CHAPTER XII.

BLOCKADE IN TIME OF WAR.-CONTRABAND OF WAR.

Blockade.-Blockades may be either military or commercial, sea or land.

Military blockades.-As military blockades they may consist of land blockades or investments of an inland town or land investments accompanied by sea blockades of a port, or by a masking and containing of an enemy's fleet by another fleet off a military port, naval arsenal or an anchorage where commerce does not exist.

Commercial blockades.-A commercial blockade may be of one or more sea-ports or of an entire coast or island in all cases belonging to or occupied by the enemy. It may be also of the entire sea frontier of an enemy with a view to cut off external supplies and foodstuffs as well as vital imports. Notwithstanding occasional efforts to abolish blockades they remain major operations, and are likely to be used whenever the circumstances require it, and when the belligerent desiring it has that naval superiority which alone permits its establishment and continuance.

The circumstances of a land blockade are so different from that of a sea blockade as to take it out of consideration of the class of blockades about to be treated. A land blockade is carried on upon territory which is for the time being under the jurisdiction of the blockading force, and hence matters purely of an international character do not appear; but a maritime blockade exists not only before a commercial port or

1 Art. 1, Decln. of London, see Appendix.

ports which are open to international trade, but extends over marginal waters through which innocent passage of neutral vessels is allowed, and by which it reaches the high seas, the common territory and highway of all nations. This fact makes the question of sea blockade one closely connected with the trade and shipping of neutral nations; in fact, as a rule, those who are generally engaged in the evasion of blockade in vessels of any size are apt to be neutral subjects; and the questions concerning sea blockade are hence questions largely international in law and scope.

Effect of blockades.-It has been claimed that the effect of the cessation of trade caused by blockades will cause more harm to the neutrals than good to the belligerents. That depends, of course, upon the situation of the war and the circumstances of the case. When the land frontiers of a country touch those of civilized and neutral states with connecting railway systems the injury to the belligerent blockaded is not so great; but if the sea-ports are the principal means of communication with the outside world, and the neighboring neutral state or states are poor and undeveloped, the effect of a general blockade, as was the case with our Southern States, is powerful and wide-reaching, and may become the determining war factor. \

Blockade must be between belligerents.-A blockade being an act or operation of war, it can be established only by a state or belligerent, but is not conventionally accorded to a state of insurgency alone. The United States refused, for instance, to recognize the establishment of a blockade by the Brazilian insurgents of the port of Rio, notwithstanding their control of the waters of that vicinity.

Besides sea-ports and roadsteads, rivers can, of course, be blockaded at their mouths, but if a river is bounded partly by neutral territory or leads to internal neutral ports or countries. it cannot be blockaded. The Federal Government, for

instance, during the Civil War could not blockade the Rio Grande, as there were ports upon that river situated in neutral territory.

The establishment of a blockade being an act of sovereignty of great importance, especially as it interferes with the power of trade of neutrals, should be instituted directly only by the government of the belligerent or by a commander-in-chief in its name to whom the power of establishing a blockade has been directly or indirectly delegated.*

3

Blockades must be notified.-It is necessary that a neutral shall have knowledge of a blockade before he can suffer any consequences for a violation or attempted violation of such blockade. By the Declaration of London this notice can be conveyed in several ways. The blockading power may give notice by a public proclamation or notification to the authorities and consuls of the ports blockaded, and to the governments of the neutral states, either direct or to the diplomatic representatives accredited to the blockading government, or special notice at the early establishment of the blockade may be given to a neutral vessel. In addition, the notoriety of the fact has been considered as sufficient notice in cases like our Southern blockade. A notice to a foreign government is a notice to all of the individuals of that state, as it is the duty of the foreign government to convey the notice to all of their subjects or citizens.

Besides the notice of the establishment of a blockade it is required that the blockading belligerent should give notice of the formal and final discontinuance of the blockade. This is no more than fair to neutrals and their trade.

Specifications of declaration of blockade.-Certain specifications must be made in the declaration of blockade as to the

2 Art. 9, Decln. of London, Appendix.

3 Arts. 8 to 16, Decln. of London.

date of beginning, geographical limits and the period in which vessels are allowed to come out.

Manner of notification in past times.-There was a difference in the practice of nations in the past as to the amount and manner of notification of a blockade. This difference followed the general lines of difference as to practice in maritime war-the Continental idea as opposed to that generally followed by Great Britain and the United States.

The Continental or French practice was to give a diplomatic notice to the neutral governments of the blockade and also an individual notice from a vessel of the blockading force at the port. Each neutral vessel was to be warned off, and the warning indorsed upon the certificate of nationality or some other of the ship's papers with date, locality, etc. A repeated attempt to enter then subjected the vessel to capture.

Our own practice was that also of the English in general. It recognized as valid two forms of blockade: one in which notice had been duly given and which was effectively established and one de facto, which began and ended with the actual establishment. In the former case, after due general notice, ignorance of the blockade was not an excuse for a departure for the blockaded ports or for an appearance in its vicinity. Being bound to a blockaded port, or being manifestly out of a course to its port of destination, was considered evidence generally of an intention to violate the blockade.

As to a de facto blockade, local and more temporary in nature, a vessel was not seized for attempting to enter a harbor unless it had been previously warned off.

By the Declaration of London, it is required to notify the authorities and consuls of the port blockaded concerning the establishment of the blockade. The cessation or the reestablishment of the blockade must be notified in similar man

ner.

In this declaration is carried a renunciation of the Conti

nental doctrine of a special notification on the spot for each vessel. The liability of a neutral vessel to capture for breach of blockade being contingent on her knowledge, actual or presumptive, of the blockade.*

Article 15 says: Failing proof to the contrary, knowledge of the blockade is presumed if the vessel left a neutral port subsequently to the notification of the blockade to the power to which such port belongs, provided that such notification was made in sufficient time.

The first part of Article 16 reads: If a vessel approaching a blockaded port has no knowledge, actual or presumptive, of the blockade the notification must be made to the vessel itself by an officer of one of the ships of the blockading force. This notification should be entered in the vessel's log-book, and must state the day and hour and the geographical position of the vessel at the time.

Duration of liability of blockade-runner to be captured.In the adopted articles of the Declaration of London a considerable change was made from the extreme view contained in the usual Anglo-American doctrine as to the duration of the liability to capture of a blockade-runner. This liability extended according to that doctrine from the departure from a home port or the initial point of voyage until a return to the same point. Not only was this not accepted by continental authorities but modern conditions had made it most annoying and vexatious to any neutral that could be involved in suspicion as to breach of blockade. The practice of attempting to enforce a blockade existing on the coasts of Northeastern Asia or Southeastern Africa in the waters of the Mediterranean was not only highly resented by those not holding the Anglo-American doctrine, but it was equally vexatious when applied to English and American vessels either

See Art. 14, Decln. of London, Appendix.