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 block ade 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, 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. 66 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 York and proceeded to the James River, it does not appear from any records in the Department of State that they succeeded in getting out any of the tobacco before the blockade was raised. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Johnston, U. S. Senate, Feb. 27, 1872, 92 See, also, Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adams, min. to England, No. On several occasions during the war between the United States and Spain vessels were, for special reasons and for special purposes, allowed by the United States to enter places which the American forces had blockaded. After the blockade of certain ports on the north coast of Cuba, the French mail steamer Lafayette was permitted to enter the port of Havana for the purpose of landing mails and passengers. This concession was granted on the request of the French embassy, coupled with the representation that the vessel sailed from St. Nazaire, in France, for Havana before the proclamation was issued. A similar privilege was extended to the German steamer Polaria on the request of the German embassy, with the qualification that she should first obtain a formal permit from the United States naval commandant at Key West, that her entrance into Havana was for the sole purpose of landing her Hamburg passengers and mails, and that she should not land cargo of any kind, nor, with the exception of certain articles intended for the Emperor, take away any, though permission was granted to bring away "any American or neutral passengers that may desire to depart in her, but no others." Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to M. Cambon, French ambass., May 7, 1898, MS. In harmony with the conditions imposed in these cases, permission was Early in the war special permission was given to certain neutral vessels to enter specified blockaded ports in Cuba in order to bring away Americans and any neutrals who might desire to leave. The United States consul at Kingston, Jamaica, was instructed to give certificates for the purpose of passing the blockade to the designated vessels. Mr. Moore, Act. Sec. of State, to Messrs. E. A. Atkins & Co., tels., May 3 and May 5, 1898, 228 MS. Dom. Let. 227, 269. See, also, Mr. Moore, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Manso, May 9, 1898, 228 MS. Dom. Let. 355. Permission was also granted, on the request of the proper diplomatic representatives, for the British steamer Myrtledene and the Norwegian steamer Folsjo to reenter the port of Cardenas, both vessels appearing to have left that port on notification of the institution of the blockade. In each case it was stated that the steamer was not only notified of the blockade, but was also ordered to go away. The allegation that the vessels were ordered away was afterwards denied in the case of at least one of them; but, without regard to this question, there seemed to be an obvious implication that when notice of the blockade was given they were not informed of the provision in the President's proclamation allowing to neutrals vessels lying in any of the blockaded ports thirty days' grace, and that, if they were not expressly ordered away, they at any rate construed the notice as an order to depart. The Folsjo had actually taken on board a part of her cargo, and in each case the cargo which was abandoned appeared to be the property of citizens of the United States. Under these circumstances instructions were given to allow the vessels in question to reenter the port and take on board, with all possible expedition, the cargoes of sugar which they had abandoned, it being understood that the permission was granted subject to the exigencies of any active military operations; that both vessels were strictly to observe the duties of neutrality, and particularly that neither of them was to carry more men or provisions than were necessary for the voyage. Subsequently, on the representation of the minister of Sweden and Norway that the Folsjo, after lying for some days at Key West, had proceeded to New York, and that in consequence of the delay she was required under a previous charter party to proceed to Europe, the Norwegian steamer Uto was allowed to take her place, with the additional condition that before proceeding to Cardenas she was to call at Key West and obtain from the commandant of the United States naval station a formal letter of permission. Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to Mr. Grip, May 11, 1898, MS. Notes to Swedish Leg. VIII. 88; Mr. Moore, Assist. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Navy, May 11, 1898, 228 MS. Dom. Let. 404. Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to Mr. Grip, May 13, 1898, MS. Notes to Swedish It seems that the Spanish authorities at Cardenas refused to allow the |