The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-06-21

this speech is said to have been decidedly rich.
The Committee on Adjournment will report il
favor OF an adjournment on Friday next, at
O'Clock, until July 90.
z--=7----as%u.z-a--=za-
JUDICIAL DECISION ON THE BLOCKADE
Most of our readers are probably aware that a
case in Admiralty has lately been pending in the
District Court of the United States for the District
of Columbia, involving decision of the question
as to the right of the President to blockade the
ports of tine United States
Judge Dunlop, in rendering his opinion, which
We take from yesterdays hteliyencer, thus stated
the points of the case:
A libel has been filed by the United States and
the captors in this court sitting in Admiralty to
condemn as prize the English schooner "Tropic
| wind" and cargo valued at S22 900, for violating
blockade of the ports of Virginia, proclaimed by
the President of the United States on the 9th
| April, 1861.
The capture was made in or near the mouth Of
James river, by the United States ship Monticello,
! Captain ---, on the 2Ist of Nav, 1861 The
blockade of the port of Richmond, Virginia, into
| which port the Tropic Wind had entered before
the proclamation, is alleged to have been made
effective on the Both of April, and notice of it
| brought home to the captain of the Tropc Wind
and the British Consul, at Richmond at least AS
early as the I'd of Say. Fifteen days were allowed
by the United States tc neutral vessels to leave the
blockadeG port OF Richmond, from the 30th April,
|
1t appears that the Tropic Wind commenced to
load her cargo at Richmond, Virginia, on the 18Th
| OF May, completed her lading on the l4th Nav.
ana sailed from Richmond the same day, bound for
| Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Mr.. Carlisle appeared for the vessel and cargo,
| Med the answer of Captain Layto and the case
has been argued and submitted to me on the libel
answer evidence taken in preparatoria and official
documents.
The authority of the President to institute the
| blockade Is denied by the respondents who insist
that this power, under the Constitution of the
United states, can only be exercised by the Ma.
tional Legislature.
Mr.. Carlisle, who appeared for the vessel and
cargo, maintained
|. That blockade, under the law of nations
must DE the act Of belIigerent. There must be
public war. If sovereign close certain of his own
ports on account of domestic disturbances and in
terdIct al commerce with Them upon certain pen
alteS ana forieltures this is not blockade under
the law OF nations, but municipal legislation or de-
cree of the sovereign This distinction is taken by
the Supreme Court in the case of Rose and Himely
a, Cranch, where, the Island of st. DOMINGO being
IN state OF revolt, decree similar to that of the
Presidents proclamation made by the authori-
ty OF the French Republic The court held that
the capture in that case was not jure bel but was
j"re ciriii. He admitted that there was no repug-
nancy between the two rights, belligerent ard of
sovereignty. One might be superadded to the
other. But, by authority of the same case and
Others it is to be determined by the acts and dec
tII, r
acter he is acting, whether simply enforcing his
own authority upon his subjects and within
his own jurisdiction, carrying on a public war:
whether war between independent nations, or
civil war, which is still war; recognized by the
jus gentiun emitting both parties to all the rights
of Segerents as to other nations
:. IT the soUereigR poUer had proclaimed and in
stituted this blockade, the case would then be par
alel with that cited from Cranch. But in this
case the souerega has not acted unless the Presi,
dent be an absolute monarch. This case arises in
court of justice, by the libel of the Government
and the captors who ask decree Of condemnati ton
The court is held under the Constitution and laws
Of the United States. Political necessity or the
temporary will of the people to suspend the cons-
tutiona Government and in its place erect dicta-
torship for the preservation of the Union, however
justihable elsewhere, can have standing in this
court. This is the act of the President Is it an
act of war? The answer is that bv the Consitu-
tion, Congress alone declare or recognize war?
Is it a municipal decree? The answer is equally
cear-the President has no legislative or sovereign
powers or attributes.
3. Taking the case either way. and admitting the
power, the terms of the procamat tiOns of the 18th
and q tn OF April clearly show that the act is one
which studiously disclaims and denies any actual
war, or any beIigerent rights in the States block
AIDED 1t IS therefore no case of capture jure beli
4 hether war exists or not is pGiitcai dHae-
ton which is to be answered exclusively and CON
clusvely as to the courts of the United States by
the Executive Government of the United States
and not by the opinion of court or bar, or that of
Executive pronounce this to be no case of war
The Southern Confederacy is not recognized as a
government dc tactO. Those in arms under that
supposed authority are merely rebels and traitors
on land and pirates the seas 1t is true that
Great Britain, to whom this ship belongs appears to
think differently But this court takes the political
status in question absolutely and solely from the Ex-
ecutive Government Of the United States. The other
nations Judge for themselves and their courts fol-
low them.
5. This proclamation assumes to annul the exist
ing treaties with Great Britain by closing large
portion of the ports of the Union. There is, at
all events, no war with Great Britain, regular or
irregular. The President neither make nor
unmake a treaty. Ports of entry created bv act of
Congress can only cease to be such by the exercise
OF the same power. These ports, being by the
theory of the Government in the Union, BY what
authority are they bockaded? By what authority
neutrals excluded?
But, 6. Waving these points, argument gracia
here breach of blockade The schooner
neither went into Norfolk nor passed nor attempted
to pass the blockade of Hampton Roads She was
lying at anchor at the mouth of James river The
blockade was to prevent ingress from the sea and
egress to the sea. This is clear from the notice
given by Com. Pendergrast. Mr.. Carlisle here
examined that paper and the depostions in prepa-
tdriO to support his assertions of fact The mere
intention is no breach of the blockade. Wheaton
on Captures, 1884 Cranch, lS6. But there was
intention to run the blockade 1t is clear on the
proof that the Consul and the master thought she
might lawfully proceed to sea, having cleared from
Richmond within the fifteen days, and with reason
Such was evidently the extent of the privilege,
which otherwise vain.
Z. The cargo is not liable to condemnation, if all
the foregoing points are for the captors. 1t was
owned in Liverpool, before the blockade. The
master is not agent for the owners. Nor is the
shipping merchant in the blOcksded port. His in !
terests, well private for the Government de |
tacto are against the owners He will ship without
regard to risk, to make his commissions, and to |
benefit the State by exporting her produce. There
n IN pnIrD tnr and tha nr6ar
Captures, 203 and 209.
These are the heads of Mr.. Cariise's argument
We give synopsis of the opinion of the Court
The Judge sad
1t is true department of the Federal Govern |
ment can exercise any power not expressly con- |
ierred it by the Constitution of the United
States or necessary to give effect to granted pow
ers; all Others reserved to the States reSpec-
lively, or to the people. In the second article,
cond section of the Constitution of the United
States, is this provision: "The President shall be
cOmmander-in chief of the army and nary of the |
United States, and of the militia of the several |
States when called into the actual service of the
United States'
In the war with Mexico, declared by Congress
to erist by the act of Mexico, (see 9th Statutes at
Large, page 9,) the Supreme Court have main
tanned, in two cases that the President, 'oihom any
act of Congress- as cOmmander-n-chief of the army |
and navy, could exert the belgerent right of levy
ing contributions on the enemy to annoy and weak
en- him.
After citing the opinions of Chief Justice Taney
in the of Fleming ct al. Page 10Th Howard,
Gl5) to the effect that 'the President COM
mander-in-chefis is authorized to direct the move
ments of the naval and military forces, and to employ
them in any manner he may deem most efectual to
harass, conquer and subdue the enemy" and also
the opinion of Judge Wayne in the of Cross ct
a. vs Harrison (l6th Howard, lS9, 1907, in rela-
ton to the orders given by the President without
the sanction of Congress to the military and naval
commanders in California, the Judge went to
say that
Blockade is a beigerent right, under the law OF
nations, where exists, and is clearly defined
the belgerent right to levy contributions IN the
enemy's country. As the Supreme Court hold the
latter power to be coustitutionay In the fresdent
without an act of Congress as commahoer-,n-cnlei
of the army and navy, it follows necessarily that
tba mower of blockade also resides with him; in
deed it would seem a clearer right, If possible, be-
cause as chief of the navy, nobody can doubt the
rioht of its commander to order fleet or ship to
csnture an enemy's vessel at sea, or to lombard
fortress on shore, and it is only another mode OF
assault and injury to the same enemy to shut up
his harbors and close his trade by the same ship or
fleet. The same weapons are used. The COM
mander only varies the mode OF attack
The powers of the President are next discussed
with reference to the authority vested in him to
declare blockade of the ports of the Confederate
States, and the nature of the exgencies which
ustiry him in calling out the militia, and assuming
the existence of civil Of the first, the Execu-
second the right is conceded. Then follows an |
inquiry as to the time when the blockade became
effective, which is decided to have been the I'd of