no papers to vessels bound for such ports. In passing the Bahamas the Pilgrim obtained full information of the blockade. The master, however, continued on his voyage, and on July, 1861, was captured by the blockading vessels of the United States, the bark having run aground in one of the passes of the Mississippi in an attempt to enter the port of New Orleans. Held, That the cargo and two-thirds of the vessel were liable to confiscation as enemy's property, and the remainder for illicit trading with the enemy. United States r. Hallock (1864), 154 U. S. 537. June 29, 1898, the steamer Adula, 372 tons, belonging to the Atlas Steamship Company, a British corporation, was captured by the United States steamship Marblehead, on the charge of an attempt to run the blockade established at Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba. She was proceeding at the time under a charter, entered into on the preceding day at Kingston, Jamaica, to one Solis, a Spanish subject, at whose disposal she was placed for the conveyance of passengers from the Cuban ports of Manzanillo, Santiago, and Guantanamo to Kingston. Accompanying the charter there was a letter of instructions to the master, signed by the agent of the company at Kingston, by which the master was advised that on his arrival at Guantanamo, whither he was to proceed direct, he would no doubt find American war ships off the port; and he was directed, when signaled, to stop immediately and acquaint the commanding officer with the voyage; in which case, said the instructions, it was not thought that the officer would object to his continuing into port. The steamer was condemned, and the sentence was affirmed by the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Brown delivering the opinion, the court finding, upon the facts, that those in charge of the vessel had actual knowledge of the existence of the blockade, and that their sailing for the port was therefore unjustifiable, and properly subjected the vessel to condem nation. The Adula, 176 U. S. 361; affirming The Adula, 89 Fed. Rep, 351. this case. As to the case of the Greenan Castle, at Manzanillo, see Mr. Hay, Sec. of "The British principle which makes a notification to foreign governments of an intended blockade equivalent to the notice required by the law of nations, before the penalty can be incurred " can not be conceded. Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, report Jan. 25, 1806, Am. State Papers, For. "In addition to what is proposed on the subject of blockades in VI. and VII. articles, the perseverence of Great Britain in considering a notification of a blockade, and even of an intended blockade, to a foreign government, or its ministers at London, as a notice to its citizens, and as rendering a vessel, wherever found in a destination to the notified port, liable to capture, calls for a special remedy. The palpable injustice of the practice is aggravated by the auxiliary rule prevailing in the British courts, that the blockade is to be held in legal force until the governmental notification be expressly rescinded, however certain the fact may be that the blockade was never formed, or had ceased. You will be at no loss for topics to enforce the inconsistency of these innovations with the law of nations, with the nature of blockades, with the safety of neutral commerce, and particularly with the communication made to this Government by order of the British Government in the year 1804, according to which, the British commanders and vice-admiralty courts were constructed not to consider any blockade of the islands of Martinique and Guadaloupe as existing, unless in respect of particular ports which may actually be invested, and then not to capture vessels bound to such ports, unless they shall previously have been warned not to enter them." Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, ministers to Notification of blockade must be made directly to the governments of neutral powers. Mr. Rush, Sec. of State, to Mr. Correa, Portuguese min., May 28, 1817, On April 10, 1825, the Mexican minister at Washington requested the Department of State to give notice of the blockade of the castle of San Juan d'Ulloa by the Mexican forces. "He was informed that such a notification from a neutral was not according to the usage of nations. It is not necessary to the legality of a blockade maintained by a competent force and otherwise conforming to the law of nations that its existence should be promulgated by a neutral." Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Neale, Oct. 25, 1825, 21 MS. Dom. Let. 174. In the case of a vessel which had run the blockade of Vera Cruz, in Mexico, by the United States, without interference by the blockading H. Doc. 551-vol 7-53 squadron, and which was captured on coming out, it was claimed that the capture was unlawful because no previous warning of the blockade. was given, by an entry on the papers of the vessel or other mode of actual notice. As it appeared, however, that the master was fully aware from the commencement of the voyage of the existence of the blockade, it was held that no further notice was necessary. Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to M. de Sartiges, June 3, 1852, MS. Notes to The case was that of the Jeune Nelly, as to which see United States v. See Mr. Buchanan, Sec, of State, to M. Poussin, Jan. 17, 1849, MS. Notes A vessel duly notified of the blockade of St. Juan de Nicaragua, by a "Neutrals proceeding to such ports can not lawfully be captured for the mere intent, express or implied, of entering them, but must be warned off by the blockading force; but after having thus been duly warned, if they shall again attempt to enter, they are liable to capture and condemnation as lawful prize.” Mr. Clayton, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bowlin, Jan. 24, 1850, 37 MS. Dom. "The safest rule, in regard to the rights of both belligerents and neutrals involved in blockade, is believed to be contained in the 18th article of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of the 19th of November, 1794, in the following words: “And whereas it frequently happens that vessels sail for a port or place belonging to an enemy, without knowing that the same is either besieged, blockaded, or invested, it is agreed that every vessel so circumstanced may be turned away from such port or place, but she shall not be detained, nor her cargo, if not contraband, be confiscated, unless after the notice, she shall again attempt to enter, but she shall be permitted to go to any other port or place she may think proper. "A similar article is contained in many other treaties between the United States and foreign powers." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Lord Lyons, British min., Mar. 24, 1862, "The treaty between the United States and Venezuela of the 27th of August, 1860, did not sanction constructive but required actual notice of a blockade. It is true that this instrument has been terminated pursuant to a notice to that effect from the Venezuelan Govern ment. The stipulation adverted to, however, is believed to be based on public law." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pile, min. to Venezuela, No. 13, Nov. 23, 1871, United States and Venezuela Claims Commission (1895), 450. The seizure and detention of American vessels with their crews and property for attempting to enter ports, due notice of the blockade of which has not been given, will be regarded "as an act of hostility and wrong for which the prompt release of the vessels and crews, restitution of the property, and other suitable redress will be insisted upon." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Preston, Haitian min., Oct. 29, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, I. 990. See, also, President Cleveland, anual message, Dec. 3, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, I. xiv-xv. For notice given by Portugal of the institution and termination of the blockade of the port of Quissembo, on the west coast of Africa, north of Ambriz, in 1888, see For. Rel. 1888, II. 1394, 1395. See, also, the following notices of the blockade: Of the coast of Abyssinia, from Amphylla to a point opposite the island Of the blockade imposed by Portugal, Dec. 22, 1888, of ports of Mozam- "The Haytian Republic sailed from New York October 4, 1888, with cargo and mails for Turk's Island, Cape Haytien, Port de Paix, Miragoane, Aux Cayes, and Jacmel, and with mails for Gonaïves, St. Marc, and Port au Prince. Arriving at Gonaïves on the 16th of October, she sailed on the same day for St. Marc, and after a brief stop at that port proceeded to Miragoane, where she arrived on the 17th, discharged cargo, and sailed for Aux Cayes, where she arrived on the following day, the 18th. Thence she proceeded to Jacmel, where she arrived on the 19th, discharged cargo, and sailed on the same day for St. Marc. "The decree of blockade of the ports of Cape Haytien, Gonaïves, and St. Mare was resolved upon by the provisional government of Légitime on the 15th of October, and made known to the foreign representatives in Port au Prince on the following day, but was not published in the official paper, Le Moniteur, until the 18th of October. "The means of communication between Port au Prince, Miragoane, Aux Cayes, and Jacmel exclude the supposition that news of the proposed blockade could have reached Miragoane by October 17, Aux Caves by October 18, or Jacmel by the 19th, and consequently the master of the Haytian Republic could not have been aware of any proclamation of blockade when, on October 19, he sailed from Jacmel to St. Marc. Indeed, it is known that no notice of blockade was sent to Jacmel at that time, as that city and district were not in sympathy with the provisional government of General Légitime at Port au Prince. Therefore even the usual and ordinary means of communication between Port au Prince and the ports proposed to be blockaded had been interrupted. "When the Haytian Republic was entering the port of St. Marc from the southward, late in the afternoon of the 20th of October, a steamer was sighted to the northward of the Bay of St. Marc, and it was afterwards observed that she was firing guns, but for what purpose was unknown. "Upon arriving in the port of St. Marc, the master of the Haytian Republic was informed by a pilot that the steamer which had been discerned outside was the Haytian man-of-war Dessalines, and that she was blockading the port. This was the first intimation from any source the captain or any officer of the Haytian Republic had of any blockade. "The Haytian Republic left St. Marc on the next morning, the 21st of October, and was captured outside by the Dessalines. It appears that after the Haytian Republic had entered the harbor of St. Marc, on October 20, and there received her first intimation of any blockade, she made no effort whatever to escape, although she could easily under cover of night or with her superior speed at any time have gotten away had her master seen fit to do so or had he had any ground for supposing such action desirable. "The treaty between the United States and Hayti of November 3, 1864, contains the following provisions: 666 “ARTICLE XVIII. And whereas it frequently happens that vessels. sail for a port or place belonging to an enemy without knowing that the same is either besieged, blockaded, or invested, it is hereby agreed by the high contracting parties that every vessel so circumstanced may be turned away from such port or place, but she shall not be detained, nor any part of her cargo, if not contraband, be confiscated, unless, after notice of such blockade or investment, she shall again attempt to enter; but she shall be permitted to go to any other port or place she shall think proper, provided the same be not blockaded, besieged, or invested. Nor shall any vessel of either of the parties that may have entered into such port or place before the same was actually besieged, blockaded, or invested by the other, be restrained from quitting such place with her cargo, nor, if found therein after the reduction and surrender of such place, shall such vessel or her cargo be liable to confiscation, but they shall be restored to the owners thereof.' "From the above stipulations it is manifest that so far as the proceedings against the Haytian Republic rest upon a charge of attempt |