Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1861-09-13
Fgr the E,qr:rer.
Blockade

or parties TO the war or not become seriously
involved.
1t has generally happeued that the ellig
erent possessing the largest naval power, es
pecially where the opposing bc!ligercRt ha!
important ports and extensive commerce to be
affected, will insist upon enGrgiEg this bellig
erent right beyond those limits sanctioned b.
the law of nations; and the adversary will, fol
the corresponding opposite reason, seek II
confine the claim within the strictcst rule, ant
in this effort will generally secure, not only
the sympathy but the exerfionS of foreign pow
erS, aud such cxertions will bo commensurate
with the amount Of commerce affected, and the
measure of consequent injury to be Inflicted
on neutral commerce Giid trade
AS q general truth, war is positive evil
and all mankind are interested in its sup
preston. Upon principle, therefore, 1t would
seem to follow that The very least that the con
tending parties could ask Of neutral powers
would be, not to interfere, so long as no direct
injury is inflicted On themselves. But The Law
Of nations must recognize that universal law
of nature--the Law Of self chick
would authorize State or community, Us 1cll
as an individual, to resort tC any meaS:;Tc ne
cessary TO arrest an act which, though. inno
cent, or even ruertorious in itself s destructive
to the party interfering, however beneficial to
the party performing the act. The reason Of ths
Law would doubtless go still further, and say
that if the act is simply innocent in itself, bit
not nfritoriauS, no7 essentially necessary 10
the performer, 4 less degree of injury than
absolute destruction would justify resist ance.
But when an act like war, which is sanctioned
only By necessity, and arises ont Of the mfr.
mites of mankind, and ha7ing a generally
injurious tendency, is commenced, il would
seem that parties having useful and Important
interests iriur!nusly involved, wonld hc moi
only authorized. but constrained by dnty, to
sec that the prosecution Of this generally mis-.
cllievous pursuit does not impair their useful
occupation; and especially would such inter.
ference be justified VIXEN the actor is not de-
fea:cd in his employment, bu: il thereby con.
tne3 to the use CT means less generally iniu-
rious. If this reasoning be corrcci, it would
Justify neutral powers in almost any eombina-
ton to defeat blockade which seriously cmbar-
rassed them a&d their commerce At this
enlightened day, such interference is os much
to be expected. upon . philosophical vicw Of
the considerations which delnand il, s. il is
cxactcd from the grest enlargeE:enl Of com
lnerce, and the necessities Of mankiud.
But, in regard 70 the blockade proclaimed
in the present war, by tho present Federal
authorities, the ohiec: Of these cbscrvaiic7s
will be to sho~ that, according 10 the 'carning
on this subicct, and according to !he s=;at:ng
7ales Of publi: la%, the pretended allcksde in
question may be justly resisted tn; con!=mned,
notwithstanding such existing !,,2n nf public
law, in consequence Of the r,cpnTidc:jticc Of
helligcrentinnucucc, arc fnuultd n sentiments
less liberal to neutral and commercial interests
than those VIC have i::st arg'd ~ reai!? jns:
ard rational.
The United States, controlled Ill he i1anneT
already explained By the inccniir: q interest,
have generally advocated neural commercial
sops; and it will lie found, nii examination,
thai The Federal Government has uniformly
heretofore not only strcnuouSly "oa:cl061 .ioT,
but has been greatly Instruments! in est,tb1iSa
ing as law ducirinc the very opposite Of that
which must be supported Il, nairsn the
present socailed blockade.
In the French revolution, chen the cua:-
mercc oil neutrais was so seriously damaged by
the acts Of both the English and French beili-
gerents, the United States were CO. stsntly !n.
rolved il diplomatic controversy with ono or
both of those parties, in consequence OF in
juries inflicted by those belligerents on the
innocent commerce OF The citizens Of lie United
States. The position thcn taken By tee United
States, in tne!r diplomatic resistance 20 these
wrongs conspicuous among which Tss the
effort to o2struct commerce by paper 3iockGGcs,
will furnish not only Inc Law Tor the United
States themselves, but constitutes Just eG-
pusiton Of the Law az it then existed, and is
row understood and sanctioned But in order
that the suhjec; may 5e more fully explained
by the light Of surrounding circumstances, q
brief narrative OF certain transa ctions OF an bis.
torical and political character may be useful:
Dniiag the French revolution ani previously
England had unquesi;oaably uiadc illegal and
destructive eHcroschme1t On neutral com.
Iacrce, under the pretended claim Of bellige
rent right. In the war Of 1756 she condemn
ed the carrying trade, which the Dutch then,
by express stipulation with France, carried on
heLSccn tha. power ard her ccloaios. This
was commerce, from which, in time Of peace,
France excluded all other nations, mnnopoliz-
ing it herself She turned it over in 1756 to
the Dutch, because the naval superiority Of
her enemy prevented Eer irom carrying il on
N her own bottoms, and she hoped TO protect
it under the cover Of neutral fes. But Eng.
land claimed, and perhaps, I" Mis instance,
with propriety, that the Dutch, bv this ercln.
sire arrangement with the enemy, acquired the
hostile French character in this trade. This
gave origin to what became known SIS the
''Iule of war Of 1T5G' But, subsequently,
England undertook to enlarge this rule much
beyond this scope and based upon its pre-
tended SANCTION helligerent claims c!o1Tly un-
tenable, she extended tfo rule so far az 10 pre-
scribe, in time OF war, all trade By neatrals in
commerce, which they did 10: erjoy in ti1e
of peace.
In addition to this encr6achmsnt, England also
proclaimed in the French revolution the most
and unjust paper blockades without
foundation Of right in the rules OF public las.
France, though at ali times, and especially then,
as the opposing bclligerent, interested against
these obnoxious prctentinns. and notwthstand
ing her participation in the adoption Of the
principles of the Baltic Crde Of Neutrality, pur
sued measures, by way of retaliation, almost
equally objectionable, because those measures
reflected on the rights of her friends, rs well as
agains! the interests of her cufny.
Opposed to these bellgercr! pIetcasiobs, OF
the other hand, Russia bad n $50 proclaimed
the principles Of the celebrated Baltic Code OF
Neutrality, also known as "the armed Neu-
trality Of 1880" Most OF the European pow
crs, other than England. including France, ac
ceded to this Code. So did the United States.
The principles Of this Code, and the pretensio's
Of England wero exactly opposed. Both involved
departures nhe forme: however, only in soT,"
respects) from the Law of Nations, eacl, in an
opposite direction. The Baltic Code was sus-
tanned BY the true international rule in the
principle it expressed in contrast with the rule
of 1856; and it expouuded the Jaw correctly
upon the subject Of blocha3es ana tsese sub
jects constituted its most important provisions.
The declaration however, E.ade in that Code,
that ''the ship covers tie cargo was ihfa not
sustained By public Law, and the same thing
may perhaps be sa;d Of the ',oct::ue it an
nounced on the subject o. con;raoand
1t may be appropriately stated hare that.
though The Baltic Code vas abandoned and
some of its mos, important principles for
opr o,I,,I, c,cnar-fr1lr ras;:.,1 ihDSc D;i1ci-