The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1885-04-29

of international law, does not admit that decree
Of sovereign government closing certain national
ports in Tho possession OF foreign enemies of in-
tanned By blockade force sufficient TO practically
close such ports"
Secretary B&yErd then quotes from Law
renee notes on wheaton,. the rule IN such
cases as drawn from the positions taken by
the ad Illustrations of Presidents Jefferson
and Madison, during the struggles with
France and England, and continues as fol-
lows:
The situation which the present dacrue assumes
to create IS analogous to that caused thu action
of the government Of New GTtnaia. in 1861. The
Grensdisn Charged Aflares, Senior Rafael POmbo
on The Slst of March OF that year, notified Mr.
Seward that certain ports among lhem RIO Hscha
Santa Marta, Carthagena, Sabanillo and Seapate
al on the Carritean coast, had been declared 10
be closed to commerce, whether OF export or i'm
Port. There IS this difie renee however, that the
GreDsdisn Government then announced that war
vessels of the Confederation we're 20 cruise about
the ports closed to commerce for the purpose of
seizing vessels which should be found vic lating
the closure. which bad been decreed. II appears
fr m Mr.. Stewards note OF acknowledgment to
Senior POmbO, dated April 9, ls6l. that the an
nOuDcemeDt then made was Interpreted, and
correctly so, as declaration that certain
which should be rendered effective by
nOuOnal vessels, and OF which due public notice
had been given. While the Government OF the
United States in 1861 thus confirmed the doctriue
il had consistently main tanned from the earliest
days of the Republic that nonposseSsed ports
might be effectively closed by maritime block
ace, the British Government then coRtrOverted the
right of New Grenada TO resort 10 such a remedy.
The Secretary then quotes the statements
of Lord John Russell with reference TO the
New Grenada blockade. made In answer 10
an inquiry IN tbs Houte OF Commons On the
9th OF June, 1861. and continues rs follows;
Early in 1861, the civil IN the United States
DToSe ont this Cove nment maintained the posi-
tiCn that the municipal closure OF domestic pos
in the hands OF the Confederate forces Les 1T
mate incident towards tte maintenance OF an ef
fectiye blockade by sea This was opposed by the
British Government. and in the cOrres pondence
which then took place. Lord John Russell re-
peaiedly announced to Mr.. Adams, the sane rue
IS bad previously announced with regard
Grenadian decree and he finally appealed 10 his
answer in the New Grenada case for the purpose
Of showing tnst 1t WAS intended 70 make the rlie
universal. The British Ministry ultimately went
TO the extreme OF declaring mat they would con
slider such muntnipal enat tment THAT OF the
closure of Inc nOn-pOssesSed p0rts) as null and
void and that they would not submit ID meas
nres iaEen on me h'gn seas In pursu7nes OF
speech made October p, 1862, By Mr. Gooden
more for the purpose Of showing the attitude OF
the Government of Great Biltain at that time,
and cites the opinion OF Professor Pereles, emf
nent writer OF international maritime law, ID tue
effect that there can &c, without blockade. no
closure of port not in possession OF the sovereign
issuing the decree He also rsfers TO the legisla.
ton of the Congress OF the Unites States 10 lS6l
relative to the closing OF the ports OF the %OIth
ana summing UP opon thls point ssys: after
CT ref1 cxamtDati0u OF the sutboritie- ara prece-
cents bearing upon THIS lmhOriant question
hOnnd 10 Coreluce. as general principle, thata
decree hy sovereign power closing - neutral
commerce ports held by its enc mics. whether for
elgn or domestic. can nave no inleTnauO1al vail
ity and 10 extra territorial elect in tee direction
OF ilnpasing any obligation upon tae Govera.
menis OF neutral powers TO recognize
1t or 10 contribute toward lis enlo,cs-
ment By any domestic action on their
part. such decree may indeed 1e necessary, as
municipal enactment of the state which claims il,
in orOer 10 clOtne the Executive with authority
10 proceed 10 the Institution OF formal and ef'
secuvc blockade, but when that purpose is at
taiUed its power Is exhausted. If the SOVEREIGN
cecretiug such closure have naval force kufi
Gent 10 msintsin blockade, and II he duly pro
claims such o olocssde then he may seize aud
subject TO the adjudication of a prize court yes
sells which may attempt to run the blockade. II
lie Jay an embargo, then vessels attempting to
Grade such embargo may be fOreibly repele1 by
him il he be in possession OF the port so closed
Inc decree of closure of certain named ports Of
an ulteriOr purpose to declare a proclaimed sud
effective blockade. II may therefore be premature
ulteTior measures but II gives me pleasure to
declare that the Government o. the United
States win recognize sny effective blockade insti
pect TO its domestic ports. actually subject TO
iissGtbOrity. This Government will also submit
to the fcrcibi repulsion OF vessels Of the United
states by eIn5areo which Colombia
lay upon parts of which it has possession. when It
has power 10 elec, such repOly0n, but the
Government OF the United States NUT regard a.
which the United ststes of Colomoia do not
lGnStff, uHOtT cOlOr % naval lOICe Mnfh II
not even pretended to be competent 10 constitute
! a blockade
Upon the second point raised by Senior
Bscsua's tommnnica ion, VIZ. the status oil
insurgert vessels. Secretary Bsysrd says:
The Government of the United STATES can
not regard as piTatiCal vessels manned by
Ia-iiss in arms against the government OF
the United States of Colombia, when such
vessels are passing to and from ports held by
such insurgents, or even when attacking
ports in possession OF the national govern
neDt. In the late civil war, the United
States at an early period of the struggle sur.
rendered their position that thcss manning
the Confederate cruisers were pirates under
International law
The United States OF Colombia can moi sooner
later DO otherwise than accept the same vie =.
bot. however this may ne. no neutral power can
sfgLiesCe In tie position now tAkeu by The Colo N
BAN Government wha ever may be the dement's
Of The vessels IL the power OF the insurgents. or
! whatever msy be the status OF tho mauning
them under T. municipal law OF Colombia, II
they ere brought by the set OF the national gov
trnment within the operation OF that law. there
can Be no question that such vexs Is when en-
gagged A. above slated a-e not BY the la OF nAuo
pirates; nor can they be regarded pirates the
United stsies, the statues OF the purpose or 81 EN-
I plosmenf which the 6overnmen of Cole mpia
seeks TO create against such vessels By deeiarin9
tht m 10 b. pirates is OF course wholly dtst1 c'
from their Inherent status floating property. On
this latter point we are not as yet adequately in
formed. The commander OF naval vessels OF tse
United States en- the Colombian coast, have. no "
ever, been tOld that II conclusive proof be shown
that any vessels belonging to citizens OF the United
States have been unlawfutly tskeu from them. the
! recovery OF such properly by the owners or oJ
flsaFc aQ4s Ia hal Ia fba art