The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-04-27


the penalties ia such cases provided by tae Co-
lombian laws By second decree. the Govern
ment of Colombia declares that the vessels which
are now stationed 81 the entrance Of the Bay OF
CGrthegena, In the port OF that name, in:the Car
noean sea. ana "hlt1 are toere enoarfsssIhg ana
even making war upo0 inter1auOnal cOmmerce
under the flags OF various friendly nations, and Oy
means of the vessels Of the lines OF regular com
Inunfcation. which have long been established, do
not belong TO the United States OF Colombia, aud
that they have no right TO raise, they neverthe
quenee botn their existence and their action.
which are wholly irregular, nut them beyond the
pale Of International law; and their pro-
ful operations OF cOmu cree al the entrance
TO q commercial port belonging to Nation which
is al peace with the whole world. may ia al
eases be punished by the vessels that are charged
10 these waters 10 watch the int rests OF CON-
meree in general, and over the special inse ests Of
the Nations TO which they respectively belong.
IN informing YOU, Mr. Secretary OF State, as here
by have the honor to do. OF the restoration of
peace throughout almost the entire territory OF
Co ombia, and of the measures adopted with q
view TO its restoration in the ports whien are still
held by the rebels, entertain tho hope that this
the oeerees IN question viii have, in your estima
ton the weight necessary 10 cause them TO be
considered as important to American commerce"
Under date of April p Secretary BsyaId
replied to Senor Becerrs, reca pitulating the
extent of the latter's Communication, and
setting forth the position of the United
States with reference thereto, IS follows:
This Government. following the received tenets
OF tDteTI atiOn8l law, ADMIT that decree
or aS0yeTelgn government closing certain national
ports in the possession of foreign enemies OF in
surgents has any international effect unless sus-
tanned by blockade force sufficient to practically
close tuch ports"
Secretary Baysrd then quotes from Law
renee notes on Wheaton, the rule in such
cases as drawn from the positions taken by
the adm il stIatiops of Presidents Jefferson
| end Madison, during the struggles with
France and England, and continues as fol-
lows:
The situation which the present decrne assumes
to create is analogous 10 that cansed Dy the
of the government of New Grenada, in 1861. The
Grenadisn Charge. ID "A flares Senior Rafael Pombo,
on the 3lst of March OF taat year, notified Mr.
| Seward that cerafn ports, among 1hem Rio Hacha.
Santa Marta, Carthagena, Sabanillo and Seapate.
all on the Carritean coast. bad been declared 10
be closed 10 commerce, whether OF export or I'M
| port There is this difference, however. that the
vessels of the Confederation were 20 cruise about
| the ports closed to commerce for the purpose OF
the closure. which had been decreed. II appears
/ frCm Mr.. Stewards note OF acknowledgment to
Senor Pombo, dated April 9. lsel. that the an
! noDncement then made was interpreted, aud
! correctly so, as declaration that certain
named ports were in stare Of blockade.
! national vessels and of which due public notice
| had been given. While the Government OF the
United States in 1851 thus confirmed the doctrine
| il had consistently maintained from the earliest
days of the Republic that nonpossessed ports
might be effectively closed by maritime block
| right OF New Grenada TO resort 10 such a remedy
The Secretary then quotes the statemsnts
| of Lord John Russell with reference to the
New Grenada blockade, made In answer 10
an inquiry In the House OF Commons On the
| 9th of June, 1861, and continues as follows
Early in 1861, the civil war in the United States
| DToAe out, this Government maintained the posi-
| tion that the municipal closure OF domestic pous
in the hands OF the Confederate forces was leeit
| mate incident towards the maintenance of an eff
1
| British Government, and in the correspondence
which then took place. Lord John Russell re-
| peatedly announced to 8r. Adams, tue sane rule
| as e had previously announced With regard 20
| Grenadian decree. and he finally appealed 10 his
answer in the New Grenada case for the purpose
OF showing that it was intended to make the rlle
universal. The British Ministry ultimately went
| TO the extreme of declaring that they would con.
sider such municipal enactment THAT of the
closure OF the non possessed ports) as null and
void. and that they would not submit 10 meas
uIes taken on the high seas. In pursuance OF 8
speech made October %, 1862, by Mr.. Golden
ore for the purpose of showing the attitude Of
the Government OF Great BIltain st that time.
and cites the opinion Of Professor Perees, an emit
nent writer of international maritime law. to the
effect that there can be- without blockade, no
closure OF port not in possession OF the SOVEREIGN
issuing the decree. He slsO refers to the iegisla.
tion of the Congress OF the United States in 1851
relative to the closing of the ports OF the Soutn,
and summing up upon this point says: After
careful examination OF the authoritie' ADD prece-
cents bearing upon this important question an
hound to conclude as a general principle, that a
decree by a sovereign power closing to neutral
| commerce ports neld by its enemies, whether for
eign or domestic, can have no intern atOnal vail T.
ity and no extra territorial effect in the direction
OF imposing any obligation upon tne Govern
it or to contribute toward its euio,c !.
ment by any domestic action on the ?
part such decree may indeed be necessary, a a
municipal enactment OF the State which claims
in order TO clotne the Executive with authorit,
to proceed 10 the institution OF a formal and eli
fective blockade, but when that purpose is a.
tanned It's power is exhausted. IL the SOVEREIGN
decreeing such closure have naval force suti
| ctent TO maintain a blockade. and II he duly pro
claims such q blockade, then he may seize auC
subject to the adjudication OF prize court yes
sells which may attempt to run the blockade. l.
| he lay an embargo, then vessels attempting to
evece such embargo may be forcibly repelled by
him If he be in possession of the port so closed;
The decree OF closure of certain named ports OF
Colombia contains no intimation OF
an ulterior purpose to declare & proclaimed and
effective blockade. 1t may therefore be pres stur,
! to treat your announcement impartng such
ulterior measures but II gives me pleasure 10
declare that the Government OF the Unitea
iuted by the United States Of ColomSis VITA res
pect TO Its domestic ports, not actually subject to
,Ss oprS Ths II win also
States by any embargo which Colombia may
lay upon parts OF whchit has possession. when l.
Government OF the United states must regard a.
utterly migstory proclsmations closing ports
which the Uhited states OF Colon oi. do noi
not even pretended TO be competent to constitute
q blockade.
Upon the second point raised bv Seno.
Becerra's communication, viz: the status o.
insurgent vessels, Secretary Bayard says:
THE Government of the United States can
not regard as piratical vessels manned by
parties in arms against the government of
the United States of Colombia when such
vessels are passing to aud FROM ports held By
such insurgents, or even when attacking
| ports IL possession of she national govern
ment In the late civil war, the United
States a. an early period of the struggle sur
rendered their position that those ma1ning
the Confederate cruisers were pirates under
| intern aiional law"