In 1893 the Government of Nicaragua notified the Pacific Mail Steamship Company that its steamers must not call at San Juan del Sur. In view of the fact that the company was obliged under its contract with the United States to deliver mails at that port and that no notice of its blockade had been given, the company asked to be instructed as to whether the order of the Nicaraguan authorities. should be obeyed. As the port in question was understood to be in the hands of the insurgents, the Department of State declined to instruct the company that its steamers should call there, and advised the Postmaster-General of its action. Subsequently the Government of Nicaragua declared the port of Corinto to be closed to shipping and ordered the steamers of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company not to touch there for the time being. Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to the Postmaster-General, May 22, 1893, 192 During the revolution in Venezuela, in 1899, when the Castro Government sought by a decree to close Puerto Cabello, which was in the hands of the opposition forces, the American and British naval officers then in Venezuelan waters took possession of the papers of ves sels of their respective nationalities and granted them clearances when needed. It was said not to have been uncommon in Venezuela, in time of revolution, for American and other naval officers to grant clearances to vessels of their respective nationalities under such circumstances. For. Rel. 1899, 784, 788. "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a communication from the State Department, dated August 15, 1900, transmitting at copy of a note addressed to the Secretary of State by the imperial German ambassador at this capital, wherein complaint is made against the orders of the military government of the Philippine Archipelago, whereby commercial intercourse with the inhabitants of the Sulu Islands was at one time prohibited and subsequently restricted to the ports in the possession of the military forces of the United States, in which ports it is subject to certain regulations. "I note your statement that you shall be glad to transmit to the embassy your reply to its expressed hope that the military orders of which complaint is made will be rescinded.' "Replying to your communication, I have the honor to state as follows: "The Sulu Islands are now subject to military occupation. The right of the commander of the occupying force to regulate or prohibit trade with territory so occupied is one of the recognized and well-received laws and usages of war and nations. (9 How. (U. S.), 615; Lieber's Instructions to American Armies in the Field, sec. 5, clause 1; Bluntschli, I., sec. 8; Manning, p. 167; Birkhimer, p. 204.) "In addition to the maintenance of military occupation of the Sulu Islands the military forces of the United States are engaged in suppressing an insurrection in a portion of the Philippine Archipelago accessible from the Sulu Islands. The military authorities conducting the military operations against said insurrection were at one time of the opinion that a military necessity existed for prohibiting commercial intercourse between the Sulu Islands and the outside world. Thereupon Admiral Dewey, as commander of the military forces of the United States in the Philippines, in June, 1899, issued the following order: “All trade with the Philippines is prohibited, except with the ports of Manila, Iloilo, Cebú, and Bakalota. Ships are hereby warned to go nowhere else in the Philippines.' "Subsequently this order was modified by General Orders, No. 73, series of 1899, dated December 26, 1899; General Orders, No. 30, series of 1900, dated March 10, 1900, and General Orders, No. 34, series of 1900, dated March 13, 1900. Copies of said orders are herewith inclosed. "The military authorities in command of the United States military forces in the Philippines are of opinion that the restrictions and regulations upon trade with the Sulu Islands, now enforced pursuant to said orders, are essential to meet the military necessity occasioned by the insurrection. "These restrictions and regulations are emergency measures, and should be so considered. They are not intended as an evidence or declaration of the permanent policy or practice of the United States, when the condition of peace shall prevail in the Philippines." Mr. Root, Sec. of War, to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, Oct. 15, 1900, Magoon's Reports, 335. See, also, another letter of same to same, same date, and of similar purport, id. 336–338. See Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Herr von Holleben, German ambass., No. 537, Jan. 18, 1900, MS. Notes to German Leg. XII. 536. "To close ports which are in the hands of revolutionists by governmental decree or order is impossible under international law. It may in a proper way and under proper circumstances and conditions in time of peace declare what of its ports shall be open and what of them shall be closed. But when these ports or any of them are in the hands of foreign belligerents or of insurgents, it has no power to close or to open them, for the palpable reason that it is no longer in control of them. It has then the right of blockade alone, which can only be declared to the extent that it has the naval power to make it effective." Plumley, umpire, case of Compagnie Générale des Asphaltes de France. When, in 1903, the Dominican Government declared certain ports, which IV. BREACH OF BLOCKADE. 1. NOTICE, $ 1272. Article 18 of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of 1794 provides that every vessel may be turned away from every blockaded or besieged port or place, which shall have sailed for the same without knowledge of the blockade or siege; but she shall not be detained, nor her cargo, if not contraband, be confiscated unless. after notice, she shall again attempt to enter; but she shall be permitted to go to any other port or place she may think proper. And this treaty is conceived to be a correct exposition of the present law of nations upon this point. The intention must be manifested in such manner as to be equivalent to an attempt. Fitzsimmons r. Newport Ins. Co. (1808), 4 Cranch. 185. In the absence of such a treaty, the courts do not require notice: Field's Code Int. Law, § 892, citing 1 Kent Com. 150; The Circassian, 2 Wall. 135; Wheaton on Capture, 193-207; The Hallie Jackson, Blatchf Prize Cases, 2, 48: The Empress, id. 175; except where the vessel sails without a knowledge of the blockade; The Nayade, 1 Newb. Adm. 366. A vessel sailing ignorantly for a blockaded port is not liable to condemnation under the law of nations. Yeaton . Fry (1809), 5 Cranch, 335, January 5, 1804, the British Admiralty announced, with reference to the blockade of the islands of Martinique and Guadaloupe, that orders had been sent to the British forces "not to consider any blockade of those islands as existing unless in respect of particular ports which may be actually invested, and then not to capture vessels bound to such ports unless they shall have been previously warned not to enter them." The blockade having subsequently been extended to Curaçao, Mr. Merry, the British minister at Washington, informed the United States Government that he could not doubt that the blockade of that island would be "conducted conformably to the instructions," or orders, given with reference to Martinique and Guadaloupe. Held, that the master of an American vessel was, under the circumstances, excusable for proceeding towards Curaçao for the purpose of inquiring whether the blockade still continued. The court expressly reserved any opinion as to what would have been the effect of the master's conduct if the communication by Mr. Merry had not been made. Maryland Ins. Co. v. Wood (1813), 7 Cranch, 402. Under the proclamation of the President of April 19, 1861, only those who are ignorant of the blockade are entitled to the warning and indorsement mentioned in the proclamation. The Revere (1862), 2 Sprague, 107. The provision in the President's proclamation of the 19th of April, 1861, for warning vessels which approached the blockaded ports with a view to entering, did not protect a vessel that sailed for a blockaded port with knowledge of the blockade. The Hiawatha, 2 Black, 677; The Admiral, 3 Wall. 603. It is a settled rule that a vessel in a blockaded port is presumed to have notice of a blockade as soon as it commences. The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635. Notice may be express, to a particular government, or to a ship, or it may be inferred from all the facts, among which notoriety is to be especially considered. To proceed to the mouth of the blockaded port on the plea of there seeking information, exposes the vessel to serious suspicion of knowledge of blockade, and the mere hovering around a blockaded port, as if to seize some unguarded point to enter, is ground for seizure. See The Cornelius, 3 Wall. 214. Knowledge of a recently established blockade may be inferred from facts. The Herald, 3 Wall. 768. The bark Pilgrim, owned two-thirds by citizens of New Orleans and the other third by citizens of New York and Connecticut, and with a cargo consigned to owners in New Orleans, left Bordeaux, France, about May 8, 1861, after news of the blockade of the southern ports had reached that place, so that the American consul would give squadron, and which was captured on coming out, it was claimed that the capture was unlawful because no previous warning of the blockade was given, by an entry on the papers of the vessel or other mode of actual notice. As it appeared, however, that the master was fully aware from the commencement of the voyage of the existence of the blockade, it was held that no further notice was necessary. Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to M. de Sartiges, June 3, 1852, MS. Notes to The case was that of the Jeune Nelly, as to which see United States r. See Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to M. Poussin, Jan. 17, 1849, MS. Notes A vessel duly notified of the blockade of St. Juan de Nicaragua, by a "Neutrals proceeding to such ports can not lawfully be captured for the mere intent, express or implied, of entering them, but must be warned off by the blockading force; but after having thus been duly warned, if they shall again attempt to enter, they are liable to capture and condemnation as lawful prize.” Mr. Clayton, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bowlin, Jan. 24, 1850, 37 MS. Dom. "The safest rule, in regard to the rights of both belligerents and neutrals involved in blockade, is believed to be contained in the 18th article of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of the 19th of November, 1794, in the following words: "And whereas it frequently happens that vessels sail for a port or place belonging to an enemy, without knowing that the same is either besieged, blockaded, or invested, it is agreed that every vessel so circumstanced may be turned away from such port or place, but she shall not be detained, nor her cargo, if not contraband, be confiscated, unless after the notice, she shall again attempt to enter, but she shall be permitted to go to any other port or place she may think proper. "A similar article is contained in many other treaties between the United States and foreign powers." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Lord Lyons, British min., Mar. 24, 1862, The treaty between the United States and Venezuela of the 27th of August, 1860, did not sanction constructive but required actual notice of a blockade. It is true that this instrument has been terminated pursuant to a notice to that effect from the Venezuelan Govern |