existence of which the neutral has, or is presumed to have, sufficient knowledge. An official proclamation of a blockade, made by a belligerent and communicated to neutral powers, would constitute such a presumption of knowledge.' If, on the other hand, the blockade existed without proclamation, the presumption would be in favor of the neutral vessel, and it would be entitled to a warning in approaching the blockaded port.

The former rule was that, if the distance between the ports of origin and destination was so great as to require a considerable time in the prosecution of the voyage, a neutral was entitled to the presumption that the blockade had been raised during the continuance of his voyage, and so was entitled to a warning if the blockade existed at the time of his arrival at the port of destination. The introduction of steam and the

64

"A vessel sailing from a neutral port with intent to violate a blockade is liable to capture and condemnation as prize from the time of sailing."-The Circassian, 2 Wallace, 135. Where a vessel knows of a blockade when she sails, and has no just reason to suppose it has been discontinued, her approach to the mouth of a blockaded port for inquiry is itself a breach of the blockade, and subjects both vessel and cargo_to seizure and condemnation."-The Cheshire, 3 Wallace, 231 [235]. "A blockade, once regularly proclaimed and established, will not be held to be ineffective by continual entries in the log-book, supported by testimony of officers of the vessel seized, that, the weather being clear, no blockading vessels were to be seen off the port from which the vessel sailed."-The Andromeda, 2 Wallace, 481.

Dahlgren, pp. 43-54.

"No trade honestly carried on between neutral ports, whether of the same or different nations, can be lawfully interrupted by bellig

erents; but good faith must preside over such commerce: enemy commerce under neutral disguises has no claim to neutral immunity. ... Neutrals may establish themselves, for the purposes of trade, in ports convenient to either belligerent; and may sell or transport to either such articles as either may wish to buy, subject to the risks of capture for violation of blockade or for the conveyance of contraband to belligerent ports.". The Bermuda, 3 Wallace, 514. A vessel destined for a neutral port with no ulterior destination for the ship, or none by sea for the cargo to any blockaded place, violates no blockade."-The Peterhoff, 5 Ibid. 28. 'Destination alone justifies seizure and condemnation of ship and cargo in voyage to ports under blockade; and such destination justifies equally seizure of contraband in voyage to ports not under blockade; but in the last case, ship and cargo not contraband are free from seizure, except in case of fraud or bad faith.". The Bermuda, 3 Wallace, 514. "Mere sailing for

telegraph, however, have made it practically impossible for such a state of affairs to exist at the present time. Indeed, as blockade-running is now carried on in swift steamers, specially constructed for the purpose, no defence is usually attempted in the case of a vessel captured in the act.

When the offence is one of egress the penalty continues until the vessel reaches the territorial waters of a neutral state. The liability to capture also ceases when the blockade is raised during the return voyage, since the offence exists only so long as the blockade exists.'

Termination of Blockade. A blockade ceases when it is discontinued by the belligerent who establishes it, or is raised by an exercise of force on the part of the belligerent against whom it is declared. In the latter case the right of intercourse

a blockaded port is not an offence; but where the vessel has a knowledge of the blockade, and sails for the blockaded port with the intention of violating it, she is clearly liable to capture."-The Admiral, 3 Wallace, 604. A voyage from a neutral port to a belligerent port is one and the same voyage, whether the destination be ulterior or direct, and whether with or without the interposition of one or more intermediate ports, and whether to be performed by one vessel or by several employed in the same transaction and in the accomplishment of the same purpose."-The Bermuda, 3 Wallace, 514. “A British vessel captured during the rebellion and our blockade of the southern coast, by an American war steamer, on her way from England to Nassau, N. P., condemned as intending to run the blockade ; Nassau being a port which, though neutral within the definition furnished by international law, was constantly and notoriously used as a port of call and transshipment by persons engaged in systematic violations of blockade, and in the con

veyance of contraband of war; the vessel and cargo being consigned to a house well known, from previous suits, to the court as so engaged; the second officer of the vessel, and several of the seamen, examined in preparatorio, testifying strongly that the purpose of the vessel was to break the blockade; and the owner, who was heard, on leave given to him to take further proof touching the use he intended to make of the steamer after arrival in Nassau, and in what trade or business he intended she should be engaged, and for what purpose she was going to that port, saying and showing nothing at all on thos points." The Pearl, 5 Wallace, 574

1

Dahlgren, Int. Law, p. 54; Upton, p. 287; Hall, § 263. "The liability to confiscation, which attaches to a vessel that has contracted guilt by breach of blockade, does not attach to her longer than until the end of her return voyage."-The Wren, 6 Wallace, 582; the Weelvaard Van Pillaw, 2 Rob. Adm. Rep. p. 128; the Lisette, 6 Ibid. p. 387.

with the port is revived in favor of neutrals, and continues to exist until the blockade is formally and effectively re-established.'

If the vessels of a blockading squadron are dispersed by a storm, the binding character of the blockade undergoes no change. The vessels of the squadron return to their stations, the blockade is resumed without notice, and neutral vessels approach at their peril.'

Pacific Blockade. The right to establish what is called a pacific blockade has been asserted on several occasions since the beginning of this century. It has never been regarded as a war measure; nor does it resemble, except in name, the belligerent right of blockade which is sanctioned by international law. Pacific blockades have always been made the subject of protest by neutrals, as unduly interfering with neu

1 "A public blockade-that is to say, a blockade regularly notified to neutral governments, and, as such, distinguished from a simple blockade, or such as may be established by a naval officer acting on his own discretion or under direction of his superiors-must, in the absence of clear proof of a discontinuance of it, be presumed to continue until notification is given by the blockading government of such discontinuance."-The Circassian, 2 Wallace, 135. V Calvo, §§ 28702879; Hall, § 261; III Phillimore, $295; II Ortolan, p. 344; II Ferguson, § 280; Dana's Wheaton, 513, note 233. "The occupation of a city by a blockading belligerent does not terminate a public blockade of it previously existing, the city itself being hostile, the opposing enemy in the neighborhood, and the occupation limited, recent, and subject to the vicissitudes of war. Still less does it terminate a blockade proclaimed and maintained not only against that city, but against the port and district

commercially dependent upon it and blockaded by its blockade."The Circassian, 2 Wallace, 135. "The blockade of the coast of Louisiana, as established there, as on the rest of the coast of the Southern States generally by the proclamation of April 19, 1861 (12 Stat. 1258), was not terminated by the capture of the forts below New Orleans in April, 1862, by Commodore Farragut, and the occupation of the city by General Butler on May 6, 1862, and the proclamation of the President of May 12, 1862 (12 Stat. 1263), declaring that after June 1st the blockade of the port of New Orleans should cease. Hence it remained in force at Calcasieu, on the west extremity of the coast of Louisiana, as before."-The Baigorry, 2 Wallace, 474; the Triheten, 6 Robinson, 65; the Hoffnung, Ibid. 387.

tral trade. That such an operation is not a war measure is shown by the action of prize-courts in "refusing to condemn as prize because war did not exist." It must, therefore, be regarded as a measure falling short of war, and must be justified, in any particular case, by the injury suffered by the state which resorts to it as a measure of obtaining redress. The first instance of such a blockade was that declared by England, Russia, and France against the Greek ports of Turkey in 1827. Others were declared by England and France against the Argentine Republic in 1838, and by France against Mexico in 1837. The former of these was maintained for ten years, the latter for less than two, terminating with the capture of the castle of San Juan de Ulloa in 1838.'

References. For a discussion of this subject, see Hall, chap. viii.; Boyd's Wheaton, §§ 509-523; Bluntschli, §§ 827-840; Lawrence, "International Law," §§ 269-276; II Halleck, chap. xxv.; Manning, bk. v. chap. ix.; II Wildman, pp. 178-210; Dahlgren, pp. 25-65, 129-142; Woolsey, §§ 202-207; Nys, "La Guerre Maritime," chap. iv.; Glass, "Marine International Law," pp. 423-462; V Calvo, §§ 2827-2938; II Ferguson, §§ 269-281; III Phillimore, pp. 473-521; II Twiss, §§ 98-120; Risley, pp. 239-248; Dana's Wheaton, §§ 509-524, notes 232-235; II G. F. De Martens, § 320; Klüber, §§ 297, 298; Heffter, pp. 289-294; Hautefeuille, "Droits des Nations Neutres," vol. ii. pp. 189-272; Ortolan, "Diplomatie de la Mer," and Wheaton's "History," etc. pp. 137-144. See, also, the valuable notes on this subject, under the title "Blockade," in Dana's and Lawrence's editions of Wheaton.

7

CHAPTER XV

THE RIGHT OF SEARCH

Nature of the Right. The belligerent rights which have already been discussed-of capturing enemy property at sea, of seizing contraband of war, and of blockading the coasts and harbors of an enemy-could none of them be made effective were not belligerents also accorded the right to stop and search all neutral merchant vessels on the high seas, for the purpose of ascertaining their nationality and destination, the character and ownership of their cargoes, and to effect their capture, should the result of such examination show a liability to capture to exist.'

When and Where Exercised. The right to stop and examine neutral vessels on the high seas is called the belligerent right of search. It comes into existence at the outbreak of war, and is terminated by the treaty of peace. Neutral merchant vessels, of whatsoever character, are subject to its exercise, and must submit to search when required to do so, in time of war, by a properly documented armed vessel of either belligerent. If they refuse, or resist, they are subject to seizure and condemnation. If the right be exercised by a belligerent in a manner not warranted by the law of nations, or in violation of the terms of a treaty, the remedy must be sought through the neutral government under whose flag the ship sails. As

'II Halleck, pp. 267, 268; the Maria, 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. p. 360; the Antelope, 10 Wheaton, 66; the Anna Maria, 2 Ibid. 327; II Orrtolan, liv. iii. chap. vii.; Pistoye et Duverdy, tit. v. chap. i.; I Kent, p. 153; III Phillimore, pp.

523, 524; II Twiss, p. 177; Vattel, liv. iii. chap. vii. §§ 111-116; Bello, Derecho Internacional, part ii. chap. viii. § 10; Le Louis, 2 Dod. Adm. Rep. p. 210; vol. xix. Revue de Droit. Int. p. 367; vol. xx. Ibid. pp. 349, 487.