the learned judge, afterward Lord Stowell, concluded that the change of destination had caused the vessel's guilt to cease. Articles 17 and 19 draw a fine, and it seems to the writer, a proper distinction between the treatment of the neutral vessel and any other, whether of the blockading state, of the enemy or, in the case of blockade of an occupied port, of a vessel belonging in that port. The neutral vessel is made liable to capture only within the area of the blockading squadron's operations, beyond which, either in the case of attempted ingress or egress, she can consider herself safe, provided the pursuit has not begun within the area of blockade. The two articles in question, to be sure, are not exactly intended to deal precisely with the same condition, but there is nothing evident in their wording which precludes such a conclusion to be drawn and the line of speculation just set down is given as a hint of a possible complication that might arise. Viewed separately, each is an excellent statement of the principle involved. The obvious intention of Article 17 is to say that a neutral vessel is liable to capture only while in delictu, and Article 19 is evidently a blow at the Anglo-Saxon dictum that a vessel is subject to apprehension at any time during a continuous voyage. It embodies the decision in The Imina more nearly perhaps than the stricter European theory. Article 20 is a compromise between Anglo-Saxondom and Europe. German, Spanish, French, and Italian writers have in general agreed that a vessel may be seized when traversing or attempting to traverse the line of investment, in the port blockaded, or at the moment of attempted egress. They add that if the neutral vessel, when it seeks to violate a blockade, is pursued by a vessel of the investing squadron and tries to escape by flight, it may be pursued and captured on the high seas, before its entry into a port or jurisdictional waters of a neutral state.17 English and American jurists and writers, on the other hand, maintain that the vessel is not safe from pursuit until she has reached her port of destination and that putting into an intermediary port, either through force or voluntarily, does not 17 See Hautefeuille, Droits et devoirs des nations neutres, tom. II, p. 225; Fauchille, op. cit., p. 355: Gessner, Le droit de neutres sur mer, p. 228; Spanish decree, November 26, 1864, art. 6; Perels, Manuel de droit maritime, p. 307. efface the liability. Pursuit, by the terms of the Declaration, must now be continuous to be effective. Whether it would be held a continuous pursuit if a vessel in flight made an intermediary port safely only to issue forth and fall into the power of a warship of the blockading squadron which had followed and waited continuously, is a question that must await adjudication to be answered. It is probable, if the court were a state one, the decision would depend largely upon the nationality of the judge. Article 21. A vessel found guilty of breach of blockade is liable to condemnation. The cargo is also condemned, unless it is proved that at the time of the shipment of the goods the shipper neither knew nor could have known of the intention to break the blockade. The liability of vessel and cargo to condemnation is admitted in "tous les traites pendant le XIXe siècle." 18 The principle is admitted in the regulations of Denmark, February 16, 1864; Prussia, June 20, 1864; Spain, November 26, 1864; Italy, June 20, 1866; Austria, July 9, 1866, etc. The Panaghia Rhomba case (12 Moore's Privy Council 168, Scott Cas. 800) came up on that question, and it was held both originally and on appeal that "the owners of the cargo are concluded by the illegal act of the master (of the vessel), though it may have been done without their privity, and even contrary to their wishes." The rule involved was declared by the Rt. Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh to be "established by authority not now to be questioned." 15 The affirmation in that judgment half a century ago could scarcely be made in its entirety in accordance with the Declaration of London, but the latter certainly leaves the burden of proof upon the owner of the cargo. In conclusion, a word is worth saying in compliment to the framers of the London rules on blockade. Working as they did under the constant necessity of compromising issues, they produced a set of regulations that is exceptionally complete and truly does "note, define and complete what might be considered customary law." DENYS P. MYERS. 18 Bonfils, Manuel, § 1671, p. 976, 19 Cf. the cases there cited: The Mercurius, 1 Rob. 80 (1798); The Alexander4 Rob. 94 (1801); The Adonis, 5 Rob. 259 (1804); The Exchange, 1 Edward's Rep. 42 (1808); The James Cook, ibid. 261 (1810). THE HISTORY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE VI SUBDIVISIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT I When the old government gave place to the new in 1789 the state papers of the old Congress were placed in the hands of Roger Alden and Henry Remsen, the former having those which related to domestic affairs, the latter those relating to foreign affairs.1 The papers were turned over to the Secretary of State when his department was created, excepting those pertaining to the Treasury and War Departments which were delivered to the heads of those departments. (Sec. 7, Act of September 15, 1790.) When John Jay assumed temporarily the direction of the Department of State he put Remsen in charge of the foreign affairs of the Department and Alden in charge of its domestic duties; and when Jefferson entered upon the office of Secretary of State he confirmed this arrangement, and the heads of these subdivisions held equal rank. His estimates for the expenses of his Department in 1790 were for "The Home Office" and "The Foreign Office; " but after Alden's resignation on July 25 of that year the arrangement of a single chief clerk, which the law had originally contemplated, was effected, and the two divisions of the Department were merged under Remsen.2 In 1802 William Thornton was put in charge of the Patent business of the Department and that became the first distinct and permanent subdivision. He took the title of Superintendent soon after his appointment, but there was no statutory recognition of the designation until the appropriation act of 1818 provided for his salary as superintendent. The first specific appropriation for the salaries 3 1 Am. Journal of Int. Law, July, 1908, p. 605. 3 3 Stat. 445. 4 of the secretary and officers (clerks) of the Department was for the year 1792 and amounted to $6,300; for 1793 it was $8,150; 5 for 1794, $9,661.67; 6 for 1795, $11,721.79. The compensation of the chief clerk had been fixed by law at $800, but the Act of 1794 gave him an additional allowance of $200.8 No clerk could be paid more than $500 under the law, until the Act of 1795 permitted the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and War to vary the compensation according to the services performed, keeping the whole expenditure within the appropriation, but no chief clerk was to receive more than $1,000. In 1797 the appropriations had risen to $16,497.64.10 In 1799 the salary of the Secretary was increased to $5,000,11 and in 1801 there was an appropriation of fifteen per cent over the amount appropriated in 1799 to the clerks in the several departments.12 Following this provision, on June 25, 1801, the clerks addressed Secretary Madison asking him to apportion the extra allowance among them.13 The extra allowances occasionally provided by law were the only compensation received by the clerks beyond their regular salaries. and the custom which prevailed in England among the clerks in the Foreign Office of receiving pecuniary gifts from foreign ministers never became the practice in WashingThe expectations of such gifts in London are indicated by the following letter to Rufus King, American Envoy at London, dated January 15, 1800: ton. The Clerks of the Foreign Office present their respects to Mr. King and have taken the liberty of directing the Bearer Mr. Turner to wait upon His Excellency for the Christmas gratuity usually given to them by the Foreign Ministers.14 List of the names and compensation of the persons employed in the Department of State, in the year 1806, viz. Mr. WAGNER, $2,000. The chief clerk distributes the business among the others, and superintends its execution, under the direction of the secretary. His active duties are diversified according to the nature and pressure of the general business of the department; and among them may be particularized his assistance in its correspondence upon minor subjects. Mr. BRENT, $1,000. In conjunction with Mr. Smith, he attends to the business of impressed seamen, and assists in collating the laws preparatory to their publication, which he superintends. Mr. THOM, $881. Makes out and records Virginia military land patents; pays the awards under the seventh article of the British treaty, so far as they are payable in the department, and keeps the contingent accounts of the department. Makes out and records patents for military bounty lands; for lands in John Cleves Simmes' tract; exequaturs for consuls; all civil commissions, and commissions for militia officers within the district of Columbia; records the correspondence with our ministers in foreign countries, and transmits the laws to the printers for promulgation. Mr. SMITH, $800. Records all the correspondence, except that with the ministers abroad, and in conjunction with Mr. Brent, attends to the business relative to impressed seamen, and to collating the laws, previous to their publication. Mr. FORREST, $800. Makes out and records patents for lands sold under the direction of the registers; and also, passports for citizens going abroad. His knowledge of the French language, which he speaks, is found an useful quality. Mr. I. GARDNER, for occasional service in filling up and record-) ing land patents, $25 Among other business too various to be detailed, there is a considerable quantity of copying, particularly of correspondence with our ministers. and agents abroad, frequently including voluminous documents: This is performed by the gentlemen of the office, according to the state of their other engagements, without its being the stationary business of any. |