Great First England fettered herself by few treaties, and continued to give effect to the old practice of seizing neutral goods, while releasing the neutral vessel with payment of freight.1 In maintaining this usage she was brought in 1780 into sharp collision with the neutral states. The First Armed Neutrality put forward the immunity of belligerent cargoes in neutral vessels as one of its doctrines; and the weakness produced by the American war prevented England from adopting any means for the vindication of her views. But the members of the league were not themselves proof against the temptation of war. In 1788 Sweden openly renounced the principles of the Armed Neutrality while at war with Russia, and the latter power tacitly followed her example.2 The treaties which were made between the establishment of the armed neutrality and the outbreak of the wars of the Revolution stipulate for the freedom of hostile goods; 3 but three months 1 The principal treaties concluded during the eighteenth century, down to the time of the First Armed Neutrality, in which the principle of Free ships, free goods was contained, were those of Utrecht in 1713 between England, France, and the United Provinces (Dumont, viii. i. 348 and 379); between England and Spain, 1713 (ib. 409), Spain and the United Provinces, 1714 (ib. 431); the United Provinces and Russia, 1715 (ib. 470); Spain and the Empire, 1725 (ib. ii. 115); France and the United Provinces, 1739 (Wenck. Codex Juris Gentium, i. 424); France and Denmark, 1742 (ib. 621); Sweden and the Two Sicilies, 1742 (ib. ii. 143); Denmark and the Two Sicilies, 1748 (ib. 281); France and the United States, 1778 (De Martens, Rec. ii. 598). 2 Manning, 268. 3 United States and United Provinces, 1782 (De Martens, Rec. iii. 439); Denmark and Russia, 1782 (ib. 476); England, France, and Spain, 1783 (ib. 543); United States and Sweden, 1783 (ib. 568); United States and Prussia, 1785 (ib. iv. 42) ; France and the United Provinces, 1785 (ib. 68); Austria and Russia, 1785 (ib. 76); England and France, 1786 (ib. 168); Russia and France, 1787 (ib. 210); Russia and the Two Sicilies, 1787 (ib. 236); Russia and Portugal, 1787 (ib. 327); France and Hamburg, 1789 (ib. 426); Denmark and Genoa, 1789 (ib. 442). But the United States distinctly asserted the doctrine that according to the law of nations, the goods of an enemy found on board the ship of a friend are liable to capture.' Messrs. Pinckney, &c. to the French 1793 of hostilities had hardly passed, in 1793, when France Practice declared enemy's goods on board neutral vessels to during the be good prize, the neutral ship being released, and wars, freight being paid by the captors.1 Russia had already 1815. denounced her treaty of 1787; and Great Britain, Russia, Spain, the Empire, and Prussia agreed that the contracting powers would unite all their efforts to prevent neutrals 'from giving, on this occasion of common concern to every civilised state, any protection whatever, directly or indirectly, in consequence of their neutrality, to the commerce or property of the French, on the sea, or in the ports of France.' 2 The Second Armed Neutrality reasserted for a moment the principles of 1780, but one of the articles of the treaty concluded between England and Russia in 1801, to which Denmark and Sweden afterwards acceded, provided that the property of enemies on board neutral vessels should be confiscable. In 1807 Russia annulled the convention of 1801, and proclaiming afresh the principles of the Armed Neutrality, declared that she would never depart from them; but in 1809 an ukase was issued under which 'ships laden in part with the goods of the manufacture or produce of hostile countries were to be stopped, and the merchandise confiscated and sold by auction for the profit of the crown. But if the merchandise aforesaid compose more than half the cargo, not only the cargo, but the ship also shall be confiscated.' 4 3 Thus at the general peace, not only had the ancient practice been steadily acted upon by the most powerful maritime state; but the advocates of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jan. 27, 1798, American State Papers, ii. 181. See also, Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Morris, Aug. 16, 1793, ib. i. 123. 1 De Martens, Rec. v. 382. 2 De Martens, Rec. v. 409 and 440. 485. 3 Ortolan, ii. 156. 4 De Martens, Rec. Supp. v. intrusive principle had permitted their allegiance to it to be not infrequently shaken, under circumstances which sufficiently prove their conduct to have been simply dictated in all cases by the varying interests of the moment. § 54. Between 1815 and 1854 France gave proof of her continued preference for the doctrine of Free ships, free goods, by concluding several treaties in which it was embodied; and the United States, while fully accepting the English view as expressing existing law, entered into frequent engagements in a contrary sense.1 The new principle, therefore, acquired a certain amount of additional strength; and at the same time no opportunities occurred for upholding the older usage by practice. Until the beginning of the Crimean War, however, no change took place in the relative legal value of the two principles. The 1 The United States and position.' Dana's Wheaton, note Great Britain have long stood to § 475. committed to the following points as in their opinion established in the law of nations:-1. That a belligerent may take enemy's goods from neutral custody on the high seas; 2. That the carrying of enemy's goods by a neutral is no offence, and consequently not only does not involve the neutral vessel in penalty, but entitles it to its freight from the captors as a condition to a right to interfere with it on the high seas. While the Government of the United States has endeavoured to introduce the rule of Free ships, free goods, by conventions, her courts have always decided that it is not the rule of war; and her diplomatists and text-writers, with singular concurrence, considering the opposite diplomatic policy of the country, have agreed to that The treaties concluded by the United States are those with Denmark, 1818 (De Martens, Nouv. Rec. ix. 532); Colombia, 1824 (ib. vi. 992); Central America, 1825 (ib. 832); Brazil, 1828 (ib. ix. 60); Mexico, 1831 (ib. x. 336); Chile, 1832 (ib. xi. 442); Venezuela, 1836 (Nouv. Rec. Nouv. Sér. iv. 556); PeruBolivia, 1836 (ib. vi. 118); Ecuador, 1839 (Nouv. Rec. Gén. iv. 310); New Grenada, 1848 (ib. xiii. 659); San Salvador, 1850 (Samwer, Rec. Gén. ii. 73); Russia, 1854 (Nouv. Rec. Gen. xvi. i. 572). Treaties have been concluded by France with Venezuela, 1843 (ib. v. 170); Ecuador, 1843 (ib. 409); New Grenada, 1844 (ib. vii. 620); Chile, 1846 (Samwer, Rec. Gén. iii. 9); Guatemala, 1848 (Nouv. Rec. Gén. xii. 10). original adherents of the newer doctrine had embraced upon Crimean war. it afresh; but it had not been admitted by the powers It is acted which before rejected it. But in 1854 it was felt during the that it was difficult for allied states to apply different legal theories in a common war, and an agreement for identical action was come to by Great Britain and France, under which the principle of the immunity of enemy's goods in neutral ships was provisionally accepted by the former. the former. On the conclusion of the Treaty of Paris the same principle was accepted by Declara the parties to it in a Declaration, which was intended tion of to form the basis of a uniform doctrine on maritime law, and to which all states not represented at the Congress were afterwards invited to accede.1 The only countries which, up to the present time, have withheld their formal adherence to the Declaration are the United States, Spain, and Mexico. But the United States announced at the beginning of the Civil War that they would give effect to the principle during the continuance of hostilities.2 Although, therefore, the freedom of enemy's goods in neutral vessels is not yet secured by an unanimous act, or by a usage which is in strictness binding on all nations, there is little probability of reversion to the custom which was at one time universal, and which till lately enjoyed a superior authority. 1 See Appendix III. 2 Dana's Wheaton, note to § 475. Paris. Conditions of neutral liability under the law of CHAPTER V. BLOCKADE. § 55. THE conditions under which a belligerent may interfere with neutral trade to forbidden places are more complex than those under which he imposes blockade. restrictions on trade in forbidden things. In one case the act of the neutral alone exposes him to the effect of the belligerent right; in the other no infraction of it can take place until the belligerent has himself duly performed a certain act, and until the fact of its having been so performed has been brought to the knowledge of the neutral. The belligerent must establish his blockade, and as a general rule he must warn neutrals that it exists. Conditions under which a blockade is binding. § 56. In order to constitute a blockade, two requirements must be satisfied. 1. It must be initiated under sufficient authority. 2. It must be maintained by a sufficient and lishment properly disposed force. (1) Estab under sufficient A blockade is considered to be an act of war authority. which affects, of right, not only the subjects of a neutral state, but also persons and things partaking of the national character. Strictly, access to the blockaded place is forbidden to ships of war as well as merchant vessels. The establishment of a blockade is therefore so high an exercise of sovereign power that it can only be effected under the express or implied orders of the government of a country; and the general instructions given to the commander |
