Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-04-27
DURING tl,e strupplee with France and


government OF New Grenada In 1861.
The Grenadan charge d affairs, Senior
Rafael Pombo, on the 3lst OF March OF
that year, notified Mr.. Seward that
certain ports, among them Rio
| Hacha, Santa Marta, Carthagena
and Sabinello, seaports all on
| tho Caribbean coast had been declared
| to be closed 10 commerce, whether OF
EXPORT or import. There is this diff
ference, however, that the Grenadan
government then announced that war
vessels OF the confederation were to
! cruise about the ports closed TO COM
merce, for the purpose OF selling yes
sells which should be found violating
| the closure which had been decreed.
at appears from Mr.. Stewards note
| of acknowledgement to Senior Pombo,
dated April9, 1861, that the announce
ment then made was. interpreted and
correctly so, as declaration that
a state of blockade which should be
rendered effective by the national
vessels and Of which due public notice
had been given.
"While the government of the Uni
ted States in 1851 thus confirmed the
doctrine 1t had consistently main
tanned from the earliest days OF the re-
public, that non-possessed ports might
| be effectively closed by maritime
blockade, the British government then
controverted the right Of New Grena-
da to resort to such o remedy
| The secretary then quotes the state
ments of Lord John Russell with ref
erence TO the new Grenada blockade
made in answer TO 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 broke out. This gov
eminent maintained the position that
the municipal closure OF domestic ports
in the hands OF Confederate forces was
o legitimate incident toward the main
tenance OF an effective blockade
by sea. This WAS opposed
by the British government
and in the correspondence which then
took place Lord Russell repeatedly
rules az he had previously advanced
with regard to the Grenadan decree,
and he finally appealed to his answer
in the New Grenada case for the pur-
poee OF showing that 1t was intended
to make the rule universal. The Brit
ish ministry ultimately went TO the
extreme OF declaring that they would
consider such an enactment, that Of
the closing OF the non-possessed ports,
as null and void, and that they would
not submit to measures taken on the
high seas to enforce such act.n
I In pursuance Of speech made Oct.
rs, 1862, by Mr.. Golden. more for the
purpose OF showing the attitude OF the
government OF Great Britain at that
time, Secretary Bayard cites the opin-
ion Prof. Pereles, an eminent writer
Of international maritime laws, to the
effect that there can be without q
blockade no closure of port not in
the possession OF the sovereign issuing
the decree. He also refers to the legis-
lation OF the congress Of the United
, States in 1861, relative to the closing
of the ports OF the South, and, sum-
ming mp upon this point, he says;
after careful examination of the
authorities and precedents bearing up
, on this important question, am bound
TO conclude a. general principle
that decree by sovereign power
closing to neutral commerce ports held
: by its enemies, whether foreign or do.
, nestle, can have no international valid.
: ity and no extra-territorial effect In the
@ direction OF the imposing OF any obi
a CATION upon the governments of the
/ neutral powers to recognize II or Il
D contribute to it's enforcement by any
domestic action on their part. Such o
J decree may indeed be necessary as 8
a municipal enactment of tn,
o state which proclaims 1t, IL
q order TO clothe the execu
J. tive with authority to proceed to tn,
/. institution OF formal and efIectiv,
J, blockade, but when that purpose is at
o tanned its power is exhausted
8 II the sovereign decreeing such closur
has naval force sufficiently strong I,
Il maintain the blockade, and II he loud
Ia ly proclaims such blockade, then h,
A. may seize and subject to the adjudica
Re ton OF prize court vessels which may
n attempt to run the blockade. If he la,
n an embargo, then the vessels attempt
r. ing to evade such embargo may be re
4. PEELED by him. If he be In possession
of OF the port 80 closed, the decree G
A. closure of certain named ports c
N Colombia. contains no intimatiol
10 OF an Interior purpose to resoI
ID TO proclaimed and enforced block
e, ade. 1t may, therefore,
NJ premature to read your announce
pe meut as imparting such Interior meas
n. ures, but II gives me pleasure to do
nj clare that the government of tn
v, United States will recognizes any q
q. fective blockade Instituted by tn
n. United States OF Colombia wit
AL respect TO its domestic ports not a,
at tually subject to It's authority. Thi
In government will also submit to th
lis forcible repulsion OF the vessels OF tn
to United States by any embargo whic
of Colombia may lay upon the ports {
nd which IL has not possession, when
of has power TO effect such repulsion, bu
w the government OF the United State
must regard rs utterly nugatory pro,
OF lamations closing ports which tn
TO United States of Colombia do nc
h. possess under color of raw
10 force which Is not even pretended |
ed be competent TO CONSTITUTED blockade.
he Upon the second point raised b
Is, Senior Becerra's communication, viz
on The status OF the lnsurgent vessel
he Secretary Bayard says;
ur "rhe government of the Unite