Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1811-11-08

justification of the French Decree, that Great
Britain q extends to unfortlhed towns and
commercial ports, to harbors, and to the
mouths of rivers, those rights OF blockade,
which by reason and the usage of nations are
applicable only to fortified places and that
the rights of blockade ought to be limited to
fortresses really invested by sufficient force.
tits added in the same articles that Great
Britain " has declared places to be In a state
of blockade, before which she has not single
ship of war, and even places which the whole
British force would be insufficient to blockade,
entire coasts, and whole empire.
Neitherthe practice oil Great-Brltaln nor the
law of nations has ever sanctioned the rule
now laid down by France, that no place ex-
ceptine tortresses in a complete state OF In
yestiture can be deemed lawfully blockaded
by sea.
IF such rule were to be admitted it would
become nearly ilnpractlcable for Great-Britaln
to attempt the blockade of any port OF the
continent, and our submission to this perver-
sion of the law of nations, while it would de-
stroy one of the principal advantages OF our
naval superiority, would sacrifice the common
rights and interests of all maritime states.
1t was evident that the blockade of May,
1906, was the principal pretended justification
of the Decree of Berlin, though neither the
principles on which that blockade was found
ed, nor its practical operation, afforded any CO.
lor for the proceedings of France.
In point of date the blockade of May, 1906,
preceded the Berlin Decree but it was just
and legal blockade according to the establish
ed law of nations, because it was intended to
be maintained, and was actually maintained by
an adequate force appointed to guard the whole
coast described in the notification, and conse.
quentIy to enforce the blockade.
Great Britain has never attempted to dis
pute that in the ordinary course of the law OF
nations, no blockade can be justiiable or valid
unless it be supported by an adequate force
destined to maintain it, and to expose to ha-
card all vessels attempting to evade its opera
ton. The blockade of May, 1906, was nott'
ed BY Mr.. Secretary Fox on this clear Prlncl-
pie, nor was that blockade announced until he
had satisfied himself by communication with
his Maiesty's Board of Admiralty, that the
Admiralty possessed the means and would en-
pioy them, of watching the whole coast from
Brcst to the Elbe, and of effectually enforcing
the blockade.
The blockade of May, 1906, was therefore
according to the. doctrine maintained by u.
Britain) Just and lawful in its origin, because
it was supported both in intention and fact by
an ADEQUATE naval force. This was the Iusti-
6cation of that blockade until the period OF
time when the Orders in Council were is
sued.
The Orders in Council were founded on a
distinct pri ,ciple, that of defensive retaliation
France had declared blockade of all the ports
and coasts Of Great-Britain, and her depen-
denotes, without assigning, or being able to as
sign any force to support that blockade
Such an act of the enemy would have justified
declaration of the blockade of the whole
coast of France, even without the application
of ally particular force to that service. Since
the PRONUNCIATION Of the Orders in Council
the blockade of May, 1906, has been sustain
ed and extended by the more comprehensive
system Of defensive retaliation on which those
regulations are founded. But if the Orders
in Council should be abrogated, the blockade
of MAY, 1906, could not continue under our
construction of the law Of nations, unless that
blockade should be maintained by due APP
plication of an adequate naval force.
America appears to concur with France in
asserting that Great Britain was the original
aggressor in the attack on neutral rights, and
has particularly objected to the blockade of
Nav. 1906, as an obvious instance OF that az
erosion on the part Of Great Britain.
Although the doctrines the Berlin decree
respecting the rights of blockade, are not di-
rcctlv asserted by the American government,
MIR. Pinkney's correspondence would appear
to countenance the principles on which those
doctrines are founded. The objection direct
ly stated by America against the blockade of
May, 1906, rests on supposition that no ma
val force which Great Britain possessed, or
could have employed for such purpose, could
have rendered that blockade effectual, and
that therefore it was necessarily irregular, and
could not possibly be maintained in conformi-
ty to the law of nations.
Reviewing the course of this statement, it
will appear that the blockade of May, 1906,
cannot be deemed contrary to the law of ma
tions, either under the objections urged by
the French, or under those declared or insi-
nuated by the American government, because