Alexandria gazette, commercial and political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1812-1817, 1813-08-09

/ blockade de Eaefo existed: 1t is indeed
/ to be supposed foom the notification IT
self, that orders would be given to car
~ the intended blockade-into cffect'-
| Yet this is not 50 conolusive as TO carry
with it presumption that it has been
actually done. 1t was argued BY the
captor's- counselthat even II the nigh
officer who ha. the supreme command
on this side of the Atlantic should re-
fuse to execute the order, that the court
would BE bound to execute 1t, and to
enforce the law. But this is not true
state of the case. IF it we're possible
that an officer should be guilty OF a
great breach of dutyiih not observing or
ders sent to him by government, suii
/ though he might be personally respon-
sible for the neglect, yet that would not
supply the want of the fact that a real
blockade had taken place. lthas been
held III the high court of admiralty that
even where there was an actual invest
ment, if any of the, blockading ships
have not enforced it, that the blockade
is SO far I" virtually relaxed" There is
no evidence that the port of New York
has ever yet been in state OF blockade
1t is not kaown as a matter Of notorlety,
or from the capture otvessels. There
is no special evidence of il afforded by
this case. No vessels were seen Of the
| port. The capture was made in lat. Of
40 deg. and in leng. of7o deg. and 30
minutes, by the prize masters affidavit,
at the distance therefore OF nearly one
hundred and fifty milcs from New York.
There is no circumstance therefore to
lead US to a conclusion that the port of
| New York was in = state of blockade -
Where the existence of blockade has
heen generally known and costinued
for some time and by public notification,
it is presumed trina .Jaeie to continue
| till it is revoked.
In such case when blockade has re-
ally existed, it has been held to be in
cumbent on the party alledglng the re-
Iaxations to proveit it. But in the present
instance, where it is not known that any
blockade has ever commenced, think
it fair that the party who is to have the
benefit Of the blockade, should establish
| it by evidence. If the case, therefore,
depends upon that fact, should direct
the captors to bring further proof OF it,
and should allow the claimants at the
same time to bring such other evidence
as they may Judge proper upon the poiut.
This however, will be unnecessary, II
itshould be found, that Notwithstanding
blockade, this ship and cargo was pro
tected by the license, which brings me
to the consideration Of the second point
in the case: This license is dated on
the 18th of September, 1912, and the
| question is, whether it is annulled by the
| subsequent order for blockading the
port of New York, as far as that, or O.
Their blockaded ports are concerned, or
| in other words, whether, under license
to import goods from any port in the U.
States, they can be exported from
\ blockaGed port in that country. have
examined all the cases to be found, which
! at all relates to this question. A recent cast,
that of the By field, Fostert was the case
Of vessel which was said to have had
license granted to certain British mer.
chants, permitting vessel to proceed
from any fort in the Baltic, to any port
in the United Kingdom.
The vessel went into Copenhagen,
then blockaded,' and came out with her
cargo, with which she was sailing to LII
yerpool when she was captured. 1t was
laid down most strongly by sir William
Scott, that -: license expressed in &C.
neral terms, to authorize ship to sail
from any port with her cargo, will not
autholise her to sail from blockaded
port with cargo taken in there; to ex.
empt blockaded port from the restric-
tons incident to state of blockade, it
must be specially designated with such
an exemption in the license; otherwise
a blockade9 port shall be taken as an OK.
ception to the general description in the
license" Nothing can be laid down more
forcibly and generally, than this doctrine.
Yet it seems that there may be erceh-
tions 10 it. In the Hof4nang, Bereus,S
without any such express exemption IN
the license, where it had been granted on
the same day when the notification stat
ed the blockade to commence, the learn
ed Judge laid all question of blockade
out of the case, for he thought himself
bound to presume that it was intended
the parties should have the full bcnefi, q:
importing the articles without molesta-
ton, from blockade which could not
be unknown 70 the great parsonage an
der whose authority the license vas is.
sued"
Another ground Of exception was Ia
ken and admitted in the same case for
the Judge concluded that since "the
blockade was not considered as ground
for withholding these licenses, he was
led to suppose that it was not intended
, $3.50 ~, .r,rt or cneospdinc, such &C