Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/743

 686

who might contravene such warning, as the property of individuals who were in reality in league with the enemy. The States Gen eral of Holland appear to have maintained this practice without any serious dispute on the part of the other nations as late as the beginning of the sixteenth century; but it came to be questioned towards the end of that century as an immoderate exercise of belligerent right, since which time it has been generally disclaimed, and may now be regarded as obsolete. Upon the other hand, the practice of intercepting all mer chant vessels trading with the enemy's coast is as old as war itself. It has been observed that the usage of belligerents to forbid by proclamation all trade with the enemy, and to confiscate the property of parties contravening their pro clamation was successfully impugned in the seventeenth century, as an unreasonable exercise of belligerent force, and may now be regarded as having no sanction from the modern practice of nations of the first rank. We may trace back to the same century the first systematic attempt to regulate the bel ligerent right of blockade, which originated with the Dutch. "On the question of block ade," says Lord Stowell, "three things must be proved—(i) the existence of an actual blockade; (2) the knowledge of the party; (3) some act of violation either by going in or coming out with a cargo laden after the commencement of the blockade." The point, therefore, which must be considered is, what constitutes an actual blockade? It was one of the objects of the Armed Neu trality—a confederacy against England, formed by Russia, Sweden and Denmark in 1780—to establish a more precise rule than had previously prevailed for determining when a port was actually in a state of block ade, in order that an obligation to abstain from trading with such a port might be im posed upon the merchants of neutral coun tries. In pursuance of that object. Russia communicated to the various European powers a declaration of the principles of the Armed Neutrality comprised in four prop

ositions, the fourth of which was to the ef fect that in order to determine what char acterised a blockaded port, that term shall only be applied to a port where, from the arrangement made by the attacking force. there is evident danger in entering the port. Great Britain acceded to this definition of a blockaded port at her convention with Russia in 1801, and the principles generally affirmed by the great nations of the world may be said to be in harmony with it. At the beginning of the Crimean war (in 18541. France and England may be considered to have affirmed the same principle when they declared their intention "to maintain the right of a belligerent to prevent neutrals from breaking any effective blockade which may be established with an adequate force against the enemy's ports, harbors or coasts.'' Upon the conclusion of peace— it will be remembered that both England and France were supporting Turkey against Russia—the subject of belligerent blockade came under the consideration of the Powers assembled at Paris in the Congress of 1856. when it was agreed to remove all uncer tainty among themselves by declaring their view of the maritime law on the subject, and by inviting all other nations to accede to a common declaration. The proposition which was adopted by the Congress was as follows: "Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective; that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy." A knowledge of a blockade, however ac quired, will preclude the captain of a neu tral ship from any claim to receive a direct warning from the blockading squadron, even if the ship should have sailed from the port where she had shipped her cargo with out a knowledge of the blockade. The gen eral notoriety of a blockade will be pre sumed after it has been publicly notified and dr facto maintained for any considera ble period. Yours very truly, LAWRENCE IRWELL. Buffalo. New York, September 3, 190x4.