the contrary is given by the blockading government. Hence ignorance of the existence of the blockade cannot ordinarily be plead as an excuse for visiting the blockaded port, but the voyage itself is evidence of an intention to do an unlawful act. This seems to be quite reasonable: notice to the neutral state must be regarded as notice to all shippers who are its subjects, and if the rule of evidence presses hard in a few cases, the blockading government is not in fault. But the notice must be given to all neutral powers in order to reach their subjects: general notoriety, as by news travelling from one country to another, is not sufficient notice.* Equity requires that the neutral should have had time to receive notice of a blockade. Hence, a ship from a distance, as from across the Atlantic, may attempt to enter a port actually invested, without exposing itself to penalties. It cannot be said in justice, that a shrewd suspicion of a blockade is enough to make a vessel guilty in sailing for a certain port, for a known or a knowable fact must precede guilt. On the other hand, a fair possibility derived from the expectation of peace, or from other sources, that a blockade is raised, may justify a vessel in sailing contingently for the port in question with the intention of inquiring at the proper place into the fact. blockade discon tinued ? A blockade ceases, whenever the vessels which constitute 3. When is a it are withdrawn, whether with or without compulsion from the enemy, so that the undertaking is for the time, at least, abandoned. If the vessels return after leaving their stations, the commencement of a new blockade requires the same notification as before. Common fame in regard to the breaking up of a blockade will justify a neutral in sailing for the blockaded port, although, as we have seen, it is not sufficient notice to him: he ought to have more evidence of an interference with the normal state of things than he needs to have of a return to it. * Comp. Wheaton, IV. 3, § 28; Phillimore, III. 385; Ortolan, II. 301 et seq. § 188. breach of block A vessel violates the law of blockade by some positive act of entering or quitting, or by showing a clear and 4. Penalty for speedy intention to enter a blockaded port. A ade. remote intention entertained at the outset of the voyage, for instance, might be abandoned, and the seizure of such a vessel on the high seas would be unlawful. It must be at or near the harbor, to be liable to penalty. The penalty is confiscation, and it falls first on the ship as the immediate agent in the crime. The cargo shares the guilt, unless the owners can remove it by direct evidence. The presumption is, that they knew the destination of the vessel, for the voyage was undertaken on account of the freight. If ship and cargo are owned by the same persons, the cargo is confiscated of course. The penalty for a breach of blockade is held to continue upon a vessel until the end of her return voyage, Duration of liabil and to have ceased, if she were captured after the ity to penalty. actual discontinuance of the blockade. The reasons for the former rule may be that the voyage out and back, is fairly looked on as one transaction, the return freight being the motive in part for the act, and that time ought to be allowed to the blockading vessels to pursue and capture the offender. The reason for the latter is, that the occasion for inflicting the penalty ceased with the blockade. Besides this penalty on cargo and vessel, the older textwriters teach that punishment may be visited upon the direct authors of a breach of blockade.* Even de Martens (§ 320), declares that corporal pains, by the positive law of nations and by natural justice, may be meted out to those who are guilty of such breach. But the custom of nations, if it ever allowed of such severities, has long ceased to sanction them. * Grotius, III. 1, § 5, 3; Bynkersh. Quæst. J. P. I. 11; Vattel, III. 7, § 117. 5. Attempts to stretch the doc trine of blockade. $189. The natural inclination of belligerents to stretch their rights at sea at the expense of neutrals, appears in attempts to enlarge the extent of blockades over a tract of coast without a sufficient force; and at no time so much as at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century. In the war of France and Spain with Great Britain during the American revolution, those nations extended the notion of blockade unduly,* which led to the declaration of Russia in 1780,-afterwards made one of the principles of both the armed neutralities, that the blockade of a port can exist only, "where, through the arrangements of the power which attacks a port by means of vessels stationed there and sufficiently near, there is an evident danger in entering." The far more important aggressions on neutral rights between the years 1806 and 1812, are too closely connected with the affairs of our own country to be passed over in silence. These aggressions, under the continental system, as it was called, may be traced back to measures adopted towards the close of the last century, the object of which was to cripple the commerce of England. Thus, in 1796, the ports of the ecclesiastical state and Genoa, and in 1801, those of Naples and Portugal were closed to British vessels, by special treaties with the French republic. Prussian decrees. In 1806, Prussia, then in vassalage to Napoleon, but at peace with England, and being now in temporary possession of Hanover, issued a decree announcing that the ports and rivers of the North Sea were closed to English shipping, as they had been during the French occupation of Hanover. By way of retaliation, the British government gave notice to neutral powers, that the coast from the Elbe to Brest was placed in a state of blockade, of which coast the portion from Ostend to the Seine was to be considered as under the most rigorous blockade, while the remainder was open to * Klüber, § 303. neutral vessels not laden with enemies' goods, nor with goods. contraband of war, nor guilty of a previous violation of blockade, nor sent from the ports of enemies of the British govern ment. Berlin decree. This measure led to the Berlin decree of Bonaparte, bearing the date of November 21, 1806. In this decree, issued from the capital of subjugated Prussia, after reciting the infractions of international law with which England was chargeable, the Emperor declares the British islands to be under blockade, and all commerce with them to be forbidden, English manufactures to be lawful prize, and vessels from ports of England or her colonies to be excluded from all ports, and to be liable to confiscation, if they should contravene the edict by false papers. The Berlin decree "rendered every neutral vessel going from English ports with cargoes of English mer- First orders in chandise, or of English origin, lawfully seizable council. by French armed vessels.* The British government was not slow in its retaliation. By an order of council, dated Jan. 7, 1807, it was declared "that no vessel should be permitted to sail from one port to another, both of which ports should belong to or be in the possession of France or her allies, or should be so far under their control, that British vessels might not trade thereat." And by a second order of council, dated Nov. 11, 1807, it was declared that, as the previous Second orders in order had not induced the enemy to alter his council. measures, all places of France, her allies and their colonies, as also of states at peace with Great Britain and yet excluding her flag, should be under the same restrictions as to commerce, as if they were blockaded by British forces. All commerce in the productions of such states was pronounced illegal, and all vessels so engaged, with their cargoes, if taken, were to be adjudged lawful prize. But neutrals might trade with the colonies, or even with the ports of states thus under the ban, for goods to be consumed by themselves, provided they either * Words of M. Champagny, French minister of foreign relations, Oct. 7, 1807. started from or entered into a British port, or sailed directly from the enemies' colonies to a port of their own state. Moreover, as certain neutrals had obtained from the enemy "certificates of origin" so called, to the effect that the cargoes of their vessels were not of British manufacture, it was ordered that vessels, carrying such certificates, together with the part of the cargo covered by them, should be confiscated, as the prize of the captor. A supplement to this order declared that ships sold by the enemy to a neutral would be deemed illegally sold, and be considered lawful prize, while another supplement regulated the manner in which neutrals must carry on their commerce, and prescribed licenses, without which trade in certain articles would be held unlawful. Against these orders the French Emperor fulminated the Milan decree of Dec. 17, 1807, declaring that Milan decree. every vessel which submitted to be searched by an English cruiser, or to make a voyage to England, or to pay a tax to the English government, had lost the right to its own flag, and had become English property; that such vessels, falling into the hands of French cruisers, or entering French ports, would be regarded as lawful prize; and that every vessel holding communication with Great Britain or with her colonies, if taken, would be condemned. Measures of the These arbitrary extensions of the right of war, by which neutral rights were sacrificed to the retaliation of the belligerents, were calculated to grind to pieces the few remaining neutral powers. Our country, being the principal state in this condition, made strong complaints, the disregard of which led to more positive measures. In December, 1807, an embargo was laid on commercial vessels in the ports of the United States, and in March, 1809, was passed an act prohibiting intercourse with France and England, until their restrictions on neutral commerce should be removed; which act was to continue in force towards either country, until it should revoke its obnoxious decrees. This led to some relaxation on the part of Great Britain. |