Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1861-09-13

The declaration that "lhe ship covers tho
cargo," made in the Baltic Code, though mani
testify contrary 10 the international rule then.
end perhaps up 10 the date of The treaty oi
Paris, has, by and since the adoption OF that
treaty, received the conventional sanction OF ell
the considerable European powers.
: The United States though not party to the
treaty Of Parls, in her accession to the Baltic
Code, had sanctioned this Interpolation, and has
shown It's approval Of the principle in various
treaties since; but if any obligation TO adhere
to tile principle was discharged by the aban-
aoumort Of the Baltic Code, the obligation was
, virtually renewed III the decided sanction given
to TINT feature Of the treaty of Paris whic! re-.
cognizes the sams principle in Mr.. Marcy's let.
ter 10 the Count de Sartges, &C., OF July 2S,
1855. II any difficulty should still remain on
the subject, it would seem to be entirely re.
moved by the letter Of Mr. Cass, Secretary OF
State, 10 Mr.. Mason United States, minister at
Paris, dated June p, 1863 10 relation 20 the
war then commenced in Europe The letter
furnishes Mr. Mason with Instructions tessor-
crn hiI in protecting the neutral rights of
the United States
On this subject ne says, with respect TO
the protection Of the vessel and cargo by the
) flag which waves over them, the United States
} look upon that principle as established, and
: they maintain that beiligsrcat property On
Joard 7gcutT0lMip as not liable 10 capture.
We are therefore justified, We think, in
affirming that the four following declarations o.
the principles Of the armed Neutrality Of 1880
ere all now settled rules.
/. That commerce, with the ports and roads
OF the enemy, is free TO neutral powers.
. That the ship covers the cargo.
! 4. TAa! 80 place shall be considered as
biockadea iii it is surrounded in such man.
ner by hostile ships THAI NO person car enter
it without manifest danger.
j. 'rhG! these principles shall serve as basis
for discussion e,nccrning tho legality Of prizes.
The third and remaining article Of this code,
relates TO subject we do not now propose to
examine; but 10 embrace all its articles, we
insert it.
9. That thoss merchandise only bc consid.
cred As contraband, which are clared to be
such by treaties with the tel!igerent powers,
or with one Of them.
We lFop"se now 10 return TO the period Of
the French resolution, and to examine more
particularly the position Of the United States
Government. At that tins, dnd sigcc, on the
subject ui 5iac!aaS, bavirg ALREADY somewhat
anticipated tile subject, in stating tEt partially
successful cn;eayurs of tha. Government in
obtaining even from Eneind the recognition
G: the rule ANNOUNCED in lar Billie CUie. |
say "ipdrtta!iy sgccess+2l,' because il will he
fcuCd tina, the United States lia7c been anxiv',:
to restrict the h.lliseTent right cf blockade
within narrower limits than those assigned by
iAe B,ltc Ode and the T,esty Of PARIS.
By wy Of illustrating the doctrine wh;ci'
Tie trp: ese tliiTcs of inc America Coy
ernment have hed or iJis subject, aud to
ASCERTAIN what does or should constitute valid
blockade, NC may properly enquire what Is inc
alitct ci all lawful blockadcs The claim 10
coniiscate your cnemy's goods III l1n3. i'll war,
though originally . bcll gcreut right, by modern
usage, is surrendered except in certain Cases
Onc of the recognized, ard frequently adopted
methods OF subdung an eneIay is to bescSa
and lake his cities and towns, and. Il necessary
for this purpose, his property and goods i'll the
town may dc destroyed, which wOa:d coast
tu.e an exception to the general rule ot c%cinp.
| lion just stated.
I! has often been asked @hy cS:nIyt p7-
ra,e property 2a Aana ard conde;.:n it 1T Ssa
The question has been, perhaps, piau:ih!v,
but no: nationally, answered Bat II will nc
agreed, at any rates, that il you capture ;!lc
en.iny's property n! sea when you consent 10
exempt it On land you should not pro:crius
asHtTal goods at sea, wheT the cacnyS ga"ds
oa laaa are free. Bnt this oiinnce is really
| committed especially in ilochodH5, which in
J ycirc the rro;niscuuus destruction u: the pro-
perty nj fricad as vel: a. c;?sHiv. Le-'ii"g /"
such {. rcii;lt, irhictag on your ifi=Hi - III
| jury from which, a' II general !:lf, ypu i.ar2
exempted Jour enemy, ,hc practice must be
! wrong in itself, unless some paramount extra.
| l., - loo Eel.
Caa the practice be indicated by this argyll
ment: Is aucn an object to be accompiished:
Certainly not, unless you undertake to actual
j. reduce the town or place by Slege at tahd,
~ veil as by blockade az s.a, So a. ID shut "'l'
aA communication, with reasonable PTos!ec!
Of success then the consequent injury ic ::.~
commerce OF your .fi'iC't", - wc!l eS t." lhe
property OF your sae5np u.usl he submitted ii
as an inevitable crl The act then on prinei
pie must be permitted rather than appTorca.
Communication ana commerce with place
on lard is nterG!ctei only when the place is
sar?ouH0ed with q view 10 It's reduction.
It is only the end in lni5 case 10 be attained
that jns!inas the harahness Of the means. No
good reasons can, therefore, be given to sill:
| tain 6loc&a2s Hnle&s Communication IL T'sa
prerenLca at land and !lc taking and occupa-
ton Of tie place itself is in prospect. As re-
Gently IS 1879, the United States, through
Mr. Cass, in the letter to hIr. Mason, to which
we have above referred, insisted upon t;:ii yic7
rs really involving the true principle. o the
course of somewhat elahD"&!c IRAN 81 Tct
soning ON the subject he says:
"2'hcre can be nj reasonable doub! but
the original theory Of blockade; was in oHn
fornity witt, the views herein suggested; that
is, they were considered as military :Gaans 70
reduce invested places, and upen tits Harrow
| foundation the immense super structure which
nov oVershadoWs The commercial intercourse
Of the world has been erected from lime to
time by beligerent powers iur their own Pr
poses" he undertakes to show. aiso that
| Tuttei and Lord Stoweil iSir VIM SGottl had
givcn some sanction to the same principle.
| lie also gives the view ni Judge Marshall, aa
! follows 'Une oi the most eminent .IuIiacun
salts OF this country, nth in character aad
] ;,uai!on, Judge Marshall, when Secretary Of
State, in his instructions, dated September 80,
$50, to Mr.. King, then our Minister At Lon
dnr lends his high authority 20 I'M. -iew oi
ine subject" H. Ihen qGc;'s Judge Mar
skall's language, as follows son principle, ii
might well be questioned whether this rule
! can be applied to q place M! completely in
! Nchteu pg iaba DR. "eli ~ Wy SID ~ "" :"
amne the reasoning on which is founded the
right 10 intercept and cohfscate supplies dc.
signed for blockaded town, i. will be difficult
to resist the conviction that It's extension to
towns invested by sea only, is AZ uniastiiahle
encroacbment on the rights Of neutrals y
Mr Cass E,iled to mention another dis:in
guished authority, expressing in behalf Of tie
! United Stalrs the sl;ne ricw Mir. Pinck7ey,
United Stotes Minister ai London, r letter
to Lord Wellesley, dated January r. 1911,
writing in relation 90 English encroachments
on the neutral rights 81 his Government in the
then existing war, employs tt.s language:
ut is By no r,eans clear that it may not
fairly be contanded, on principle ard carly
usage that maritime blockade is incomplete
vita regard to States ut peace, unless the
Mace ghich it would effect is invested by land