pleaded before the Turkish (a) Caucby, toin. II>| p. 19ti. u prizo -courts, tliat, haviuc? escnped tho vessels stationed in the lihii'k Sea they were no lonjijer lial>le to capture. All were cnn- cleuiiied, iiowever, on the ^Tound that they had nut ruaehed their honii'-] torts when captured. A blockade must be <,'ent!ral iu its elleets, and iR'lh'j^ci'c iits cannot grant to each other, or to the enemy, itrivilegcs denied to iieutiids. Thus durini^ the Crimean war, tlie French, IJrilish and Russian governments jtermitted their subjects to trade at the liidtic ports of liussia at a time when tliey were bhtckatleil by ..Hied stjuadrons, at the samc^ time ili.iL llu \ t^mlcixoiui i lo exclude neutrals from such trallic. Pmii in the test case ..f Thi- Francish-a, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that such a blockade was nf)t a legal blockade and that the coidiscated vessels und cargoes must l)e restored, (a) lUockades are not confined to sea-ports, fur a roadster 1 may bo bhtckaded, or the mouth of a river, or, in fact, any ])urtiou of hostile coast. In the year 180G, tlu; KmperorNaiioleon con- tended that "the right of blockade, according to reason and the usage of civilized nations, is oidy applicabU' to fftrtilied places," and he challenged the right of Great Britain to "extend the right of l)lockade to unfortitiiul cities ami jtorts, to harbours and the mouths of rivers," and this view Was supported by Lucliesi- Palli, a leading Italian writer on International I.aw. But Masse, Ortolan and Manning all agree that the right of l)lockade applies to fortified places as well as to unfortified mercantile towns, and Wildman and rhillimore do not even mi'Ution the theory that blockade must be confined to unfortified towns. The great object of a blocknde is not so much to comjud the surrender of the |»lace as to force the enemy, by jnessure uj)on his financial and (Commercial resources, to listen to reasonable proposals fi.' peace, and, clearly, goods can be as easily transported into iinlortified jdaces as into foitified ones. .Vt the present day, the term Blockaile is commoidy restricted to the closing of a port by a force of ships of war, and blockades (a) 10 Moore, PC. 3G. 15 by sea and land are now comparatively rare, the blockade of Genoa in the year 1800 havin<; been tlielast of that doscrijition on a great scale. Besides neutials, in ti-e very nature of things, can have but little to do with lilockades by land. A difference exists between a Siege and a r>lockade whi('h is often of imiKirtanee. A siege is \indertaken with the view of capturing the placj bosiegL'd, while liij ohjeet of a Idockatle is to cripple the commerce of the enemy by preventing neutrals from trading with him. l>ut, as a matter of fact, all besieged places may be said to bo ))ot.h besieged and bloekadcd at the same time. The declaration of a blockade is an act of sovereign power which, as it jiresses very severely upon neutral nations, should not be intensified by careless administration. l>ut the declara- tion of a blockade is not one of the sovereign acts which cannot be delegated. And so a naval olHcer, acting in a distant jjartof the world, may j»roclaim a blockade, for he must possess poW(;r to act as well against the commerce of the enemy as against his naval and military forces. Pliilliuiore holds that, "if a com- mander so circumstanced did not originally possess this author- ity and it should appear that he had acted irregularly, and with- out orders, this is an affair between him and his government, and the blockade would hardly be imj)eachable hy the Neutral on that ground ; certainly not if that government, by its sub- sequent conduct, had adopted his act ; this would be on the principle rafilinbitio maiidafo a'quij)arafiir retrospectively legitimate what had been done liy their ollicei-." (a) This is undoubtedly the standard doctrine, and yet in those days of telegraphs it is dillicult U) imagine a naval ollicei- so situated that he is compelled to declare a l)l(ickade without con- sulting his government. And even in the ])re-telegraph days the courts refused to recognize such actions within the limits of Europe. Thus in the leading eise of Tlw Rolla^ Lord Stowell laid down that the power of a naval commander is limited in (a) Op. cit. CCL XXXVIII. u Europe, " where government is almost at hand to superintend the course of operations ; and that a commander going out to a distant station may reasonably be supposed to carry with him such a portion of the sovereign authority delegated to him as may be necessary to provide for the exigencies of the service oa which he is employed." (6 liobinson, 367.) If a naval officer enforces a blockade illegally, through ignor- ance occasioned by the neglect of his government, tlien he must be indemnified by his government. In the case of TIw Mentor Lord Stowell said : — " If an act of mischief is done by the King's officers in a place where no act of hostility ouglit to have been exercised, it does not necessarily follow that mere ignorance of that fact would protect thy officers from civil responsibility. If by articles, a place or district was put under the Queen's peace, and an act of hostility was afterwards com- mitted therein, the injured party might have a right to resort to a court of )>vize for compensation ; and if the officer acted through ignorance, his own government must ])rotect him ; for it is the duty of government, if they put a oertain district within the King's peace, to take care that due notice shall be given to those persons by whose conduct that peace is to be maintained ; and if no such notice has been given, nor due diligence used to give it, and a breach of the peace is committed through the ignorance of those persons, they are to be boriie harmless at the expense of that government, whose duty it was to have given that notice." (1 Robinson, 183. A neutral must have some means of obtaining notice of the changed condition of affairs introduced by a blockade, and, there- fore, the party charged with violating a blockade must be proved to be aware of its existence. The almost universal practice is for a formal notification to be made by the block ding power to all neutral powers. " To make a notification effectual and valid," said Lord Stowell, in The Holla, " all that is necessary is that it shall be communi- cated in a credible manner ; hence, though one mode may be erintend out to a vitli him 3 him as rvice oa ;h ignor- theii he case of schief is liostility low that •om civil lit under rds com- resort to I through it is the thin the to those led ; and to give ,'norance expense notice." e of the , there- ust be iation to "To well, in ramuni- may be 17 moro formal tlum anotlior, yetany cMinmunication wliicji brings it to fli(! knowliMlg(3 (if tlio I'Hrtv, in a way which could Icavo no doubt in lii.s mind as to the authcnlicity of the intoi'mation, would be that which o\igi»t to govt-ru his conduct, and will be binding upon him. It is at all tini'- most convenient that the blockade should bo declared in a public and distinct manner, instead of being left to creep out from iho consuiiuences [iruduced by it." ((■) Robinson, 307.) Then, after giving such notijo, tlu' responsibility of making tho blockade known to its subjects r 'sts with each of the jtower.^ notified. Lord .Stowell, in his fam hk Jadguient in cast! of The Nc'idiiiimi, said: — "The effect of a ii ititicition to any foreign government would clearly be to in lide all the individn ils of that nation; it would bo nugatory if individuals were allowed to plead their ignorance of it; it is t!it! duty of foreii^n govern- ments to communicate the infornia' mii to their snljccts, wliose interests they are bound to proteei. I shall hold, therifore, that a neutral master can never be h 'ard to aver against a noti- ficati(Ui of Itlockade that he was ign .,ant of it. If \u'. is really ignorant of it, it maybe subj;!ct it lepresentation to lis own government, and maj' raise a claim ■; c unpiMisation I'lom them, but it cannot be a })lca in tlu; court nl' a belligerent. In the case of a blockatle de facto only, it may >' otherwise ; but t!iis is a case of l»l(jckade by notifiention. A i ilher distinction bi'tweeu a notified Iiiot-kade and a blockad • xisting \\.-. he port is to be considered as closed, and from the moment of s tting p(jit to s.iil to such a destination, the offence of violatiiu the blockade is c unidete, and the property engaged in it sul)j i to confiscation. It may be different in a blockade existing d farty in order to show that it has been violated." (a) In giving judgment in the (;asj of TItc Ili'nr'irh and Maria, Lord Stowelloliserved: — " it is certaiidy necessary that a block- ade should Ik! intimated to neutral merchants in some way or othjr. It m ly bj n)tified in a public and solemn maimer by declaration to foreign governments ; and this mode would al- wavs be most desirable, although it is somelimes omitted in praetii'-S but it may co:nmi:i:;j also d: fUcto, \)y a blockading force giving notice on the spot to those who come from a dis- tant', an 1 wlio may, therefore, be ignorant of the fact. Fcssc^s goititj ill are in that case entitled to a notice before they can be justly liable to the conseciuences of breaking a blockade ; but I tak" it to bj quite otherwise with cckxcIs cohi'iikj out of the port which is the object of blockade. Tliere no notice is necessary after the blockad.3 his existed de facto for any length of tini'i ; till continued fact is itself a sutlii3ient notice. It is impossible for those within to be ignorant of the forcible sus- pension of their commerce ; the notoriety of the thing supersedes the necessity of [)articular notice to each ship. The sight of one vessel would not certainly be sufficient notice of a blockade." (1 Robinson, 147.) But a bhxjkade may exist without a public declaration. The fact duly notified to an individual on the spot is of itself sufti- cient ; for public notifications between governments can be meant only for the information of individuals ; but if the in- dividual is personally informed that purpose is still better ob- tained than by a public declaration. (Lord Stowell, The Mer- curius, 1 Eobiuson, 82.) (a) Wheaton's Elements of International Law, Eng. Edit §514. 10 or goiicral utu ii lej^al 3e of such Mpieucu of i.slicd ])ub- 1 block tide > the iiarty id Moria, at a block- lue way or luaiuier by would al- oinitted in blockading I'roin a tlis- t. Vessels e they can blockade ; i'l n(j out of o iKJticc is liny length CL'. It is cilde siis- ipor.sedes ,dit of one jlockade." it ion. The Iself suffi- its can be if the in- bcttcr ob- The Mer- su In accordance witli this ruling the jirizc courts of (Ircat Britain and of tlie United States agree in holding that notice to the govennnent i^e(|uivalent to notice to all its subjeets. There is not, however, anything like; uniformity in this inii>ortant matter of notice, and the only uniform j)ractice among nations is that when a blockade has l)ecr»me nuite notorious, every neu- tral vessel attempting to enter the blookadeil port shall be ])re- sumed to know of the existence of th • blockade. Thus during the Lite Civil War in the United States the blockade of Char- leston was so notorious that a neutral vessel attenijiting to niii till ijiuckade would have been seized, even though its govern- nu-nt had not been notified of the blockade. Lord Stowell in giving judgment in case of Tlw Adi'hiklc remarked : — "Sujipose a notilii;ation to be made to Sweden and Denmark it would become the general topic of conversition, and it would be scarcely possible; that it shoidd not travel to the ears of a Hremen man, and thougli it might not be so emly known to him as to the sul)jects of the states to whi(;h it was immediately addressed, yet in ])rocess of time it must i"ach him, and must be supposed to imjMtse the same observance <»f it u])on him ; it would strongly affect him with the kro'vh;(lge of the fact that the blockade wus y court, I will carry out a cargo.* It would be a very fraudulent omission to take no notice of what is a subject of general notoriety in the jilace." (2 Robinson, 111.) Due and sufficient time for the notification of a blockade must be allowed according to circumstances. 'I'l^e time so allowed has been lessened by telegraphs, steamships and railways, and the only decisions on the \)oint were given long befijre these mighty agents were dreamt of. In the year 1799 Lord Stowell restored a Danish ship — The Jonye Petronella — which had 20 li'M'M ciiiitun»il oil" tli(! poiist of IIuHmikI ou Afardi 2Stli, on tlio <'i'ouiily was " that the practice of the United States was not to issue sueh notices, iiiit to notify the blockade individually to eai.'h vessel aj^proaching the blockaded port, ami to inscribe a memorandum of the notice having been given in the ship's papers. No vessel is liable to seizure which hail not been individually warned. The [ilan had, I was assured. l)een found to be in pr.ictice the most conveni- ent and the fairest for all parties. The fact of th-^re being block- ading ships present to give the warning was thi best Q«>tice and best proof that the port was actually and ettectually blockailjd." The British authorities hold to two kinds of blockade, the first a blockade dv facto, the essential element of which is the actual presence of an efficient force in front of the blockaded port, and in this kind of blockade no vessel is held guilty unless 21 h, on tlio to fon-iija k a wci'lc )Nvk'(.lg'J uf coiuUiinn- i ciirj^o at lijj;t'ii('t'. uf isiiiti coii- iistruclive I a iKttili- frtiin tlie outtT the iY writers lul ill nut urious. ly ')(■ the 10 liiitisli er it was he aetual tiuit the tices, l)iit triiachiii^ le notice lial)le to Ian had, conviMii- I1L» l)l0(3k- >tice anil cka seeond kiml of hluckadc is l»y iiotili- cation toiii-ntral i)0W(>rs, acc.onijKinii.'d of course liy thi> fact. I'hil- linutre remarks that in "tlu; former case, when the fact ecascs (otherwise!, indee(l, than hy an aecicU'iit (»r tht; shifting' of the wind) there! is imm tdiattily an end of the hlockadc; hut wln-re the faetis aefonij>aniedhy a ptildie notilication fioni the ^uvcin- inent of a l)ellij,'t'rent eonnlry to neutral ^governments, /hIiik} facie, the bloekade must be supposed to exist till it has hi-en publicly repealeil." (a) Notiliealion (if lilockade should always be made to the sub- jeets of the st r > imposjni^r that Idockade, and also to all cruisers of tluj bloekai.. ^' power. Ai:iiin, the deedaration of blockadi; must not only bele!.;al and regular, but it must be speeitic as well. In the well-known case of The Henrivk and J/ar/a, Lord Stowell deeiort," and ujion his sayiuL,' that he must proceed accordini^ to his bill of ladinet\veen flreat Britain and tlie United States it was pro- vided that " whereas vessels fre([uently sail for a port or ])lace lu'lougiugto iin enemy, without knowing that the same is eitlier hcsieged, blockaded or invested, it is agreed that every vessel so circumstanced may be turned away from such port or place; but she shall nut be detained, nor h'ir cargo, if not contraband, be confiscated, unless after notice, slie shall again attempt to enter." Untler this treaty, the mere fact of clearing out for a block- aiied port would not sullice for the condemnation of a vessel, nnk'ss the olUcers of the vessel had been warned otf by the bluckaiUng s([uadron. But, acc(jrding to Lord Stowell, previous warning under treaties vn not in all cases indispensable. Thus in the case of The, Columbia, an Aniericjin vessel, captured by British cruisers., he, in condemning both ship and cargo, observed : — " It has l)('en ai'gued that, by the American treaiy, there luust be a pre- vious warning ; certainly where vessels L^ail without a knowledge of the blockadfi a notice is necessary ; l)ut if you can affect them with a knowledge of that fact, a warning then becomes an idle corcunouy of no use, and, therefore, not to be required. (1 Robin- son, 150.) Even the misinformation, or want of information, of foreign authorities as to the alleged raising of a blockade, will not be received as an excuse. Thus in the case of The Spes and Irene (1803), it was argued that tlie masters of these vessels had been informed Ity the Consul of Hamlmrg at Archangel that he con- jectured that the blockade of the Elbe had been raised. Lord Stowell rejected this })lea, observing: — "It had been said that no intelligence of the blockade had been received from tlie ('onsul of the State of Hamburg; though I must presume it had, because, as the notilication was made to the Consul (of Hamburg) here in London, it was his duty tt) make the 3ommunication to the consuls of his government in foreign ports ; and as the in- 23 5el as well Tioiity of :- was pro- rt or J)] ace le is (Mtlier ^ vessel so or place ; )ntrabaiul, LttciU[)t to )r a block- ' a vessel, otf by the ng under 10 case of h crtiiserS; -" It has ) be a pre- cnowiediijc fleet them 8 an idle (1 Piobin- of fureiga ill not be nd Irene had been it he con- d. Lord said that fr(jni tlie lie it had, laniburg) cation to IS the in- formation had arrived at Hamburg, and had Icen actually com- municated from thence to Archangel )>y private cliannels, the same communication must be supjiosed to have been made fi(tni ])ublic . ..ihority to the public minister; or if nut, if there iiad been any lU'glect, the consecjuence must be imjtuted only ti» the state and its oflicers, wlio are ans\veral)le to their subjects for the conseciuences of their neglect. If the information of foreign ministers could be decnu^d sutU(;ient to exempt a party from all penalty, there would Ik; no end of srvch excuses. Courts of justice are compelled, I think, to hold as a jtrincijtle of ntfcessary caution that the misinformation (»f a foreign minister cannot be received as a justification for sailing in actual breach of an (exist- ing blockade." (5 Robinson, 7'.*.) Intoxication on the part of tlie masttu" will not be received in excui^c of breach of blockade. In condemning I'/ie Sli('i>hci'(l('ss, which had again and again broken the blockade of Havre, L(jrd Stowcill renuu'ked : " If such an excuse could be ae per- mitted to stultify himself by the jaetended or even real use of intoxicating li(|Uors of which, even if it were a thing to be examined, the court could in no instance ascertain the truth of the fact. The owners of the vessel have appointed him their agent, and they must in law be bound by his imprudence as well as by his fraud." (5 ltol)inson, liG'2.) In the same judg- ment the sami! high authority held that where a master, in a state of intoxication, persists in a course involving a bnuu-h of blockade, it is the j, Lord Stowell remarked that, " although it might be hard to refuse a neutral liberty to retiie witli a cargo already laden, and l)y that act already become neutral pro])erty, yet, after the commencement of a bh)ckade, a neutral cannot be allowed to interfere in any way to assist the ex])ortation of the property of the enemy." (1 Robinson, 92.) From the case of Hie RolJa, it ajijifars that the cfturt will hold every cargo to be a fresh jiurcliase which is not delivered, previously to the notiticatioii, either on board the neutral vessel itself or in iu/Jiters alongside that vi-ssel. (6 liol)in3on, 807.) ]>ut goods ij? a varehovse iaiunA be shipped. This doctrine is now received in some quarters with a certain amount of d re- quired of military persons engaged in the command of an ardu- ous enterprise." (1 llobinson, 1)3.) Casimer Perier, a distinguished French publicist, argues that " the validity of a blockade should depend on a simultaneous attack by land, that a port should not be considered as block- aded unless invested also on the laud side. Otherwise, while the general commerce of neutrals is interdicted, and they are subjected to the greatest sacrifices, a neighbouring state may sup])ly, through rivers, c.inals or railroads, with the products of its soil and industry, a city open on all sides, and whose }iort alone is blockaded." (a) In some cases special treaties have determined the precise amount of force requisite to constitute a valid blockade. Thus, in (a) Revue des Deux Moiides, 18G2, p. 434. 31 eel tliat such tUt(3 u I(>sjls employed on that sevvice wove dYivex^ close to tJie Afr led II c > '»f fact an it were, ly be de- e, unless hoiild al- ockado is will, and CO, there Ms that ade will though •lety, as lutiioient resumed uisite to original ig cruis- for that ed upon 187. 85 as nn unlawful art. The writer inclines to ludieve, iiDWiJvcr, that after a blockade has \>w\i discontiniu'd, it would be looked upon as resunu'd if a strong squadron retunietl and gave warn- ing to each vessel attempt 'iig to enter. Sii]»pose, for example, that a Confedtu'ate scpiadron had raised the blockade of Mol)ile, which, however, was promptly re-blockaded by a United States squadron of superior force; but, in the meantime, neutral ves- sels hearing of the raising of the blockade, sail fir Mobile, and on nppro;:cliing the port receive warning from the blockading cruisers, then surely they would not be justified in continuing the attemi)t. According to the Bi-itish doctrine, as formulated by Lord Stowell and accepted by the United States ])rize courts, the mere act of sailing for a blockature and not supplied afterwards. In giving judgment in the case oiThe Exchange, hi^ Lordship remarked : — "The cases cited, which are familiar to us all, were cases of a supervening illegality, where it was shown that the owner of the cargo stood clear of any possible intention of fraud, and that by ))roofs found on board at the time of the cafitur'', and not supplied afterwards. For instance, where orders have been given for goods prior to the existence of blockail(j, and it appeared that there was not time for countermanding the shipment afterwards, the court has held the owner of the cargo not responsible for the act of thj eniuny's shipper, who might have an interest in sending off the goods in direct opposition to the interest of his principal. And the same indulgence has been exercised where there was no knowledge of the blockade till aftt'r the ship had sailed, and the master, after receiving the information, obstinately persisted in going on to the port of his original destination." (Edwards, 43.) (a) Op. cit., CCCXVIIL (b) Op. cit.,§519b. 49 H'ked : ses of ner of 1 that 1 not rivea that ards, for st ia of Ilia A' here had lately tion." Jiiit in thc! liiiMoiis rase of Tlw ('ulii)uhla, TiOi(lSt(j\vell Motuna to hold that thi; penalty til" hniiikiii",' a Idockade attaches to the property of persons ignorant td that lad, hy the ndseondiict of the n»ast»;r, or of the eousii^nee, if Inf rusted ivith power over the vesfiel and cavf/o. L(»rd Stowell said : " This vessel eaiue from America, and, as it iipitcars, with innocent intentions cjii the part of the American owners, I'or it was not known at that time in America that Amsterdam was in a state of investment. The master by Ids instructions was to go to Handmrg, and put himself under the direction of Messrs. Done »i: Co. They, there- fore, were to have the entire tlominion over this ship and cargo. We have this fact, then, when the master sailed from Ham- burg to Amsterdam, the blockade was perfectlv well kuovvu, both til him and the consignees; but their desis^n waa to seize the opportunity of entering wiiilst the winds kept up the blockading force at a distance. Now, under these cir- cumstances, I have n(» hesitation in s;iyiny no nic;ins follows that the ownci'.s ol the eai\L;(> stand on the same ibolinn. That may liave been ship- ped in consequence of criminal oi'ders direetini; it to be sent on any opportunity of 8lipi)in!^' out. It is, therefore, n(jt to be argued that the releasi; of the ship is any conclusive cvitlence respecting the cargo. An absolute order (bning the (continuance of the blockade, if executed, must Ite considered to be a breach of the blockade; nor do I think that a provisional order, direct- ing shipments to be made when ihe lilockade should be raiseil will avail lor indulgence, should the blockade actually exist when the order is carried into execution. The owners must take upon themselves to answer for the undue execution of the order, and make the shippers answerable to them. If this rule was not adopted, there would be no end of shipments made during a blockade, whilst there would be nobody at all responsible for such acts of misconduct." (3 Itobinson, 147.) The judgment in case of Tlte Junyfrau Maria Schrv&der illustrates another law of blockad(i which originated with Lord Stowell, namely, that it is not necessary that the ciiptor should assign any n^ason to the master of the ollcnihns.' vessel. " He takes at his ow u peril, and du his own responsibility, to answer in costs and damuges, for any »'''ongful cxeicise of the rights of cap- ture. At the same time i' ay be ii matter of convenience that some ileclaration should ;.. made, l)ecause it is possible, that if the grounds ale stated, it ma} be in the jiowerofa neutral master to give such reafioiis as may explain away the suspicion that is suggested." (i! Wobinson, loL*.) Lastly, in the ease of The Klsil)i\ Lord StowcU decided that, if the master (»f a vessel, at the time of sailing, |iut his ship under anneil convoy, whose instructions he is ]»resumed to know, the act is illegal, and binds both ship and cargo. (5 Robinson, i/'3.) iil»vo[)<'r t be un- ["he ship rnt'is ol I'll sliip- ! sent on )t to be ,'vidence tinuance I breach L', diiect- be miseil :isl when ike upon dev, and was not during a 3 for such 'ichra'.Jer vith ].ord or ^jhould d. " He answer in ts ot'cap- ence that e, that if lal master ieion tliat ed that, it hip under iw, the act jn, iVd.) INDKX. AnsKNCKs, •i,M<;i.ic,M:il. ..f il,,' Mo,l<;i,Iln- M,iiMilrni,. ),,,,,. :,\, AiTfU, hldckihlc tiio iv-si'iiti;il .•Iciiu'iil c,r \,-^:i\ l.I,.ck;i.|c. I(». AMKIUrAN-l.lM.-fi,.t. M. t.. n„li(i,>,llin„. 'JO; vi,.,v- ni;, ,„,,,.- \nu-C, '.Vl ; viows on the rctiiciiiciit nf iiciitnil vc-^.^.'l.. rnmi li|i..kiii|.'cl |.,irl, L'.'i. AriMi:n \.'iitr;ililo.- ol. 4 ; Poucp.. .■,>iiii...>ii,j:. .-,. B. Bkllic.errn'ts cannot -rant to oaeh ,.! l,or. t to rh.. ..n...ny. priviloi^o:. denied to neutral,-'. U. Berlin- Decree, the (Xov. 21, l.sOd). (i. BRiTr.ndootrineofhlo.k:,.!.. ./. y-,,... „nd >lo,.kMd.. I.v notification. -^O ; -„hjects in;iy not trade with a porf nio.ka led l,y HrUi.!, cn.i.ers. through the interven- tion of a neutral, Ju. Blockadk during the Crimean w.MM>: during the Civil war in the United State. !•: not confined to >ea-|,ort,s 1-1: n,M>» he general in it? effect^-, 14: h/land and ,«ea, 14; and ,-'iege, differenee hetween, 1.".: of (uMioa. 1.^: ,/,- f„rt., ..r,rl Idockude hy notification, ditlerenee between. 17: may e.vist witho.it public declaration, 18: .-hould be notified to .subject, of blockarling power "I • mu-t be , specific as well a legal and re,'nlar. Jl : nu.M he ah.o|,rte. L'.S:'canno. be inaintamed again,^t a neutral j.or:, .;| : muM bo eontinuou>. :\1 ; i,. rai^ci if blockading s,,uadron is .Iriveo oil hv ., h..-.de force. :V1 ; i.s viti„(e,| hv absence of ,snir,eient force. :;:; : when ouee ,■,,-.! ,■: nlvl.e re^nnnd hv no't ificat ion -I : nof violated by owner .-ending v^sel ,o blockaded port, he being ignorant ol the l.ici, ;;(;; l.roken l.y eoniJng out ,i. mn.h ,i- by going in, ".'.i. TJ,,urKvn,v., ernisevs n,ay be 1,1,.,,, oil -he l,l,„.kade,| p,.,-, without vil iai in- the '''"'•'^^ ■ •'' • '"'>■ ""'• l'-'^'' tlo-u- latino to ,.|,:,-e bloc-kade- runners. :;i." KlorKAI-Kl. po,t, .s.ilnig lor, knowing if ,„ l,e l,|,„.ka,|ed. i- a breach ol hloekade. R.,"rKAnK.-Ki.NM:„sliab|eio,.:,p,n,ea.a^re., ,|i-,;„i,.e from blockaded port. K!: set free il ■•apliircl alter discont iniinoe ,,|- l,|,„.K |,|,,_ j; BvNKEUy.lOKKon relaxed blo.kadc. II . .,n Mo|.,tj„„ „( l,|oekade, ,';;!. c Captor need not ii,=.sigii reason for capture. ,"iO. Calthv on blockade, 1). Ckrtikicvtk.s of origin. Il, CiirKHiKV. C,.I,. im snlli, lent foree, J'.i, roMcn,soi, V sale of eargo in b|o,.kad.:i port no, exeu.c ,;,, |,,.,„.,, „,- ,,,„.,,,,,^ ^^, having gone in vidiinlarily, 27. er CoM-iscATiON „s penally of Molation of l,Io,.kade. 4.; : of vessel. 1,1: of enriro 4.^ < ONVov. taking ol, binds both ship and carm.. 60. " 52 D. Declaration of hloekade must not lio iiiiciisificd by carclcfis adiuiiii.':tration, 15 ; must he accoinpauicd hy iictiiiil invostiinMit , '_",!. Distinction between car,n E. Empress Catherine II. nt' Rus^sia «n lilockaile, 4. BmbAROo, American, on French and British commercial ,-^iiiiii)inj; (I)eeeinl)er, '■ '^"),7 ErroNeol's information from blockading; crui..'!. Genoa and the Roman slate.-^, port.« of, closed to IJritish commerce (1796), 5. Goods sent in belore l)lockade may be withdrawn if foiiid unsaleable, 27. (Jovernment must indemnify an othcer who has enforced a blockade illegally through ignorance, l(i. GoveRn.ments notitied of existence of blcK-kade miist nutifv their suh.jects, 17. GroTIUS on the refusal of the Dutch to permit tlie Kiiglish (o enter Dunkirk, 3. H. Hanover, ports of, closed to l',ritisli commerce (isOti). .). Hautefeuili-e on continued voyages. \\. History of the Doctrine of Dlockade, ;!. Illegal destination, concealed, presumptive evidence of intention to vhdate block- ade, 36. Interior countries may import and export thronjrh enemy's ports, 42. Intoxication of master not an excuse lor breach nt hiiKkade, 23. M. Marshall, Chief Justice, on breach of blockade, "..V Martens on blockade, \ : on jienalty of vicdation of bluikade. Mi. Mental design to violnle l>lockaile, iinaccompanieil l-y Words, or r breach of blockade, 22. 53 tion, 15 J )i M of Napier, Sir Chnrlrp. on puffiripnt forcp, 2H. Napolkcin on blnckmlp of tinf'ortifi(..l jilacri^, II. NKfTRAL vosM-l inayiTliiv fn.,,, I.lockiHlcl |,o,-(. ,vit|, onrRo >liii,i„.,l l.cfoi-o notifira- tion of hlockndo, 2.'! : vpssi-l in:iy iiink.' iii((iiirir.« in cii.M- of l)|ock,iilo ./. /-.in,,, hut not, in c-.'iso of Mockiiflo hy notificnlion. .'IT : vcssrl nuisl not j;,, („,, ,|'p,.|r „ hlockaflo.l port. .'iS ; nirniiiinls niiiy not cox :UTRALS may carry on coninifM'co with bloi-kadi'il port by means of iniaiul ro munications, 40; must be notifie an' officer who has enforced a blockade illegally. Hi; ,„, i.oiilication ol b|„ckade, 16; on distinction between blockade ,/<■ fa.t . and blockade by notification, 17; on the duty of a government to notify its .-.ubjects of the e.xisience ol bl,,ckade." J 7 ; on due time for knowledge of block.ide to spread, lil; on specific blockade. 21 ; did not conuder previous warning under treaty indispensable in all cases! 22: on want of water and provisions as e.veusc for breach noniii(-c of (nvner, HT : on in- li|n(k!i(lins cniipor.s ."T : on nontral vrfsclf. froinj; lll.lck.Hlcil ) iii'i. rv on rnninirrci" wii 111 ; nn li ;S: on In-ficli ol MocU.-nlf liy r<,'rc.-.-, .".'.t ; on nontnl rif,'ht li MiN-kMilfil iHii-l liy nn'.'ins .if inland ronininniintion. Iiln, kiolril liy r.riti-li rruis- m riirlit "I interior cnunirif- tci :til ol lirilisii .-nlijiil- tM tnnir \vitii |M'rl, throiiuli till' in'crvnitidn d niiit riils, inipori ,'iiiil ('\|H'i I I inouirli :iii cufiny s in rl. 12 ; I'n liln'riition it Mix knilc-rnn- nrrn. i I cioinriil ^il'iir ili-rioit inniinir it lilnil<,'ii|f, i:; ; nn I nnt innt il \ iiy i.i;<': 4:;. ,,n ;nlhi'-ii'n nl |Mn;iltv ilMiiii;,': nnc vov CIV I llZC'l llilWI'l ■ I" VI :i;:r. i: il.ii (' liliM k.oli . I I ; I'M nu'lil ciK'niy .- XOOll^ ^Vl III 111 n nWll. t;i ; nn rnnii: r.lti"ll a- |' : nn riirli' of vc.-.cf- "t li.ilf- .1 uciiti;il infrclinnt- In invfr n^ilt V rit lircai li nl hinck.ulc, lA ; on ili.-nn •tinii 111 Mvrnn iiii\::n anil ^ (■ 17 ; nil vi!:lil ot i\'i]iti to ri'lipc ti ria-nii lor riiitiirr. al T. Time nin.-; lie a Treat V bt'twcfn Inwcil for iu!\\> of liloekadc to iiin^ not an c\cii=r for hrc.lrh nf lilork.'idc. J' Whk.aton on |.rochiinalioii nl Mn.kad.', I >< ; on want nl tlic 11 ccpssarics nl lilc as nn f life rxcu-i' tnr broacli of lilnckado. 2 I ; 011 distinction bctwoeii vessel and ca rj/;o. IS. 77 y. 227511 I