case of pacific blockade, seizes both the ships of the blockaded powers and neutral ships and confiscates both. Hall declares that this statement is entirely destitute of foundation, and, referring to the French blockade of Mexican ports in 1838, says: "This is believed to be the only occasion on which vessels of third powers have been confiscated; though, if the pacific character of the Formosan blockade had been omitted, and neutral vessels had been seized, they would have been treated, it would seem, in like manner." (Hall, Int. Law (5th ed.), 372, note.)

From the brevity of Hall's reference to the French blockade of Mexican ports in 1838, it is uncertain whether he did not overlook the fact that the pacific blockade was afterwards converted into an avowed hostile blockade.

From 1838 to 1840, France, and from 1845 to 1848, France and England blockaded certain ports on the river Plate. With reference to this blockade, Lord Palmerston, writing in 1846 to the British ambassador at Paris, expressed the opinion that the French and English blockade had been " from first to last illegal," and that, unless a state of war existed, there was no right "to prevent ships of other states" from communicating with the blockaded ports. To this language, says Hall, "there is nothing to add, except an expression of surprise that the subject could have ever presented itself to any mind in a different light... It is only under the supreme necessities of war, that other states can be reasonably asked to forego their right of intercourse with the enemy. . . . The practice, however, assumes a very different aspect when it is so conducted as to be harmless to the interests of third powers. It is a means of constraint much milder than actual war, and therefore, if sufficient for its purpose, it is preferable in itself."

Hall, Int. Law (5th ed.), 374–375.

In 1850 Great Britain, as a punishment for certain alleged injuries inflicted by Greek soldier-police on the officers of the British ship Fantome and to compel the payment of certain indemnities, blockaded the ports of Greece. This blockade was withdrawn without resulting in a state of war.

In 1860 Victor Emmanuel, then King of Piedmont, joined the revolutionary government of Naples in blockading ports in Sicily then held by the King of Naples. The relations between the courts of Turin and Naples continued to be legally peaceful.

The British Government demanded reparation from Brazil for the plundering of the British barque Prince of Wales on the Brazilian coast in 1861. It also demanded redress for what was termed an outrage on three officers of the British man-of-war Forte by the Brazilian guard at Tijuca Hill. As the British demands were refused,

the British admiral instituted a pacific blockade of the port of Rio de Janeiro, and seized and detained five Brazilian vessels as an act of reprisal. It was subsequently arranged that the claim in the case of the Prince of Wales should be paid under protest and the captured vessels released, the Brazilian Government assuming responsibility for any losses which might have resulted to the citizens of third countries, and that the case of the Forte should be submitted to arbitration.

Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4925; Hall, Int. Law (5th ed.), 372.
Under the head of pacific blockade, Calvo mentions the fact that in
February, 1879, Chile blockaded the coast of Bolivia, which was
then in alliance with Peru, and that, on the 3d of the following
April, war was formally declared by the Chilean chambers. (Calvo,
Droit International, III. sec. 1844.) But as Chile was then at war
with Peru, it is not clear from this statement that the blockade of
the coasts of Peru's ally was supposed to be pacific.

In 1884 France blockaded a portion of the coast of Formosa. "The French Government disavowed any wish to assume the character of a belligerent, but it proposed to treat neutral vessels as liable to capture and condemnation; . Lord Granville . . . intimated that he should consider the hostilities which had in fact taken place, together with the formal notice of blockade, to constitute a state of war;" and declared the contention of the French Government that a pacific blockade conferred on the blockading power the right to capture and to condemn the ships of third nations to be "in conflict with well-established principles of international law."

Hall, Int. Law (5th ed.), 372, 373.

See, also, Holland, Studies in International Law, 135.

In 1886 Greece was blockaded by the fleets of Austria, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and Russia. In this blockade the powers followed the course adopted by England in the blockade of 1850, when Greek vessels only were seized and sequestrated and when even Greek vessels were allowed to enter with cargoes bona fide the property of foreigners, and to issue from ports if chartered before notice of the blockade was given for the conveyance of cargoes wholly or in part belonging to foreigners.

Hall, Int. Law (5th ed.), 372, 373, note.

In 1888-1889 a very anomalous " blockade of the coasts of Zanzibar was instituted by the British and German admirals, by order of their Governments, but in the name of the Sultan, against the importation of "materials of war and the exportation of slaves." The operation" was in reality a measure of high international police, excrcised, directly or indirectly, by all the powers of western Europe

who were interested in the locality, for the prevention of a traffic generally recognized by them as cruel and immoral." Italy and Portugal aided actively in the blockade, and France sent a war ship to visit vessels flying the French flag. Auxiliary steps were taken on the mainland by the Congo State and the Netherlands.

Holland, Studies in Int. Law, 139-140; referring also to M. Rolin-
Jaequemyns, in the Rev. de Droit Int. XXI. 207.

See Mr. Wharton, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Pratt, consul at Zanzibar,
No. 44, May 10, 1889, 130 MS. Inst. Consuls, 68.

"WASHINGTON, March 20, 1897.

"The undersigned, under instructions from their respective Governments, have the honor to notify the Government of the United States that the admirals in command of the forces of Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and Russia in Cretan. waters have decided to put the island of Crete in a state of blockade, commencing the 21st instant, at 8 a. m.

“The blockade will be general for all ships under the Greek flag. Ships of the six powers or neutral powers may enter into the ports occupied by the powers and land their merchandise, but only if it is not for the Greek troops or the interior of the island. The ships may be visited by the ships of the international fleets.

"The limits of the blockade are comprised between 23° 24′ and 26 30′ longitude east of Greenwich, and 35° 48′ and 34° 45′ north latitude.

JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE, H. B. M. Ambassador.

“PATENÔTRE, Ambassadeur de la Republique Francaise. "FAVA, Ambasciatore d'Italia.

"THIELMANN, Etc., Ete., Etc.

"VON HENGELMULLER, Etc., Etc., Etc.

"KOTZEBUE, Etc., Etc., Etc."

Enclosure with Sir Julian Pauncefote, British ambass., to Mr. Sherman,
Sec. of State, March 24, 1897, For. Rel. 1897, 254.

"I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 24th in-tant, transmitting to me a communication under date of March 20, 1897, signed by yourself and the representatives of France, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia at this capital, relative to certain measures taken by the naval forces of the great powers, signatories of the treaty of Berlin, in the waters of the island of Crete.

"As the United States is not a signatory of the treaty of Berlin, nor otherwise amenable to the engagements thereof, I confine myself to taking note of the communication, not conceding the right to make such a blockade as that referred to in your communication, and reserving the consideration of all international rights and of any ques

tion which may in any way affect the commerce or interests of the United States."

Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Sir Julian Pauncefote, British amb., March 26, 1897, For. Rel. 1897, 255.

The note of Sir Julian Pauncefote of March 24, 1897, which Mr. Sherman thus acknowledged, was as follows:

"On behalf of my Government and at the request of my colleagues, the representatives of Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia, I have the honor to transmit the inclosed communication relative to certain measures taken by the naval forces of the great powers, signatories of the treaty of Berlin, in the waters of the island of Crete.

"I desire to explain that this communication has not been delivered on
the date which it bears owing to an accidental delay in the receipt
of their instructions by some of my colleagues."

A notice, similar to that communicated to the Department of State in
Washington, was published in a supplement of the London Gazette,
March 19, 1897, copies of which were officially communicated by the
foreign office to the United States embassy, March 20, 1897. (For.
Rel. 1897, 253-254.)

Dec. 13, 1898, the British ambassador at Washington transmitted to the Department of State a communication signed by himself, as well as by the representatives of France, Italy, and Russia, saying: "The admirals of the four powers in Cretan waters have issued a notice that the blockade of Crete has been raised from the 5th of December instant, but that the importation of arms and munitions. of war is absolutely prohibited."

For. Rel. 1898, 384.

The German ambassador at Washington, in a promemoria of Dec. 20, 1901, referring to the design of his Government to use coercive measures against Venezuela to bring about a settlement of claims, and to this end to employ in the first instance a pacific blockade, said that this blockade "would touch likewise the ships of neutral powers, inasmuch as such ships, although a confiscation of them would not have to be considered, would have to be turned away and prohibited until the blockade should be raised." No response appears to have been made to this notice at the time; but, a year later, when it was announced that Germany and Great Britain would act together, Mr. Hay, on Dec. 12, 1902, directed Mr. Tower, the American ambassador at Berlin, to say that the United States adhered to its position in the case of the Cretan blockade in 1897, and therefore did "not acquiesce in any extension of the doctrine of pacific blockade which may adversely affect the rights of states not parties to the controversy, or discriminate against the commerce of neutral nations,” and that the United States reserved all its rights in the premises. The German Government replied that it was at first inclined to a pacific

blockade, but that, yielding to the wishes of Great Britain, which had insisted on establishing a warlike blockade, it would join with that Government in announcing such a blockade in a few days. Mr. Tower also reported that he had been assured that Germany" at present has no intention whatever to declare war or to proceed beyond the establishment of [a] warlike blockade." In response to an inquiry by Mr. Hay as to what was intended by a "warlike blockade without war, especially as regards neutrals," the German Government stated that, although it was not intended to make a formal declaration of war, a state of war would actually exist, and that the warlike blockade would be attended with all the conditions of such a measure, just as if war had been formally declared. A blockade of Puerto Cabello and Maracaibo was proclaimed by Germany on Dec. 20, 1902.

On Dec. 12, 1902, an instruction similar to that sent on the same day to the American ambassador at Berlin was addressed to the American embassy in London. On the 18th of December the embassy reported that the prime minister, Mr. Balfour, had stated in the House of Commons that he agreed with the United States in thinking there can be no such thing as a pacific blockade; " that "evidently a blockade does involve a state of war," and that a formal rotice would be issued in due time for the information of neutrals. Such a notice was published on Dec. 20.

It may be observed that the United States did not take the ground that there could be "no such thing" as a pacific blockade; it stated that it could not acquiesce" in any extension" of the doctrine of pacific blockade so as to affect "the rights of states not parties to the controversy."

For. Rel. 1903, pp. 420, 421, 423, 452, 455, 458.

For the promemoria of the German ambassador, see For. Rel. 1901, 196.

In 1887 the Institute of International Law, twenty-seven members being present, adopted a declaration to the effect that pacific blockade should be recognized as permitted by the law of nations only under the following conditions: (1) That ships under a foreign flag should be allowed freely to enter in spite of the blockade; (2) that the blockade should be declared and notified officially and maintained by a sufficient force; (3) that ships of the blockaded power which should fail to respect the blockade should be sequestered, and that when blockade had ceased they should be restored with their cargoes to their owners, but without any damages for their detention.

Annuaire de l'Institut, 1887-88, 300.

"It has been erroneously stated, even by Dr. Wharton, Digest, vol. iii, p. 408, that the Institut' had, in 1875, expressed itself as opposed to pacific blockade for any purpose. The question was never before the Institut' in 1875; and the mistake is due to the fact that in a 'Questionnaire' addressed to the members of a committee on private