Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-04-29
BAYARD AND BLOCKADEs.

DdFtsTU anu c6llOr DtcdfTd, lle OOtollADlalll
Minister at Washington, in relation to
the decree of the Colombian government
declaring the ports OF Sabinilla and Santa
Marta, in the Caribbean sea, and the
riverport of Barranguillo, closed to foreign
commerce, is of much interest, as it
clearly indicates that the new Admins
tratien is fully alive to all our foreign in
terests, and is prompt in defining and de-
Tending them. There is in Secretary
Bayard's letter a tone of frmness and
decision that clearly indicates that the
stand which the Administration has
taken will be maintained, and which must
prove to Senior Becarra and his govern
ment, that when it desires to establish
blockade in Colombian ports, it must
be done with an effective force, and
not merely with an authoritative declara-
ton that ports are blockaded.
The position of the government in the
matter of the Colombian ports is the
same which ii has always taken, even SO
long ago as 1871, when an ordinance of
Congress in that year declared that to
makela blockade effective, there must be
actually enough vessels OF the govern
ment seeking to blockade, to make en-
trancd to the port dangerous. LIZ this
Congress followed the example of the
convention of the Baltic powers in 1870,
which had defined blockade to be the
same rs that which Congress adopted the
year following. Napoleon sought to
blockade the ports of the British Empire
throughout the world by a mere declara-
tiOn OF state of blockade He did this
by his famous Berlin Decree of November
Dist, 1896. 1t was somewhat of an annoy
ance 60 English commerce, but was not
in any. sense a blockade.
The reason for requiring so strict an
enforcement of blockade, is that it is
an extteme and harsh war measure, and
makes, the vessels and goods Of neutrals
liable to seizure and confscation for any
violation OF the blockade, and if there
is not force sufficient to make it effectual,
although notice of such state of things
may have been given to neutrals by the
proper authorities of the government en-
deavor,ng to maintain it, yet there is no
legal blockade. The object is to cut off
all commerce with the blOckaded port
thereby preventing supplies of any na-
ture from entering or leaving the nation,
and thu IS crippling the enemy. But to
be binding, there must be actual or con-
structivb notice of the blockade before
any vessel can be held responsible for a
violation of it. If a vessel has run
blockade, it is only liable to capture until
the end lof the voyage in which she run
il. So, If a blockade is raised before a
vessel which has violated it has reached
her dest nation, she is not liable to seizure
after the raising of the blockade. The
whole subject is one Of the most interest
ing in the Law of Nations, as around it
there are clustered the rights of beiliger-
ents and of neutrals, the questions of
what is dontraband and what is not, and
what cargoes neutral vessels may carry
and what ones they may not. 1t
was t4s question Of what neu-
trails might carry and what not,
that gave rise to the controversy
with England in 1861 about the Trent
affair, the United States claiming that
the trans sbortation of Mason and Sliddell
with theig Confederate dispatches in an
English vessel to England, was a viola
ton of the laws in regard to neutrality
The case, after much correspondence be-
tween Washington and Downing street,
was finally settled, although the question
as to the right of a neutral to carry the
dispatches OF an enemy was not settled,
the views pf our own jurists, such as Mr..
Lawrence and Mr. Dana, not agreeing
with the English writer's.
1t is entertaining to think what would
have been the course Of Mr. Blaine in the
present case of the blockade Of the
Colombian, ports, had he been Secretary
OF State, at his correspondence with Earl
Granville concerning the Bulwer-C Clayton
treaty was of such a nature as to warrant
that it would have been brilliant at least
i'd might have brought ridicule
upon us abd compelled us to retire from
any position we might have taken. But
the presentenergetic action of Secretary
Bayard and his decisive stand on the
American doctrine of blockades, will fur /
nish the Republicans much to talk about
when Mr.. Blaine is put in nomination
again in 1888, which he probably viii be-