to the confiscation of the ship, and the innocent parts of the cargo. (a) This is now the established doctrine; but it is sometimes varied by treaty, in like manner as all the settled principles and usages of nations are subject to conventional modificatien. (b) A neutral may also forfeit the immunities of his national character by violations of blockade; and among the rights Law of of belligerents, there is none more clear and incontro- blockade. vertible, or more just and necessary in the application, than that which gives rise to the law of blockade.2 Bynkershoek (c) says, *it is founded on the principles of natural reason, as well as on the usage of nations; and Grotius (a) considers the carrying of supplies to a beseiged town, or a blockaded port, as an offence exceedingly aggravated and injurious. They both agree that a neutral may be dealt with severely; and Vattel says he may be treated as an enemy. (b) The law of blockade is, however, so harsh and severe in its operation, that, in order to

*144

(a) Bynk. Q. J. Pub. b. 1, c. 12 and 14; Heinec. de Nav. ob Vect. Merc. Vetit. com. c. 2, sec. 6; Opera, tom. ii. 348; The Staadt Embden, 1 Rob. Adm. 26; The Jonge Tobias, 1 Rob. Adm. 329; The Franklin, 3 Rob. Adm. 217; The Neutralitet, 3 Rob. Adm. 295; The Edward, 4 Rob. Adm. 68; The Ranger, 6 Rob. Adm. 125. See infra, p. 146, note.

(b) In the treaty between the United States and the Republic of Colombia, and in that with the Republics of Chili, of Venezuela, and of the Peru-Bolivian Confederation and Ecuador, it is provided, that contraband articles shall not affect the rest of the cargo, or the vessel, for it is declared that they shall be left free to the owner. In these treaties, the articles of contraband are enumerated, and they consist of munitions of war, and other things made up in a military form and for a military use, and cavalry horses, with their furniture, and all materials manufactured, prepared and formed expressly for the purposes of war, either by sea or land. All other merchandises and things are declared to be subjects of lawful commerce.1

(c) Q. J. Pub. b. 1, c. 4, sec. 11.

(a) B. 3, c. 1, sec. 5.

(b) B. 3, c. 7, sec. 117.

Actual war,

1 In the convention between the United States and the King of the Two Sicilies, made October 1, 1855, the articles of contraband are enumerated, and it is provided that contraband articles shall not affect the vessel or the rest of the cargo, whether the rest of the cargo belong to the same or a different owner. 11 U. S. Stat. 642. 2 Neutrals can question the existence and legality of a blockade. whether civil or between independent nations, gives the right to create a blockade. All persons residing within the territory occupied by the Rebels against the authority of the United States, in the existing civil war are liable to be treated as public enemies. The President's proclamation of blockade conclusively ascertains that a state of war existed justifying and requiring a resort to that measure. The Prize causes, 2 Black,

apply it, the fact of the actual blockade must be established by clear and unequivocal evidence; and the neutral must have had due previous notice of its existence; and the squadron allotted for the purposes of its execution must be competent to cut off all communication with the interdicted place or port; and the neutral must have been guilty of some act of violation, either by going in, or attempting to enter, or by coming out with a cargo laden after the commencement of the blockade. The failure of either of the points requisite to establish the existence of a legal blockade amounts to an entire defeasance of the measure, even though the notification of the blockade had issued from the authority of the government itself. (c)1

A blockade must be existing in point of fact; and, in order to constitute that existence, there must be a power present to enforce it. All decrees and orders, declaring extensive coasts and whole countries in a state of blockade, without the presence of an adequate naval force to support it, are manifestly illegal and void, and have no sanction in public law. The ancient authorities all referred to a strict and actual siege or blockade. The language of Grotius (d) is oppidum obsessum vel Portus clausus, and the

investing power must be able to apply its force to every *145 point of the * blockaded place, so as to render it dangerous

to attempt to enter, and there is no blockade of that part where its power cannot be brought to bear. (a) The definition. of a blockade given by the convention of the Baltic powers, in 1780, and again in 1801, and by the ordinance of Congress, in 1781, required that there should be actually a number of vessels stationed near enough to the port to make the entry apparently dangerous. The government of the United States has uniformly insisted that the blockade should be effective by the presence of a competent force, stationed and present at or near the entrance of the port; and they have protested, with great energy, against the

(c) The Betsey, 1 Rob. Adm. 93; 1 Chitty on Commercial Law, 450; Letter from Mr. Clay, the Secretary of State, to Mr. Tudor, dated October 23d, 1827. (d) B. 3, c. 1, sec. 5.

(a) The Mercurius, 1 Rob. Adm. 80; The Betsey, 1 Rob. Adm. 93; The Stert, Rob. Adm. 65; Letter of the Secretary of the Navy to Commodore Preble, February 4th, 1804; Roman Law by Lord Mackenzie, (ed. 1862,) 59.

1 The Ostsee, 33 E. L. & Eq. 28; The Coosa, 1 Newberry Adm. 393.

application of the right of seizure and confiscation to ineffectual or fictitious blockades. (b)

The occasional absence of the blockading squadron, produced by accident, as in the case of a storm, and when the station is resumed with due diligence, does not suspend the blockade, provided the suspension, and the reason of it, be known; and the law considers an attempt to take an advantage of such an accidental removal as an attempt to break the blockade, and as a mere fraud. (c) The American government seemed disposed to admit the continuance of the blockade in such a case; (d) and the language of the judicial authorities in New York has been in favor of the solidity and justness of the English doctrine of blockade on this point. (a) But if the blockade be raised by the *146 enemy, or by applying the naval force, or a part of it, though only for a time, to other objects, or by the mere remissness of the cruisers, the commerce of neutrals to the place ought to be free. The presence of a sufficient force is the natural criterion by which the neutral is enabled to ascertain the existence of the blockade. He looks only to the matter of fact; and if the blockading squadron is removed when he arrives before the port, and he is ignorant of the cause of the removal, or if he be not ignorant, and the cause be not an accidental one, but voluntary, or produced by an enemy, he may enter, without being answerable for a breach of the blockade. When a blockade is raised voluntarily, or by a superior force, it puts an end to it absolutely; and if it be resumed, neutrals must be charged with notice de novo, and without

(b) Mr. King's letter to Lord Grenville, May 23d, 1799; Mr. Marshall's Letter to Mr. King, Sept. 20th, 1799; Mr. Madison's Letter to Mr. Pinckney, October 25th, 1801; Letter of the Secretary of the Navy to Commodore Preble, February 4th, 1804; Mr. Pinckney's Letter to Lord Wellesley, January 14th, 1811. In the convention between Great Britain and Russia, on the 17th of June, 1801, a blockaded port was declared to be," that where there is, by the disposition of the power which attacks it with ships, stationary or sufficiently near, an evident danger in entering." The definition in the treaty of commerce between the United States and Chili, in May, 1832, art. 15, and the Peru-Bolivian Confederation, in May, 1838, art. 14, of a besieged or blockaded place, is, "one actually attacked by a belligerent force, capable of preventing the entry of the neutral."

(c) The Frederick Molke, 1 Rob. Adm. 86; The Columbia, 1 Rob. Adm. 154; The Juffrow Maria Schroeder, 3 Rob. Adm. 155; The Hoffnung, 6 Rob. Adm. 116,

117.

(d) Mr. Marshall's letter to Mr. King, September 20th, 1799.

(a) Radcliff, J., 2 Johns. Cas. 187; Radcliff v, U. Ins. Co. 7 Johns. 38.

reference to the former state of things, before they can be involved in the guilt of a violation of the blockade. (b)

The object of a blockade is not merely to prevent the importation of supplies, but to prevent export as well as import, and to cut off all communication of commerce with the blockaded port. The act of egress is as culpable as the act of ingress, if it be done fraudulently; and a ship coming out of a blockaded port is, in the first instance, liable to seizure, and, to obtain a release, the party must give satisfactory proof of the innocence of his intention. (c) But according to modern usage, a blockade does not rightfully extend to a neutral vessel found in port when the blockade was

instituted, nor prevent her coming out with the cargo bond *147 fide purchased, and laden on board before the commence

ment of the blockade. (a) The modern practice does not require that the place should be invested by land as well as by sea, in order to constitute a legal blockade; and if a place be blockaded by sea only, it is no violation of belligerent rights for the neutral to carry on commerce with it by inland communications. (b)

It is absolutely necessary that the neutral should have had due notice of the blockade, in order to affect him with the penal consequences of a violation of it. This information may be communicated to him in two ways: either actually, by a formal notice from the blockading power; or constructively, by notice to his government, or by the notoriety of the fact. It is immaterial in what way the neutral comes to the knowledge of the blockade. If the blockade actually exists, and he has knowledge of it, he is bound not to violate it. A notice to a foreign government is a notice to all the individuals of that nation; and they are not permitted to aver ignorance of it, because it is a duty of the neutral government to communicate the notice to their people. (c) In the case of a blockade without regular notice, notice in fact is generally requisite ;

(b) Williams v. Smith, 2 Caines, 1; Letter of the Secretary of State to Mr. King, September 20th, 1799; The Hoffnung, 6 Rob. Adm. 112.

(c) Bynk, Q. J. Pub. b. 1, c. 4; The Frederick Molke, 1 Rob. Adm. 86; The Neptunus, 1 Rob. Adm. 170; The Vrouw Judith, 1 Rob. Adm. 150.

(a) The Betsey, 1 Rob. Adm. 93; The Vrouw Judith, 1 Rob. Adm. 150; The Com

et, 1 Edw. Adm. 32; Olivera v. Union Ins. Co. 3 Wheaton, 183.

(b) The Ocean, 3 Rob. Adm. 297; The Stert, Ibid. 299, note; Letter of the Secretary of State to Mr. King, September 20th, 1799.

(c) The Neptunus, 2 Rob. Adm. 110; The Adelaide, 2 Rob. Adm. 111, note.

and there is this difference between a blockade regularly notified and one without such notice; that, in the former case, the act of sailing for the blockaded place, with an intent to evade it, or to enter contingently, amounts, from the very commencement of the voyage, to a breach of the blockade; for the port is to be considered as closed up, until the blockade be formally revoked, or actually raised; whereas, in the later case of a blockade de facto, the ignorance of the party as to its continuance, may be received as an excuse for sailing to the blockaded place, *148 on a doubtful and provisional destination. (a) The question of notice is a question of evidence, to be determined by the facts applicable to the case. The notoriety of a blockade is of itself suf ficient notice of it to vessels lying within the blockaded port. In the case of The Adelaide, (b) it was the doctrine of the English admiralty, that a notification given to one state must be presumed, after a reasonable time, to have reached the subjects of neighboring states, and it affects them with the knowledge of the fact, on just grounds of evidence. And after the blockade is once established, and due notice received, either actually or constructively, the neutral is not permitted to go to the very station of the blockading force, under pretence of inquiring whether the blockade had terminated, because this would lead to fraudulent attempts to evade it, and would amount in practice to a universal license to attempt to enter, and on being prevented, to claim the liberty of going elsewhere. Some relaxation was very reasonably given to this rule, in its application to distant voyages from America; and ships sailing for Europe, before knowledge of the blockade reached them, were entitled to notice, even at the blockaded port. If they sailed after notice, they might sail on a contingent destination for the blockaded port, with the purpose of calling for information at some European port, and be allowed the benefit of such a contingent destination, to be rendered definite by the information. But in no case is the information, as to the existence of the blockade to be sought at the mouth of the port. (c)

A neutral cannot be permitted to place himself in the vicinity of a blockaded port, if his situation be so near that he may, with impunity, break the blockade whenever he pleases, *149

(a) The Columbia, 1 Rob. Adm. 154; The Neptunus, 2 Rob. Adm. 110.

(b) 2 Rob. Adm. 111, in notis.

(c) The Spes and Irene, 5 Rob. Adm. 76.