BLOCKADE. 



71 



contending parties. Under these circumstances, if any 

 British ship, being a neutral, knowingly attempts to 

 break an effective blockade, she is liable to capture and 

 condemnation. If such ship defends herself by force 

 against a national vessel enforcing such blockade, such 

 defence is a breach of the law of nations, and will expose 

 the ship and cargo to condemnation as a prize, and those 

 persons who commit the act to personal responsibility 

 and severe treatment, according to the laws of war, the 

 act of such persons being considered by the law and 

 usage of nations as one of unjustifiable hostility. 



I am to state that the general rule as to trading by 

 neutrals in time of war with belligerents is, that they 

 may freely trade, but that they are bound to respect 

 eve'ry effective blockade, and that if they carry contra- 

 band of war to either belligerent, they do so at the 

 risk of capture and condemnation by the other, if dis- 

 covered. 



In France, also, application was made to the 

 Minister of Commerce, M. Kocher, for informa- 

 tion. In reply, he states that he informed 

 them, on the 5th of June, "of the principles 

 of international law which the Imperial Gov- 

 ernment desired to establish, in the war that 

 has broken out between the North and the 

 South of the United States." He then adds: 

 " I consider it my duty to lay before you some 

 explanations, agreed upon with the Department 

 of Foreign Affairs, and which make known the 

 limitations within which commerce has a right 

 to reckon on the protection of the Imperial 

 Government." 



In these explanations he thns expresses that 

 which must be regarded as the views of the 

 French Government at this time : 



The admission by all the Powers of this principle, 

 that the blockade, to be obligatory, must be effective, 

 has remedied the abuse which formerly sprung from 

 the right of excluding neutrals from points that were 

 declared blockaded. The effectiveness of the blockade 

 is, to-day, for all the world, the essential condition of 

 its validity. But so soon as there are, at the places to 

 which a belligerent wishes to interdict access, forces 

 sufficient to prevent their being approached without 

 exposure to a certain danger, the neutral is compelled, 

 no matter how prejudicial to him it may be, to respect 

 the blockade. If he violates it he exposes himself to 

 being treated as an enemy by the belligerent with re- 

 spect to whom he has deviated from the duties of neu- 

 trality. 



Another error of the claimants is to believe that the 

 blockade does not exist until it is notified diplomati- 

 cally, and that it does not apply to neutral vessels that 

 have quitted their country previously to the notifica- 

 tion. A blockade is obligatory from the moment that 

 it is effectively established ; being the material result 

 of a material fact, it commences with the real invest- 

 ment of the place, continues so long as that invest- 

 ment remains, and ceases with it. 



It matters little that neutrals are ignorant of the 

 fact If one of their vessels presents itself at the 

 place, the belligerent has the right to forbid its en- 

 trance. The general usage is doubtless for a govern- 

 ment to inform other governments of the measures of 

 blockade to which it has recourse ; but this notifica- 

 tion, which is not by an absolute rule, is of no value 

 by itself; it is only the announcing of an existing fact, 

 which would already produce its effects. It may some- 

 times serve, it is true, to diminish the losses which 

 neutrals may have to sustain in consequence of the state 

 of war, by preventing them from undertaking useless 

 commercial expeditions for places really blockaded; 

 but it is evident, on the other hand, that if neutrals 

 suspended or modified, according to this notification, 

 their commercial operations, they would be exposed 

 to the danger of doing so inappropriately, in case the 



blockade did not actually exist, or in case it had 

 already closed at the time their expeditions might 

 have arrived. 



It is by erroneously attributing to the diplomatic 

 notices of blockade a value and a signification which 

 they have not in themselves, that it might be pretend- 

 ed to exclude neutrals from an entire territory, the 

 access to which could not in reality be interdicted ; 

 and it is for the purpose of rendering these fictitious 

 blockades entirely impossible that the agreement has 

 been entered into at present not to consider a neutral 

 as entitled to notice of the existence of a blockade 

 except at the blockaded places themselves. This prac- 

 tice, which leaves a belligerent the_ faculty of acting 

 with all the promptitude often required by operations 

 of war, which permits a military chief to blockade, ac- 

 cording to necessity, places distant from his country 

 before ne has instructed his government of the fact, 

 has this advantage for the neutral, that it does not im- 

 pose upon him obligations inevitably onerous, except, 

 at least, under circumstances where he must inevit- 

 ably submit to them. 



In the blockade of the Southern ports, neu- 

 tral vessels were allowed fifteen days to leave 

 port after the actual commencement of the 

 blockade, whether such vessels were with or 

 without cargoes. But it was declared that the 

 law of blockade did not permit a vessel in a 

 blockaded port to take on board cargo after the 

 commencement of the blockade. 



For the views of the Government on the 

 blockade of its own ports, see DIPLOMATIC COE- 

 EESPOXDEXCE, Mr. Seward's letter to Mr. Adams, 

 dated July 21st. 



It was considered in London that an infallible 

 test was furnished that the blockade was ef- 

 fective, by the fact that cotton was 5d. per pound 

 in New Orleans and \1d. per pound in Liverpool. 



Several minor questions arose in the courts 

 of the United States out of this blockade, one 

 or two of which are worthy of notice. 



The authority of the President to institute 

 the blockade was denied, and it was insisted 

 that this power, under the Constitution of the 

 United States, could only be exercised by the 

 National Legislature. The views of the Cir- 

 cuit Court at "Washington were that the 

 President was commander-in-chief of the army 

 and navy, and, as such, he was authorized to 

 direct the movements of the naval and military 

 forces, placed by law at his command, and to 

 employ them in the manner he may deem most 

 effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the 

 enemy. 



As chief of the navy, nobody can doubt the 

 right of its commander to order a fleet or a ship 

 to capture an enemy's vessel at sea, or to bom- 

 bard a fortress on shore ; and it is only another 

 mode of assault and injury to the same enemy 

 to shut up his harbors and close his trade by 

 the same ship or fleet. The same weapons are 

 used. The commander only varies the mode 

 of attack. 



In cases of invasion by a foreign power, or 

 insurrection at home, it is exclusively with the 

 President to decide whether the exigencies for 

 calling out the militia have arisen. These are 

 political questions, determinable by the Execu- 

 tive alone, and the Courts follow that branch 

 of the Government. 



