Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

615; Lieber's Instructions to American Armies in the Field, sec. 5, clause 1; Bluntschli, I., sec. 8; Manning, p. 167; Birkhimer, p. 204.) "In addition to the maintenance of military occupation of the Sulu Islands the military forces of the United States are engaged in suppressing an insurrection in a portion of the Philippine Archipelago accessible from the Sulu Islands. The military authorities conducting the military operations against said insurrection were at one time of the opinion that a military necessity existed for prohibiting commercial intercourse between the Sulu Islands and the outside. world. Thereupon Admiral Dewey, as commander of the military forces of the United States in the Philippines, in June, 1899, issued the following order:

"All trade with the Philippines is prohibited, except with the ports of Manila, Iloilo, Cebú, and Bakalota. Ships are hereby warned to go nowhere else in the Philippines.'

"Subsequently this order was modified by General Orders, No. 73, series of 1899, dated December 26, 1899; General Orders, No. 30, series of 1900, dated March 10, 1900, and General Orders, No. 34, series of 1900, dated March 13, 1900. Copies of said orders are herewith inclosed.

"The military authorities in command of the United States military forces in the Philippines are of opinion that the restrictions and regulations upon trade with the Sulu Islands, now enforced pursuant to said orders, are essential to meet the military necessity occasioned by the insurrection.

"These restrictions and regulations are emergency measures, and should be so considered. They are not intended as an evidence or declaration of the permanent policy or practice of the United States when the condition of peace shall prevail in the Philippines."

Mr. Root, Sec. of War, to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, Oct. 15, 1900, Magoon's Reports, 335. See, also, another letter of same to same, same date, and of similar purport, id. 336–338.

See Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Herr von Holleben, German ambass., No. 537, Jan. 18, 1900, MS. Notes to German Leg. XII. 536.

"To close ports which are in the hands of revolutionists by governmental decree or order is impossible under international law. It may in a proper way and under proper circumstances and conditions in time of peace declare what of its ports shall be open and what of them shall be closed. But when these ports or any of them are in the hands of foreign belligerents or of insurgents, it has no power to close or to open them, for the palpable reason that it is no longer in control of them. It has then the right of blockade alone, which can only be declared to the extent that it has the naval power to make it effective."

Plumley, umpire, case of Compagnie Générale des Asphaltes de France,
British-Venezuelan Mixed Commission, protocol of Feb. 13, 1903,
Ralston's Report, 331, 336–337; citing Wharton, Int. Law Dig., §§ 359,
361; Hall, Int. Law, 727; Glass, Marine Int. Law, 105–107.

The same principle was followed by Duffield, umpire, in the case of the
Orinoco Asphalt Co., German-Venezuelan Mixed Commission, proto-
col of Feb. 13, 1903, Ralston's Report, 586.

When, in 1903, the Dominican Government declared certain ports, which had fallen into the hands of revolutionists, to be closed to maritime commerce, the American diplomatic representative at Santo Domingo City declined to recognize the closure of any of the ports in question except by an effective blockading force. (For. Rel. 1903, 396, 405.)

IV. BREACH OF BLOCKADE.

1. NOTICE.

$ 1272.

Article 18 of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of 1794 provides that every vessel may be turned away from every blockaded or besieged port or place, which shall have sailed for the same without knowledge of the blockade or siege; but she shall not be detained, nor her cargo, if not contraband, be confiscated unless, after notice, she shall again attempt to enter; but she shall be permitted to go to any other port or place she may think proper. And this treaty is conceived to be a correct exposition of the present law of nations upon this point. The intention must be manifested in such manner as to be equivalent to an attempt.

Fitzsimmons v. Newport Ins. Co. (1808), 4 Cranch. 185.

In the absence of such a treaty, the courts do not require notice: Field's Code Int. Law, § 892, citing 1 Kent Com. 150; The Circassian, 2 Wall. 135; Wheaton on Capture, 193-207; The Hallie Jackson, Blatchf. Prize Cases, 2, 48; The Empress, id. 175; except where the vessel sails without a knowledge of the blockade; The Nayade, 1 Newb. Adm. 366.

A vessel sailing ignorantly for a blockaded port is not liable to condemnation under the law of nations.

Yeaton r. Fry (1809), 5 Cranch, 335.

January 5, 1804, the British Admiralty announced, with reference to the blockade of the islands of Martinique and Guadaloupe, that orders had been sent to the British forces "not to consider any blockade of those islands as existing unless in respect of particular ports which may be actually invested, and then not to capture vessels bound to such ports unless they shall have been previously warned not to enter them." The blockade having subsequently been extended to Curaçao, Mr. Merry, the British minister at Washington, informed

the United States Government that he could not doubt that the blockade of that island would be "conducted conformably to the instructions," or orders, given with reference to Martinique and Guadaloupe. Held, that the master of an American vessel was, under the circumstances, excusable for proceeding towards Curaçao for the purpose of inquiring whether the blockade still continued. The court expressly reserved any opinion as to what would have been the effect of the master's conduct if the communication by Mr. Merry had not been made.

Maryland Ins. Co. v. Wood (1813), 7 Cranch, 402.

Under the proclamation of the President of April 19, 1861, only those who are ignorant of the blockade are entitled to the warning and indorsement mentioned in the proclamation.

The Revere (1862), 2 Sprague, 107.

The provision in the President's proclamation of the 19th of April, 1861, for warning vessels which approached the blockaded ports with a view to entering, did not protect a vessel that sailed for a blockaded port with knowledge of the blockade.

The Hiawatha, 2 Black, 677; The Admiral, 3 Wall. 603.

It is a settled rule that a vessel in a blockaded port is presumed to have notice of a blockade as soon as it commences.

The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635.

Notice may be express, to a particular government, or to a ship, or it may be inferred from all the facts, among which notoriety is to be especially considered. To proceed to the mouth of the blockaded port on the plea of there seeking information, exposes the vessel to serious suspicion of knowledge of blockade, and the mere hovering around a blockaded port, as if to seize some unguarded point to enter, is ground for seizure.

See The Cornelius, 3 Wall. 214.

Knowledge of a recently established blockade may be inferred from

facts.

The Herald, 3 Wall. 768.

The bark Pilgrim, owned two-thirds by citizens of New Orleans and the other third by citizens of New York and Connecticut, and with a cargo consigned to owners in New Orleans, left Bordeaux, France, about May 8, 1861, after news of the blockade of the southern ports had reached that place, so that the American consul would give

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 v. 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.
The President did "not find himself justified in exercising clemency in
(Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to the Attorney-General,
Feb. 13, 1901, 250 MS. Dom. Let. 651.)

this case.

As to the case of the Greenan Castle, at Manzanillo, see Mr. Hay, Sec. of
State, to Sir J. Pauncefote, Brit. ambass., No. 1312, Jan. 13, 1899,
MS. Notes to Brit. Leg. XXIV. 419.

"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.
Rel. II. 728.

"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
England, May 17, 1806, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. III. 119, 121.
"The words of the communication are, that vessels must be warned not
to enter.' The term warn technically imports a distinction between
an individual notice to vessels and a general notice by proclamation
or diplomatic communication; and the terms not to enter equally dis-
tinguishes a notice at or very near the blockaded port, from a notice
directed against the original destination or the apparent intention of
a vessel nowise approaching such a port." (Same to same, Feb. 3,
1807, id. 153, 155.)

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,
MS. Notes to For. Legs. II. 229.

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

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »