2. DAYS OF GRACE. § 1283. "That a belligerent may lawfully blockade the port of his enemy is admitted. But it is also admitted that this blockade does not, according to modern usage, extend to a neutral vessel, found in port, nor prevent her coming out with the cargo which was on board when the blockade was instituted. If, then, such a vessel be restrained from proceeding on her voyage by the blockading squadron, the restraint is unlawful. The St. Francis de Assise was so restrained, and her case is within the policy. "It has been contended that it was the duty of the neutral master to show to the visiting officer of the belligerent squadron his right of egress, by showing not only the neutral character of his vessel and cargo, but that his cargo was taken on board before the institution of the blockade. "This is admitted, and it is believed that the bill of exceptions shows satisfactorily that these facts were proved to the visiting officer. It is stated that the vessel and cargo were regularly documented; that the papers were shown, and that the cargo was put on board, and the vessel had actually sailed on her voyage, before the institution of the blockade." Marshall, C. J., delivering the opinion of the court, Olivera v. Union Ins. "In some respects, I think the law of blockade is unreasonably rigorous towards neutrals, and they can fairly claim a relaxation of it. By the decisions of the English courts of admiralty-and ours have generally followed their footsteps-a neutral vessel which happens to be in a blockaded port is not permitted to depart with a cargo, unless that cargo was on board at the time when the blockade commenced, or was first made known. Having visited the port in the common freedom of trade, a neutral vessel ought to be permitted to depart with a cargo, without regard to the time when it was received. on board." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buchanan, Apr. 13, 1854, H. Ex. Doc. 103, 33 Cong. 1 sess. 12, 13. When the blockade was proclaimed of the Confederate ports, Mr. Seward announced "that merchant vessels in port at the time when the blockade took effect will be allowed a reasonable time for their departure." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Baron Gerolt, Prussian min., May 2, 1861 Mr. Seward at the same time stated that the Government could not con- See, also, Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adams, min. to England, No. Referring to the case of two Russian vessels in the port of Savannah, Georgia, Mr. Seward stated that "fifteen days have been specified as a limit for neutrals to leave the ports after actual blockade has commenced, with or without cargo." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Stoeckl, Russian min., May 9, 1861, MS. See, as to the blockade at New Orleans, Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to In a circular of October 16, 1861, Mr. Seward informed the members of The proclamation of blockade having allowed fifteen days for neutrals to leave, a vessel which overstays the time is liable to capture, even if her delay was partly due to difficulty in procuring a tug, this being one of the accidents which must have been foreseen and should have been provided for while the vessel was remaining in port and loading a cargo with the proclamation in view. The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635. The first hostile act of the United States, on the outbreak of the war with Spain in 1898, was the blockade, under a proclamation of the President of April 22, 1898, of the ports of the north coast of Cuba from Cardenas to Bahia Honda, inclusive, and of the port of Cienfuegos on the south coast. On June 27, a governmental blockade was proclaimed of all ports on the south coast of the island from Cape Frances to Cape Cruz, inclusive, and of the port of San Juan, Porto Rico. Various blockades de facto were also maintained. The object of a blockade being to cut off all intercourse between the inhabitants of the blockaded place and the world outside, it is a general rule that while a period is allowed-usually of fifteen daysduring which vessels may depart either in ballast or with cargo hought and shipped before the commencement of the blockade, no cargo is permitted to be shipped after the blockade is instituted. In the first proclamation of blockade by the United States, which was issued April 22, a period of thirty days was allowed for the departure of neutral vessels from the blockaded ports, but nothing was said as to the cargo. The natural inference would therefore have been that no cargo could be taken on board after the blockade was instituted. But in applying the proclamation to the cases that arose under it, the United States construed it as permitting the taking of cargo during the thirty days, and when the next proclamation was issued, the point was expressly covered by a clause in which it was stated that neutral vessels lying in any of the ports to which the blockade was then extended would be allowed "thirty days to issue there from with cargo." The same rules were applied in the case of the de facto blockades established by Admiral Dewey in the Philippines. These and other features of the law of blockade were included in General Orders, No. 592, entitled "Instructions to blockading vessels and cruisers," which were issued by the Navy Department, with the cooperation of the Department of State, on June 20, 1898, for the information and guidance of the naval service. Proclamations and Decrees during the War with Spain, 75, 79. Naval Operations of the War with Spain, 99; Mr. Moore, Assist. Sec. of In proclaiming on Dec. 20, 1902, a blockade of the ports of Puerto Cabello and Maracaibo, because of the rejection of certain demands by the Venezuelan Government, the German Government allowed days of grace, as follows: From ports in the West Indies or on the east coast of the American continent, 10 days for steamers and 20 days for sailing vessels; from all other points, 20 days for steamers and 40 days for sailing vessels, while ships lying in the blockaded ports were allowed 15 days. The British Government on the same day proclaimed a blockade of Laguayra, Carenero, Guanta, Cumana, Carupano, and the mouths of the Orinoco, with similar days of grace. For. Rel. 1903, 425, 458. The blockade was raised from midnight, Feb. 14-15, 1903. For. Rel. 1903, 476. 66 3. SHIPS OF WAR. § 1284. Commodore Biddle, in a letter of November 11, 1827, to the Brazilian admiral, states " that blockades never have been deemed to extend to public ships. Great Britain, almost perpetually at war, and numerically superior at sea to any other nation, never for a moment pretended that neutral ships-of-war could be affected by blockades. During several years of the war in Europe, the Government of the United States maintained its diplomatic intercourse with France. exclusively by means of its public ships entering the French blockaded ports. In 1811, in the United States steamer Hornet, I myself went into Cherbourg, then blockaded by a British squadron; was boarded as I went in by the blockading squadron, but merely for the purpose of ascertaining our national character." The Brazilian admiral in reply stated that by a recent decision of the British cabinet," vessels-of-war could not enter blockaded ports, and such has continued to be the practice of the English." 15 Br. & For. State Papers, 1120. The Secretary of the Navy was requested to order the commander of the U. S. S. Boston, which was to convey Commodore Porter to Algiers, to repair with him to such other port of the Mediterranean as he might designate, if, when the Boston reached the vicinity of Algiers, that place was Iso strictly blockaded .. gerous or difficult for her to enter the harbor." as to render it dan (Sec. of State to Sec. Armed vessels of neutral states will have the right to enter and depart from the interdicted ports." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Baron Gerolt, Prussian min., May 2, 1861, MS. notes to Prussian Leg. VII. 110. This referred to the blockade of the Confederate ports. Referring, on October 4, 1861, to reports that foreign vessels of war, which had entered blockaded Confederate ports, had "in some instances carried passengers, and in others private correspondence," Mr. Seward, in order to prevent future misunderstanding, notified the members of the diplomatic corps that no foreign vessel of war which might enter or depart from a blockaded port should “ carry any person as a passenger, or any correspondence other than that between the government of the country to which the vessel may belong and the diplomatic and consular agents of such country at the ports adverted to." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Lord Lyons, British min. (circular), Oct. 4, 1861, Dip. Cor. 1861, 152. July 15, 1898, the Department of State addressed to all the foreign representatives in Washington a circular in relation to the entrance of neutral men-of-war into blockaded ports. In this circular it was stated that while there was no disposition on the part of the Government "to restrict the courteous permission heretofore accorded to neutral men-of-war to enter blockaded ports, it is advisable that all risk of error or mischance should be avoided by due attention to the rules prescribed by prudence as well as by courtesy. To this end, a neutral man-of-war desiring to enter or to depart from a blockaded port should communicate with the senior officer of the blockading force." As to the port of Havana, it was said to be "advisable that neutral men-of-war should, besides observing the above suggestions, approach the port from points between north by west and north by east, and follow the same general course in departing," for the reason that, as the commanding officer was stationed north of Morro, "such a course would enable vessels readily to communicate with him, and thus not only attend to a matter of proper naval ceremonial, but also to avoid the danger of a neutral man-of-war being mistaken for an enemy in the dusk or in thick weather." The receipt of this circular was acknowledged by the different members of the diplomatic corps, and in no instance was objection then or subsequently made to its contents. On the contrary, the German Government presented certain counter suggestions, of a more stringent nature, which were accepted by the United States as embodying an arrangement for the future. The rules thus agreed on were as follows: 1. That the consent of the blockading Government, obtained through the usual diplomatic channels, should, unless in a case of exceptional urgency, be a prerequisite to the entrance of a neutral man-of-war into a blockaded port. 2. That approach to the blockaded port should be made in such manner that the senior officer of the blockading squadron would with certainty identify the neutral vessel, on her appearance in the blockaded belt, as the vessel of whose coming he had been notified. 3. That in exceptional cases, such as prevented the obtaining of previous permission through the usual diplomatic channels, the decision should rest with the senior officer present of the blockading squadron. 4. That in the departure from a blockaded port no special formalities were requisite other than might be necessary to identify the departing neutral, such formalities to be agreed on by her commander and the officer in command of the blockade. For. Rel. 1898, 1159-1169. Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to members of the diplomatic corps, circular, |