·502 ENGLISH AUTHORITIES blockaded port, even before the ship is affected with a knowledge of the blockade." Ultimately the free passage of goods not contraband in neutral bottoms and under neutral flags, must be adopted and accepted as part of the law of nations, even if it be not so substantially since the Paris Convention of 1856, and by the numerous treaties of the United States with other states. The Spes and Irene (5 Ch. Rob. 77) was the case of two vessels captured and condemned for violation of the blockade of the Elbe. It appeared that the owner had knowledge of the blockade, wrote to his master informing him of it, and directed him to continue his course till he was warned or turned away. The breach of blockade was complete by the attempt to enter. The true rule is, that after the knowledge of an existing blockade, a neutral may not go to the very station of blockade under pretense of inquiry. The equity allowed to American vessels during its first war was this: that ships sailing from America before the knowledge of the blockade had reached America, should be entitled to a notice, even at the blockaded port; and that ships sailing afterwards, might sail on a contingent destination even to that port, with the purpose of calling at some British port, or at some neutral port for information; and that they should be allowed the benefit of such a contingent destination to be ascertained and rendered definite by the information which they should receive in Europe. But in no case was it held that they might sail to the mouth of a blockaded port to inquire whether a blockade, of which they had received previous formal notice, was still in existence Condemnation was decreed, and on appeal, the or not. decree was affirmed in 1807. The Adonis (ibid. 256) was the case of a vessel captured while sailing towards Havre, after having been warned by one of the blockading frigates that Havre was under blockade. The master's ignorance of his locality or the French coast was no justification for his heading for that coast after notice. The ship was condemned, and the cargo involved in the same penalty, inasmuch as the master could hardly be presumed to commit such persistent fraud, contrary to the instructions and intention of the owner of the cargo. The Shepherdess (ibid. 262) was another case of obstinacy and willful perseverance on the part of a master to violate the blockade of Havre, after warning; thereby defeating the effect of a contingent destination as to American vessels. And the owners of the ship being concluded by the conduct of the master, and the interests of the cargo implicated in it also, both ship and cargo were condemned. The Apollo (ibid. 286) was a case where a master was warned of the blockade of Dieppe by indorsement on his papers. But he persistently hovered round the port, watching a chance to run the blockade, was captured and his vessel condemned; his persistence after notice justifying the condemnation. The Neutralitet (6 ibid. 34) was a case of false destination, and deviating to the neighborhood of a blockaded port, anchoring near the shore batteries. It was claimed that anchoring in an open road with a design of going in, could not, on principles of law, be deemed a violation of the blockade of the port. But the ship and cargo were condemned, the alleged defense being held unsound. The General Hamilton (ibid. 61) was a case of pur 504 ENGLISH AUTHORITIES chase in a blockaded port by an American merchant; and by him the vessel was despatched on a voyage from the Seine to New Orleans, but compelled, by stress of weather, to put into an English port, where she was seized. The purchaser intervened as claimant for the property, and also set up that the voyage was at an end. But the court held, that purchase in a blockaded port constituted the illegal act for which the penalty would attach, and that the pretended termination of the voyage did not lawfully operate to defeat the incurred penalty of confiscation. Condemned. The Christina Margaretha (ibid. 62) was restored, and captor's expenses refused. A blockade de facto existed at Cadiz in 1805. Sir J. Ord announced that "neutral ships might sail," thereby relaxing the blockade. Permission to pass the blockading squadron was a remission of all penalty. But a British cruiser in the channel arrested the vessel, though not at the time employed in the blockading service; the result was simple restoration without captor's expenses. The Triheten (ibid. 65) was released on the ground that the blockade of Cadiz was raised and not reëstablished at the time of capture, by reason of the blockading squadron having been driven off by a superior force. Without proof of resumption, there could be no actual blockade, and consequently no penalty for its breach could lawfully attach. In the Hoffnung (ibid. 116), it was held that the raising of a blockade by a superior force is a total defeasance of that blockade and its operations, and when removed it should be by notification, before foreign nations could be affected with an obligation of observing it. The mere appearance of another squadron would not restore the blockade, but that the same measures would be necessary for the recommencement that had been required for the original imposition of it, and that foreign merchants were not bound to act on any presumption that it would be de facto resumed. In the Vigilantia (ibid. 122), it was held, that a neutral purchaser of a vessel, after a blockade commenced, cannot sell such vessel in a blockaded port, if such purchase had been originally made of an enemy. Still the court pronounced its opinion with this qualification, that it had already been favorably determined in the Potsdam (4 Ch. Rob. 89), that a ship originally neutral and upon which no suspicion of enemy's property could arise, might be transferred by one neutral to another in a blockaded port. In the Tutela (ibid. 177), notoriety is sufficient to affect a master who is admitted to be cognizant of a blockade de facto, without warning off by the blockading force. The Maria (ibid. 201) was a case of an apparent evasion of the blockade of the river Weser by previously lightering the goods to the river Jahde, west of the mouth of the Weser; and then shipping the goods to America. But the court remitted the penalty because there had been a special relaxation of the trade to Bremen. Ibid. 204 n., The Charlotte Sophia. And in regard to the rivers Elbe, Weser and Ems, on or near each of which were the neutral ports, Hamburg, Bremen and Embden, great difficulty was necessarily encountered by the court in doing precise justice, without trenching upon neutral rights, however a declared blockade of such rivers was enforced. The Rolla (ibid 364) was an alleged violation of the 506 ENGLISH AUTHORITIES blockade of Montevideo instituted by Sir Home Popham, the British commander on the South American station in 1806. The case was elaborately argued, and the claimant's objections, though unsustained, will be sufficiently presented by citing the conclusion of Sir Wm. Scott's judgment. "I am of opinion," he said, "therefore, that the blockade existed under competent authority; that it was notified in a credible manner; and that it came to the knowledge of these parties in such a way as must bind them; that no circumstances occurred to invalidate the notice previous to the capture; and that nothing which happened since can have the effect of relieving this ship and cargo from the penalty of condemnation." The Christiansberg (ibid. 376) sailed, in February 1807, with cheese and butter, from Rotterdam, ostensibly for Smyrna, but put into Alicant in distress, as alleged. The outward cargo was there sold, another taken on board, with which she sailed for Copenhagen, and on her passage thither was captured. The excuse of distress was deemed unsatisfactory; and it was held, substantially, that one act of fraudulent evasion of an inhibited port or trade would infect the subsequent part of a voyage, its continuity remaining unbroken, until such infection could be radically and legally purged. Weelvaart van Pillaw, 2 Ch. Rob. 128. See also note, p. 382, the Randers Bye. In the Leucade (Spinks' Pr. Cases, 222), Dr. Lushing ton, in 1855, said: "The materials for inquiring into the practice of the Prize Court of Admiralty in England, are not of very great extent. The Reports of Sir Christopher Robinson, of Dr. Edwards, or Sir John Dodson, and Mr. Acton (Thomas Harman) are our principal sources |