who might contravene such warning, as the
property of individuals who were in reality
in league with the enemy. The States Gen
eral of Holland appear to have maintained
this practice without any serious dispute on
the part of the other nations as late as the
beginning of the sixteenth century; but it
came to be questioned towards the end of
that century as an immoderate exercise of
belligerent right, since which time it has
been generally disclaimed, and may now be
regarded as obsolete. Upon the other
hand, the practice of intercepting all mer
chant vessels trading with the enemy's
coast is as old as war itself.
It has been observed that the usage of
belligerents to forbid by proclamation all
trade with the enemy, and to confiscate the
property of parties contravening their pro
clamation was successfully impugned in the
seventeenth century, as an unreasonable
exercise of belligerent force, and may now
be regarded as having no sanction from the
modern practice of nations of the first rank.
We may trace back to the same century the
first systematic attempt to regulate the bel
ligerent right of blockade, which originated
with the Dutch. "On the question of block
ade," says Lord Stowell, "three things must
be proved—(i) the existence of an actual
blockade; (2) the knowledge of the party;
(3) some act of violation either by going in
or coming out with a cargo laden after the
commencement of the blockade." The
point, therefore, which must be considered
is, what constitutes an actual blockade? It
was one of the objects of the Armed Neu
trality—a confederacy against England,
formed by Russia, Sweden and Denmark in
1780—to establish a more precise rule than
had previously prevailed for determining
when a port was actually in a state of block
ade, in order that an obligation to abstain
from trading with such a port might be im
posed upon the merchants of neutral coun
tries. In pursuance of that object. Russia
communicated to the various European
powers a declaration of the principles of the
Armed Neutrality comprised in four prop
ositions, the fourth of which was to the ef fect that in order to determine what char acterised a blockaded port, that term shall only be applied to a port where, from the arrangement made by the attacking force. there is evident danger in entering the port. Great Britain acceded to this definition of a blockaded port at her convention with Russia in 1801, and the principles generally affirmed by the great nations of the world may be said to be in harmony with it. At the beginning of the Crimean war (in 18541. France and England may be considered to have affirmed the same principle when they declared their intention "to maintain the right of a belligerent to prevent neutrals from breaking any effective blockade which may be established with an adequate force against the enemy's ports, harbors or coasts. Upon the conclusion of peace— it will be remembered that both England and France were supporting Turkey against Russia—the subject of belligerent blockade came under the consideration of the Powers assembled at Paris in the Congress of 1856. when it was agreed to remove all uncer tainty among themselves by declaring their view of the maritime law on the subject, and by inviting all other nations to accede to a common declaration. The proposition which was adopted by the Congress was as follows: "Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective; that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy." A knowledge of a blockade, however ac quired, will preclude the captain of a neu tral ship from any claim to receive a direct warning from the blockading squadron, even if the ship should have sailed from the port where she had shipped her cargo with out a knowledge of the blockade. The gen eral notoriety of a blockade will be pre sumed after it has been publicly notified and dr facto maintained for any considera ble period. Yours very truly, LAWRENCE IRWELL. Buffalo. New York, September 3, 190x4.
