It follows, the city of the same name, has usually escaped attention. "It is advisable, where the exercise of a belligerent right is in doubt, to A vessel having been captured by a United States cruiser on June 29, 1898, for attempting to go to Guantanamo, Cuba, of which a blockade had been established by Admiral Sampson, it was contended that, at the time of the capture, the port of Guantanamo was in the possession and control of the United States and that the blockade was thereby terminated. The town of Guantanamo is eighteen miles from the mouth of Guantanamo Bay. The harbor was held by United States naval vessels and by a party of marines who occupied the crest of a hill on the west side of the harbor near its entrance, but the town at the head of the bay was still held by the Spanish forces, as were several other positions near by, and the campaign in the neighborhood was in active progress, and encounters between the American and Spanish troops were of frequent occurrence. Under these circumstances the court held that "the blockade was still operative as against vessels bound for the city of Guantanamo. The occupation of the city," continued the court," terminates a blockade because, and only because, it supersedes it, and if a vessel be bound to a port or place beyond, which is still occupied by the enemy, the occupation of the mouth of the harbor does not necessarily terminate the blockade as to such places." The Adula, 176 U. S. 361; affirming 89 Fed. Rep. 351, and citing The Circassian, 2 Wall. 135. 2. SUSPENSION. $1281. When a blockade has been abandoned and then renewed, there should be either a new proclamation by the blockading sovereign, or vessels making for the blockaded port (after notice of the withdrawal) ought to be "premonished of their danger and permitted to change their course as they might think proper." Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, to Mr. C. Pinckney, min. to Spain, Oct. 25, 1801, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 476. An extract from this instruction is given in 3 Wheat., appendix, note 1. The rule "which subjects to capture vessels, arriving at a port, in the interval between a removal and return of the blockading force," is a deviation from international law. Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, report of Jan. 25, 1806, Am. State Papers, For. The blockade of Charleston, South Carolina, was carried into effect. on May 11, 1861, when the U. S. S. Niagara took her position there. Subsequently, the Niagara was ordered to be replaced by the steamer Harriet Lane, but, owing to some accident, the latter failed to reach the station till a day or two after the Niagara had left. Without discussing the effect that this absence of the blockading force might have on any vessel that had entered or departed during that brief time, Mr. Seward maintained that it had not so far impaired the blockade as to render necessary a new notice of its existence. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Lord Lyons, British min., May 27, 1861, In a circular of Feb. 5, 1863, to the members of the diplomatic corps, Fauchille, while pushing his vindication of neutral rights to their extreme limit, holds that the United States accept the position of Sir W. Scott that a blockade is not broken by an accidental dispersion of the blockading squadron through stress of weather. "In 1800, the United States held that a blockade was maintained nothwithstanding a temporary dispersion of the blockaders by storm (Mr. Marshall to Mr. King, September 20, 1800), and the same view was enforced by Mr. Mason in his instructions to the naval commanders of December 24, 1846." He admits, also, that the same position is taken by Phillimore, iii, § 294; 1 Kent, 365; and other high authorities. But he proceeds to cite the opinion of Ortolan (II. 311, and also Deane on Blockade, 51) to the effect that while a blockade is not vacated permanently by such a dispersion, it is suspended while the dispersion continues, so that vessels entering during such an interval are not liable to be seized for blockade running. He proceeds to argue that the preponderance of reason and of authority is with the position that when a blockading force is dispersed by stress of weather or by other causes, the blockade is broken, and can not be renewed except by notice, as if it were a new blockade. Fauchille, Blocus Maritime, 155. "If the blockading vessels be driven away by stress of weather, but return without delay to their stations, the continuity of the blockade is not thereby broken; but if they leave their stations voluntarily, except for purposes of the blockade, such as chasing a blockade runner, or are driven away by the enemy's force, the blockade is abandoned or broken. As the suspension of the blockade is a serious matter, involving a new notification, commanding officers will exercise especial care not to give grounds for complaints on this score." Instructions to U. S. Blockading Vessels and Cruisers, General Orders, No. 492, June 20, 1898, For. Rel. 1898, 780. VI. AMELIORATIONS. 1. SPECIAL CONCESSIONS. § 1282. It was observed by Lord Stowell that a license expressed in general terms, purporting to authorize a vessel to carry a cargo into or out of any of the enemy's ports, would not authorize her to enter or depart from a port under blockade; in other words, that the blockaded port would be considered as an exception to the general license, unless it was specially designated. Twiss, Law of Nations, Rights and Duties in Time of War, § 119, p. 227, citing The Byfield, Edward's Adm. 188. Twiss says that the foregoing dictum of Lord Stowell seems rather to conflict with the view taken by him in an earlier case, in which he held that, when a license had been granted to certain vessels, pursuant to a power given to His Majesty in council under an act in Parliament, to import Spanish wool from ports of Holland, it operated to protect the parties acting under it from the effects of a blockade which had been notified on the same day on which the license was granted. (The Hoffnung, 2 C. Rob. 162.) It was subsequently held by Sir Alexander Croke, in the vice-admiralty court at Halifax, that the decision of Lord Stowell in the case of the Hoffnung remained untouched by the opinion expressed by him in the case of the Byfield, and that, although there was no express provision in a license or in a blockading order to that effect, yet, whenever it appeared to have been the intention of the government that the permission given by the license should not be suspended by an order of blockade, it was not affected by such order. (The Orion, Stewart's Reports, 506.) A permit to enter or depart from a blockaded port, issued by an officer who has no authority to grant it, is invalid, and will not save a vessel from condemnation on the charge of blockade running. The Sea Lion, 5 Wall. 630; s. P., The Ouachita Cotton, 6 id, 521; s P., Where, in time of war, a foreign vessel, availing herself of a proclamation of the President of May 12, 1862, entered the port of New Orleans, the blockade of which was not removed, but only relaxed in the interests of commerce, she thereby assented to the conditions imposed by such proclamation that she should not take out goods contraband of war, nor depart until cleared by the collector of customs according to law. United States v. Diekelman, 92 U. S. 520. It is competent for a belligerent power to limit the operation of a blockade, provided that the limitation applies to all neutral nations in an equal manner. An example of such a limitation is the blockade established by the commanders of the French and British fleets, June 1, 1854, of the mouths of the Danube, " in order to prevent all transportation of supplies to the Russian armies." Again, when Great Britain declared a blockade of the ports of the continent of Europe from Brest to the river Elbe, the coast was divided into two parts, one of which was to be considered as rigorously blockaded, while the other was "open to the navigation of neutral vessels, laden with other goods than contraband of war or enemy's property," provided such vessels had not been laden in or were not proceeding to an enemy port and had not previously violated the blockade. Twiss, Law of Nations, Rights and Duties in Time of War, § 118, p. 226. By the law of nations "a belligerent may not concede to another belligerent, or take for himself, the right of carrying on commercial intercourse prohibited to neutral nations; and, therefore, no blockade can be legitimate that admits to either belligerent a freedom of commerce denied to the subjects of states not engaged in the war. The foundation of this principle is clear, and rooted in justice; for interference with neutral commerce at all is only justified by the right which war confers of molesting the enemy." Twiss, Law of Nations, Rights and Duties in Time of War, § 120 p. 229, quoting the language of Dr. Lushington, in the case of the Franciska, 2 Spinks, 135. This case referred to the British order in council of March 29, 1854, under which Russian merchant vessels in the British dominions were allowed six weeks for loading their cargoes and departing and were then exempted from capture while on the voyage to their destination. It was held that during the interval provided by this order no valid blockade of the Russian ports in the Baltic could be established by the British fleet. "It is obvious," says Twiss, "that so long as enemy vessels are allowed by a belligerent power freely to enter or to come out of enemy ports, the condition of things, which alone authorizes a belligerent to interfere at all with the trade of neutrals does not exist, namely, the necessity of interdicting all communication by way of trade with the ports in question, in order to compel the enemy to submission." The decision of Dr. Lushington was confirmed by the Lords of Appeal, but, in rendering their decision, their lordships suggested that enemy ships found at the outbreak of war in ports which they had entered in time of peace, with the expectation that it would continue, might be considered as forming an exceptional class, so that an express permission to enter their port of destination, though it was blockaded, might perhaps not affect the validity of the blockade. They might, said their lordships, be regarded as falling within the rule with regard to licenses granted in particular cases on special grounds. (10 Moore P. C. 56.) With regard to applications made in behalf of the citizens of foreign countries for permission to export from the Southern States property acquired before the proclamation of blockade, the following facts appear: May 10, 1861, the Austrian minister asked permission for an agent of his Government to purchase and ship tobacco for the Austrian Government monopoly; this request was declined on May 13. On March 3 and March 16, 1863, similar applications were made by the French minister in behalf of French firms who were purchasing tobacco to fill contracts with the Government monopoly of France; these applications were refused. On November 10, 1863, President Lincoln issued an executive order sanctioning the exportation, subject to certain conditions, of tobacco in the United States belonging to the Government of France, of Austria, or of any other state with which the United States was then at peace, such tobacco having been purchased and paid for by such government prior to March 4, 1861; and an informal convention was signed by the Secretary of State and the French minister, November 23, 1863, for regulating the mode of carrying out the executive order. On November 19, 1863, the Austrian minister was furnished with a copy of the order. In April, 1864, the French legation applied for an extension of the time prescribed in the convention, which was five months from the date thereof, so that the five months might run from the date of a second executive order of March 7, 1864. Mr. Seward, on April 19, expressed regret that controlling circumstances prevented an extension of time, but stated that the further execution of the convention might be regarded as suspended, only to be resumed when the reason for the suspension should cease. General Grant, in December, 1864, suggested serious objections from a military point of view, and the matter was postponed from time to time, and, although French vessels received clearance papers from the collector of customs at New |