observed that it fell "very far short" of the inculpatory evidence in the cases of certain sailing vessels, which the Government had cited as precedents for condemnation; but suggested that proof less full and precise might be accepted in the case of steam vessels, owing to their superior power of movement. "Undoubtedly there is a difference," said the Supreme Court, "but if steam has increased the power of blockade runners, it has increased in greater degree, when conjoined with the range of modern ordnance, the power of blockade defenders. We recently had occasion to consider their power, and decide that a single modern cruiser might make a blockade effective." It was ordered that the vessel and cargo be restored, but without costs or damages. The Newfoundland (1900), 176 U. S. 97; citing the Olinde Rodriguez, supra. The case of the Newfoundland in the court below is reported in 89 Fed. 5. DESTINATION. $ 1276. See, as to Continuous voyages," supra, § 1180. 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 latter case the ship, and cargo, not contraband, are free from seizure, except in cases of fraud or bad faith. The Bermuda, 3 Wall. 514. For a criticism of this case, see 3 Phillimore Int. Law (3d ed.), 460. A vessel destined for a neutral port with no ulterior destination for herself, and none by sea for her cargo, to a blockaded place, violates no blockade. The Peterhoff, 5 Wall. 28. As to the case, see 3 Phillimore Int. Law (3d ed.), 395, 479. A cargo shipped from a neutral country by neutrals resident there, and destined ostensibly to a neutral port, was restored with costs after capture in a suspicious region, and where the vessel on its outward voyage had violated a blockade; there having been nothing to fix on the neutrals themselves any connection with the ownership or outward voyage of the vessel (which was itself condemned), nor anything to prove that their purposes were not lawful. But a certain portion of the cargo, which had been shipped like the rest, except that the shipper was a merchant residing and doing business in the enemy's country, was condemned. The Flying Scud, 6 Wall. 263. A vessel was condemned for intended breach of the blockade of the southern coast, having been found near Great Abaco Island, with no destination sufficiently proved, without sufficient documents, with a cargo of which much the largest part consisted of contraband of war, and with many letters addressed to one of the blockaded ports, for which her chief officer declared that she meant to run. The Adela, 6 Wall. 266. · 6. EGRESS. § 1277. As to violating a blockade by coming out with a cargo, the time of shipment is very material, for although it might be hard to refuse a neutral liberty to retire with a cargo already laden, and by that act already become neutral property; yet, after the commencement of a blockade, a neutral cannot be allowed to interpose in any way to assist the exportation of the property of the enemy. After the commencement of the blockade, a neutral is no longer at liberty to make any purchase in that port. The Betsey, 1 Rob. 93; The Frederick Molke, id. 72; The Neptunus, id. 170. A neutral ship departing can only take away a cargo bonâ fide purchased and delivered before the commencement of the blockade: if she afterwards take on board a cargo, it is a violation of the blockade. The Vrouw Judith, id. 1 Rob. 150; The Rolla, 6 Rob. 364. Where a ship was transferred from one neutral merchant to another in a blockaded port, and sailed out in ballast, she was determined not to have violated the blockade. The Potsdam, 4 Rob. 89; The Juffrouw Maria Schroeder, id. note (a). But a ship which had been purchased by a neutral of the enemy in a blockaded port, and sailed from thence on a voyage to the neutral country, was held liable to condemnation. The General Hamilton, 6 Rob. 61. And where the vessel was captured on a voyage to the blockaded port, in ballast, she having sailed for the purpose of bringing away goods which had become the property of neutral merchants before the date of the blockade, she was held liable to condemnation. The rule of blockade permits an egress to ships innocently in the port before the restriction was imposed, and even with cargoes, if previously laden; but in the case of ingress, there is not the same reason for indulgence; there can be no surprise upon the parties, and, therefore, nothing short of a physical necessity is admitted as an adequate excuse for making the attempt of entry. The Comet, Edwards, 32. A marine blockade is not violated by sending goods to the blockaded port, or by bringing them from the same, through the interior canal navigation of the country. A mere maritime blockade, effected by a force operating only at sea, can have no operation upon the interior communications of the port. The Ocean, 3 Rob. 297; The Stert, 4 Rob. 65. But goods shipped in a river, having been previously sent in lighters along the coast from the blockaded port, and under charter-party with the ship proceeding also from the blockaded port in ballast to take them on board, were held liable to confiscation. The Maria, 6 Rob. 201. The penalty for a breach of blockade is remitted by the raising of the blockade between the time of sailing from the port and the capture. When the blockade is raised, a veil is thrown over every thing that has been done, and the vessel is no longer taken in delicto. The delictum completed at one period is by subsequent events entirely done away. The Lisette, 6 Rob. 387. A neutral ship coming out of a blockaded port in consequence of a rumour that hostilities were likely to take place between the enemy and the country to which the ship belongs is not liable to condemnation, though laden with a cargo, where the regulations of the enemy would not permit a departure in ballast. The Drie Vrienden, Dodson, 269. But the danger of seizure and confiscation by the enemy, must be immediate and pressing. The mere apprehension of possible and remote danger will not justify bringing a cargo out of a blockaded port. The Wasser Hundt, id. 270, note." Note of Wheaton to Olivera v. Union Ins. Co. (1818), 3 Wheaton, 183, 196, 198. "Now, with respect to the matter of blockade, I must observe, that a blockade is just as much violated by a vessel passing outwards as inwards. A blockade is a sort of circumvallation round a place, by which all foreign connexion and correspondence is, as far as human force can effect it, to be entirely cut off. It is intended to suspend the entire commerce of that place; and a neutral is no more at liberty to assist the traffic of exportation than of importation. The utmost that can be allowed to a neutral vessel is, that having already taken on board a cargo before the blockade begins, she may be at liberty to retire with it. But it must be considered as a rule which this court means to apply: that a neutral ship departing, can only take away a cargo bonâ fide, purchased and delivered, before the commencement of the blockade: if she afterward takes on board a cargo, it is a fraudulent act, and a violation of the blockade." Sir William Scott, in the case of The Vrouw Judith, 1 C. Rob. 151. Cited, also, in Mr. Cass, Sec. of State. to Mr. Mason, min. to France, The Jeune Nelly, a French vessel, ran the blockade of Vera Cruz, Mexico, by the United States forces without interference by the blockading squadron. On coming out, however, she was captured by the U. S. S. Hunter, but, being almost immediately afterwards wrecked, was not brought in for adjudication. The French Government presented a claim for damages on the ground that, as the vessel was permitted to enter the port, she was exempt from capture on going out unless previously warned by entry on her papers or other mode of actual notice. The United States declined to admit this contention, and maintained that nothing short of an intentional assent (of which there was no evidence) on the part of the blockading force to the entrance of the vessel would have sufficed to give her immunity from the operation of the blockade. "When the blockade," said the Department of State, "is actually maintained by a sufficient force, and when the captured vessel, with full knowledge of its existence, and without the consent of the blockading squadron, enters the port, the question how far the entry might have been prevented by greater activity or different measures on the part of the blockaders, is not material and is never examined. The vessel being thus in port, in breach of the blockade, was of course liable to capture in attempting to pass out." Mr. Hunter, Act. Sec. of State, to M. de Sartiges, French min., July 29, See, also, Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to M. Poussin, Jan. 17, 1849, MS. 7. CAPTURE AND PENALTY. "11. Blockade running is a distinct offense, and subjects the vessel attempting, or sailing with the intent, to commit it, to seizure without regard to the nature of her cargo. The presence of contraband of war in the cargo becomes a distinct cause of seizure of the vessel, where she is bound to a port of the enemy not blockaded, and to which, contraband of war excepted, she is free to trade.” Instructions to United States Blockading Vessels and Cruisers, General The capture of a vessel for violation of blockade may be lawful, if made by a national vessel, though the latter be not part of the blockading force. The Memphis, Blatehf. Prize Cases, 260. The penalty for breach of blockade is the confiscation of the ship, and, as a general rule, of the cargo. But if it be clearly established by the proofs found on board at the time of the capture, that, at the inception of the voyage the owners of the cargo stood clear, even from a possible intention of fraud, their property will be excepted from the penal consequences of the breach of blockade. Halleck, Int. Law (3d ed., by Baker), II. 208-209, citing Duer on Insurance, I. 683-685. "In the absence of rules in relation to blockades in time of peace, those applicable to blockades in time of war are the only ones according to which the case of the Lone is to be considered. Whether seized in consequence of the one or the other description of blockade, the duties of the captors are the same, both with reference to the captured vessel, which they are bound so to secure as to insure their continued possession of it, and to her crew, who are to be treated with all the humanity and kindness which are consistent with the security of the prize, and which, it is gratifying to perceive from your note, have been extended to citizens of the United States detained by naval forces of France. It would be to the President a cause of sincere regret if anything connected with the case under consideration should lead to a change in the conduct of the officers commanding those forces towards American citizens falling into their hands of which the United States would have just cause to complain." Mr. Vail, Act. Sec. of State, to M. Pontois, Oct. 23, 1838, MS. Notes to "The Department has been informally apprised that Commander Woodhull, of the United States steamer Connecticut recently exacted, as a condition of the release of members of the crew of the British schooner Adeline, captured for a breach of the blockade, that they should enter into an engagement not to be employed in a similar proceeding, in future. It occurs to this Department that, as the requirement referred to is not warranted by public law, the commanders of blockading vessels should be instructed not to exact any similar condition for the release of persons found on board of vessels charged with a breach of the blockade. "It may be lawful to detain such persons as witnesses, when their testimony may be indispensable to the administration of justice, but, when captured in a neutral ship, they can not be considered and ought not to be treated as prisoners of war. Angus Smith, John Mooney and John H. McHenry, the alleged British subjects above referred to, are consequently to be considered as absolved from the obligation represented to have been required of them by Commander Woodhull." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Welles, Sec. of Navy, Dec. 31, 1861, 56 |