The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-04-27

Great Britain a. that time, he citod the opinion
of Professor Pereles an eminent writer on inter
national maritime law, to the effect that there
can be, without blockade, no closure of a
port not In 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 in summing up upon this point,
says: After careful examination of the au-
thorities and precedents bearing upon this i'm
portant question, am bound to conclude, as q
general principle that decree by sovereign
power, closing the neutral commerce ports held
by its enemies, whether foreign or domestic, can
have no international validity, and no extra
territorial effect in the direction of imposing any
obligation upon the governments of neutral
powers to recognize it, or to contribute towards
its enforcement by any domestic action on their
part Such a decree may, indeed be necessary
as municipal enactment of the state which
proclaims it in order to clothe the executive
with authority to proceed with the institution of
formal and effective blockade, but when that
purpose is attained its power is exhausted. If
the sovereign decreeing such closure have a
naval force sufficient to maintain blockade and
II he duly proclaims such blockade then he
may seize and subject to the adjudication of o
prize court vessels which may attempt to run
the blockade. If he lay embargo, then vessels
attempting to evade such embargo may be forci-
bly, repelled by him if he is in possession of the
port so closed"
THE decree of closure of certain named ports
OF Colombia contains no intimation of an Interior
purpose to decree proclaimed and effective
blockade 1t may, therefore, be premature to
treat your announcement as impaIting such
Interior measures but it gives me pleasure to
declare that the government of the United States
will recognize any effective blockade instituted
by the United States of Colombia, with respect
to its domestic ports not actually subject to its
authority This government will also submit to
the forcible repulson of vessels of the United
States by any embargo which Colombia may
hau Np%c
it has power to effect such repulsion but the
government of the United States must regard
utterly nugatory the proclamations closing ports
which the Unitee States of Colombia do not
possess, under color of naval force which is not
even pretended to be competent to constitute a
blockade
Upon the second point raised by Senior Becer-
ra's communication, viz: the status of insurgent
vessels, Secretary Bayard says:
1.-THE government of the United States cannot
regard as piratical vessels manned by parties in
arms against tho government of the United
States of Colombia, when such vessels are pass
ing to and from ports held by such insurgents,
or even when attacking ports in the possession
of the national government In the late civil
war the United States, at an early period of the
struggle surrendered their position that those
manning the confederate cruisers were pirates
under international law. The United States of
Colombia cannot, sooner or later, do otherwise
than accept the same view; but, however this
may be, no neutral power can acquiesce
In the position now taken by the Colom-
bian government. Whatever may be the demerits
of the vessels in the power of the insurgents, or
whatever may be the status of those manning
them under the municipal law of Colombia, if
they are brought by tho act of the national gov
ernment within the operation Of that law, there
can be no question that such vessels, when en-
gagged as above stated, are not, by the law of ma
tions, pirates; nor can they be regarded as pi-
rates by the United States The status of pur-
pose or of employment which the government of
Colombo seeks to create against such vessels by
declaring them to be pirates, is Of course wholly
distinct from their inherent status as floating
property. Oh this latter point we are not as yet
adequately informed. The commanders
of naval vessels of the United States
on the Colombian coast have, however, been
told that if conclusive proof be shown that any
vessels belonging to the citizens of the United
States have been unlawfully taken from them,
the recovery of such property by the owners, or
by others acting in their behalf, to the extent of
its restoration to their legitimate control is war
rantable. Such right is inherent, depending
wholly upon the circumstances Of the case, and
nicipal decree of the Colombian government like
that which you bring to my notice"
Secretary Bayard then reviews at length the
position taken by the government during the
late civil war with reference to the question of
the closing of non-possessed ports, in order to
show the consistency of its present action and
in conclusion says:
THAT ports not so possessed cannot be closed,
even by their legitimate sovereign, without the
concomitant of a duly announced and effective
blockade. may be accepted as now an estab-
lshed rule of international law