Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

of the U. S. S. Constellation, January 24, 1837, offering convoy to merchant vessels bound from New Orleans to Texas. Mr. Monastario represented that this offer was in derogation of the Mexican decree of February 9, 1836, closing the ports of Texas to foreign commerce, and asked that the commanders of American men-of-war might be instructed to respect that decree. Mr. Forsyth replied that, while it was the right of the Mexican Government to designate which of its ports should be open to foreign vessels, it was also its duty as an independent power to execute its laws pursuant to its treaty obligations and public law. The United States had, said Mr. Forsyth, in the contest between Mexico and Texas pursued a neutral course. As it was, he said, notorious that the authority of Mexico in Texas was annulled and that the inhabitants of the country had declared themselves independent and had organized a government of their own," the mandate of the Mexican Government was obviously tantamount to a blockade by notification merely, the illegality of which has invariably been asserted by the United States and has been agreed to by Mexico in the treaty." The request of the Mexican Government, therefore, could not, said Mr. Forsyth, be complied with, and convoy would consequently be afforded to merchant vessels of the United States destined to ports of Texas or to those of Mexico. Mr. Forsyth also adverted to the fact that at the time when he wrote the independence of Texas had been acknowledged by the United States.

Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Monastario, May 18, 1837, MS. Notes to Mexican Leg. VI. 74.

As to blockades on the Mexican coast and the River Plate, see President Van Buren's message of Feb. 22, 1839, H. Ex. Doc. 211, 25 Cong. 3 sess.

The American brig Toucan, bound from Boston to St. Catherines, Brazil, and a market, was detained at San Joze do Norte from February 13 to March 2, 1836, by the imperial authorities, who refused her a clearance and prevented her from going to Porto Alegre, which was her next place of destination, because it was in the possession of insurgents. A claim for this detention was laid before Mr. George P. Fisher, commissioner appointed under the act of Congress of March 29, 1850, 9 Stat. 422, to distribute the indemnity under the convention between the United States and Brazil of January 27, 1849. Mr. Fisher rejected the claim, saying: "The preventing of the Toucan and other vessels by the Brazilian authorities from going up to an interior port which had been closed on account of a civil insurrection existing there at the time, was but the exercise of a right incident to a sovereign state, and amounting to no embargo upon that

ship or other vessels in San Joze, nor to a detention of her or them so long as they were free to go elsewhere than to said port of Alegre."

Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4616.

[ocr errors]

With reference to this decision, it may be observed that Mr. Forsyth, writing with regard to the claim in 1839, said: "It appears from the first protest of Captain Hamlin that the Toucan was detained by order of Ribeiro, the imperial president, for the alleged reason that Porto Alegre was in the possession of the insurgents. It is believed that Ribeiro was at this time on board the ship of war the Seventh of September, which, with perhaps other vessels, was engaged in blockading the entrance to the lake and river leading up to Porto Alegre." (Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hunter, chargé d'affaires to Brazil, No. 45, March 13, 1839, MS. Inst. Brazil, XV. 57.)

"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 22, and to inform you that your course in the correspondence between you and the governor of Panama upon the subject of the decree closing certain ports not in possession of the authorities of New Granada, is approved. The ground assumed by the governor, that the 15th article of the treaty was intended to apply to a state of foreign and not civil war, is considered to be quite untenable. His point, that a government has a perfect right to close any of its ports which may have been opened to foreign commerce is correct, provided such ports be in the possession of its authorities. If, as in this case, the fact be otherwise, the decree referred to, so far as it relates to those facts, must be considered as tantamount to a blockade by proclamation, a proceeding which is not recognized by the treaty. You will consequently take note of any damages which our citizens may have sustained, in order that reparation may be demanded therefor."

Mr. Trescot, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Corwine, consul at Panama, Oct. 26, 1860, 53 MS. Dom. Let. 207.

In the records of the Department of State there is a memorandum by Mr. Seward, dated April 18, 1861, recommending a blockade of the ports in the seceded States, both on grounds of expediency and of constitutional right. After the blockade was proclaimed, Mr. Seward advised the members of the diplomatic corps that it would be "strictly enforced upon the principles recognized by the law of nations."

Memorandum of Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, April 18, 1861, MS. Inst.
Special Missions, III. 187; Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Baron
Gerolt. Prussian min., May 2, 1861, MS. Notes to Prussian Leg. VII.
109.

See, also, Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dayton, min. to France, No.
114, Feb. 19, 1862, Dip. Cor. 1862, 315.

For correspondence between the United States and Great Britain concerning the blockade, see Br. & For. State Papers, vols. 51 and 55.

In the case of the British brig Herald, which was taken possession of at sea on July 16, 1861, for an alleged violation of the blockade of Beaufort, North Carolina, Mr. Seward suggested that orders be given for the release of the vessel, as it appeared that the rules prescribed in the proclamation of the President and in the instructions of the Navy Department on the subject of the blockade were not observed. (Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Welles, Sec. of Navy, July 29, 1861, 54 MS. Dom. Let. 370.)

In a dispatch of June 28, 1861, Mr. Adams reported an interview with Lord John Russell in which the latter adverted to the report that the Congress of the United States would probably pass a law declaring the Confederate ports to be closed to commerce, and in this relation stated that the law officers had advised, in the case of New Granada, that the Government had no right to close ports in the possession of insurgents except by a regular blockade. The question of the action of the New Granadian authorities was also the subject of a debate in the House of Commons on June 27, when Lord John Russell stated that the law officers had advised that, while it was perfectly competent for the government of a country, in a state of tranquillity to say what ports should be open to trade and what should be closed, yet the attempt so to close ports de facto in the hands of insurgents would be an invasion of international law with regard to blockade. Lord John Russell added that the British naval commanders had been ordered not to recognize the closing of the insurgents' ports in New Granada.

By the act of Congress of July 13, 1861, the President was author-. ized to proclaim the closure of Confederate ports. Mr. Seward enclosed a copy of the act to Mr. Adams, and said that, if the United States should undertake to close the insurrectionary ports under the statute and Great Britain should, in pursuance of the intimation previously made, disregard the act, no one could suppose that the United States would acquiesce, but that the President, as well as himself, had felt an earnest and profound solicitude to avert foreign war. For the same reason he did not wish to dogmatize, but to act practically, with a view to immediate peace and ultimate good understanding. It was not, he said, his purpose to anticipate or even indicate the decision which would be made with regard to the enforcement of the statute in question, but simply to suggest what Mr. Adams might properly and advantageously say while the subject was under consideration. Mr. Adams was accordingly instructed to say, first, that the law only authorized the President to close the ports in his discretion, accordingly as he should regard existing or future exigencies; secondly, that the passage of the law, taken in connection with attendant circumstances, did not necessarily indicate a legislative conviction that the ports ought to be closed, but only showed the purpose of

Congress that the closing of the ports, if it should become necessary, should not fail for want of power explicitly conferred by law; thirdly, that no change in the policy adopted with regard to the blockade would be made from motives of aggression against nations which practically respected the sovereignty of the United States, or without due consideration of all the circumstances, foreign as well as domestic, bearing upon the question. On the other hand, Mr. Adams was not to leave it doubtful that the President fully adhered to the position which the Government had early adopted that the sovereignty of the United States over all parts of the Union remained unimpaired, and that he fully agreed with Congress in the principle of the law which authorized him to close the ports which had been seized by the insurgents, and that he would "put into execution and maintain it with all the means at his command, at the hazard of whatever consequences, whenever it shall appear that the safety of the nation requires it."

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adams, min. to England, No. 42, July 21, 1861, Dip. Cor. 1861, 101.

Mr. Welles says that on April 11, 1865, after the fall of Richmond, a proclamation was issued in pursuance of the act of July 13, 1861, to close the ports of the Southern States. "Until the war had virtually ceased, the law of Congress was not enforced." (Welles, Lincoln and Seward, 128.)

Feb. 3, 1873, the consul of Spain at Singapore published a notice that no foreign vessel would be allowed to enter, unless in distress, any port of the Sulu territory for commercial or other purposes, and that the exclusion would be rigidly enforced by the men-of-war of the Philippine marine department, as no port in the territory had as yet been opened to foreign trade.

Jan. 1, 1875, a Spanish naval officer notified an English naval officer as follows:

"In conformity with your desire, I have the honor to inform you that Sulu, an integral part of our territory, is in open rebellion, on which account the vessels under my command are blockading it, in accordance with the superior instructions of my admiral, for the purpose of preventing all communication of ships with its coasts, for which reason it is not possible for me to permit the entry of the vessel under your command in the port above mentioned."

This notice was given by Lieut. Commander Propolo to Commander Buckle, of H. B. M. ship Frolic.

Jan. 17, 1876, the Earl of Derby wrote to Lord Odo Russell, at Berlin:

"It will be seen from Commander Buckle's report that the prohibition of foreign trade is carried out by the Spanish naval authorities under the name of a blockade; but that the force employed is quite H. Doc. 551-vol 7-52

inadequate to maintain an efficient blockade, even supposing that one could properly be proclaimed.

"In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, however, the Spanish Government is not in a position to proclaim a blockade in Sulu so long as she claims sovereignty over that archipelago. Blockade is a belligerent right, and can only be exercised against a state with which the blockading power is at war. A power may prohibit foreign trade with its own ports; but such prohibition does not carry with it the same rights of interference with foreign vessels as are conferred by a regularly constituted blockade."

Dec. 6, 1876, Mr. Layard, British minister at Madrid, wrote to the Earl of Derby, giving an account of an interview with Señor Cánovas del Castillo, president of the council, in which Señor Cánovas is reported as saying:

"He did not see why the questions which had been raised between them [the English and Spanish Governments] in consequence of the blockade, which, he admitted, had been wrongly instituted, as no state of belligerency existed between Spain and Sulu, should not be amicably settled."

73 Br. & For. State Papers, 932, 958, 965, 1004.

"By the first of these decrees, as you inform me, the Colombian Government, in the exercise of its authority, and expressly enforcing pertinent provisions of its commercial and revenue laws, declares the ports of Sabanilla and Santa Marta, on the Caribbean Sea, and the fluvial port of Barranquilla, closed to foreign commerce, and denounces against the goods which may be imported thither or exported thence, and against the vessels which may engage in trade with those ports, the forfeitures and penalties fixed by Colombian law for smuggling.

"This Government, following the received tenets of international law, does not admit that a decree of a sovereign government closing certain national ports in the possession of foreign enemies or of insurgents has any international effect unless sustained by a blockading force sufficient to practically close such ports.

“Mr. Lawrence thus states the rule drawn from the positions taken by the Administrations of Presidents Jefferson and Madison during the struggles with France and England, which grew out of the attempt to claim the right of closure-as equivalent to blockadewithout effective action to that end:

“Nor does the law of blockade differ in civil war from what it is in foreign war. Trade between foreigners and a port in possession of one of the parties to the contest cannot be prevented by a municipal interdict of the other. For this, on principle, the most obvious reason exists. The waters adjacent to the coast of a country are deemed

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »