160 ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



the application of the same principle. If a port is blockaded, no neutral 

 ship can enter it for any purpose whatever, even for the continuance 

 of a regular.and legitimate commerce established before the war began. 

 And such ship is not only prevented from entering the port, on pain of 

 capture and confiscation of vessel and cargo, but is liable to be cap- 

 tured anywhere upon the high seas and condemned, if it can be shown 

 either that the voyage is intended for a. breach of the blockade, or that 

 such breach has actually taken place. And, though such is not the 

 general rule, it is shown by the decision of Lord Stowell, before cited, 

 that if the necessities of a successful prosecution of the war require it ? 

 a- belligerent may even interdict neutral commerce with ports not block- 

 aded. Admitted by that great judge that such a measure is unusual, 

 harsh, and distressing, and not to be resorted to without necessity, it is 

 nevertheless held to be justifiable when the necessity does actually 

 arise, though that necessity is only for the more effectual prosecution 

 of a war. 



The same rule applies to the conveyance by a neutral to a belligerent 

 port, of freight which is contraband of war, though such freight may 

 not be designed to be in aid of the war, but may be only the continu- 

 ance of a just and regular commerce, before established. And a vessel 

 may be captured anywhere on the high seas if found to be engaged in 

 that business. 



And so if a neutral vessel is engaged in the conveyance of belligerent 

 dispatches or of passengers belonging to the military or naval service 

 of a belligerent, though the vessel so employed may be a regular pas- 

 senger ship on its accustomed route as a common carrier. 



Hostile freight on a neutral ship has long been held liable to capture. 

 If the rule that the tlag covers the cargo may now be said to be estab- 

 lished, it is of comparatively recent origin. 



Upon the same principle has been maintained the right of visitation 

 and search, as against vvcry private vessel on the high seas, by the 

 armed ships of any other nationality. Though this vexatious and 

 injurious claim has been much questioned, it is firmly established in 

 time of war, at least, as against all neutrals. Says Sir William Scott, 

 in the case of Le Louis (2 Dodson, 244): 



This right (of search), incommodious as its exercise may occasionally 

 be, * * * has been fully established in the legal practice of nations, 

 having for its foundation the necessities of self-defense. 1 



1 Sajs Mr. Twiss (Rights anil Duties of Nations in Time of War, ed. 1863, p. 176): 

 "The right of visiting ami searching merchant ships on the high seas, observes 



