Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1810-11-09

Of Sweden and The same states, the 12.h
OF October, 1919, and many others.
In all these iustaaeys Il was provided
(" that even those things, which are not
contraband, shaH not be carried to CT
ties and places besieged."* This
shews tharthe public law was not st tina;
time settled on this head (; aud that, in
fact, neutral pretensions extended to
the holding intercourse with place
actually besieged so that the bellige.
rent right of what is now considered
lawful blockade, with force) may, it.
self, be regarded as having been, ORR
|ginally, an encroachment upon the
commerce ofneutrals. Great Britain,
therefore, by her placarding system
not only destroys the equitable modern
rule, hur violates more glaringly the
ancient maxims of the law of It ons.
Another thing is important to be
observed in relation to the British
practice, which is, that by posting a
few ships of war at the mouth of sea
or river, hey pretend to blockade all
the ports on the margins of that river
or sea. This is not lawful. The force
must not be stationed before the port;
the entrance TO each particular place
must he blocked up. 1t is this de6ni
ton of a blockade which furnishes the
reas on why proclamation is not legal
notice, and why an actual warning
from one. of the blockading squadron
is required for if procl ,mations or
orders in council were to be regarded
as sufficient notices, and no force was
to be stationed at the entrance of each
particular port, tits evident that there
can be no safety for vessel departing
from the United States for foreign
market. There will be an uncertainty
Ia her destination which must tend to
defeat the object of the voyage. Ex-
perience has verified this assertion in
numberless instances.
As case in point, pourtrayiug the
Hagrant mal-practices of the British,
the blockade of the canal of Corfu
may be-refcrred to. This canal is the
marine passage to the Adriatic sea, on
the shores of which are Trieste, FL
ume, and other ports. BY the English
doctrine these places must all be con.
sidered as blockaded, Notwithstanding
there is not a single ship of war before
them! This is totally contrary to the
stipulation contained in the Russian
treaty; and Numerically opposite to
the principle of blockade avowed by
the British government through Mr..
Merry, in his letter to Mr.. Madison,
wherein the Admiralty does not consi
der amy blockade as existing, unless
in respect of particular ports which
may be actually invested"
On the same doctrine that the canal
of Corfu is blockaded, the English
government might, by placing few
men of war at four or FIVE leagues dis.
lance from our shores, in position
parallel to the mouths of the bays and
rivers Of the ports of the y. States,
declare the canals of the ocean in stale
OF blockade. 1t would be merely an
extension of their prevailing principle
Of action; and we may rely upon it,
if we suffer Great Britain ito exercise
this unlawful power without opposition
even,in the smallest degree, she will,
at more convenient season, enlarge
it so as to embrace the whole world.
Grotius (de Jur. Bell. & Pac. lib. 8,
ch. 1, sec. 81 insists that neutral
shall not be hindered from intercourse
with ports merely blockaded, in mer.
chandize not contraband of war, unles IS
surrender of the place, or peace, be
expected. This limitation, although
it is condemned by Bynkershoek and
more modern writers, corroborates
the fact, that blockades were ancienly
construed more favorably for neutrals
than at present. And this shews the
absolute necessity of neutral states
making a stand against further infrac.
tions of their rights for, if every
thing be yielded to the passions o.
great and warlike powers, there will
soon be an entire destruction of neu-
trality during the prevalence of war.
Nor can the plea of necessity be &C.
cepted as an apology for such violati-
ons; because 1t is opposed by an equal
necessity on the other part: for, if
there be necessity for nation at war