The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-04-25
PREcEDENTs ON nLocKADEs.
Discussion on Questions Involved in
the Move ON Havana.

the Move ON Havana.
WASHINGTON, April 24-The proposition
that Commodore Sampson should establish
a peaceable blockade of Havana has given
rise to much discussion of this curious semi
war demand Pacific blockades are peculiar
institutions-so peculiar that most authori-
ties on International law declare that they
do not really exist, and maintain this in the
face of numerous precedents to the con-
trary.
The last instance in which one was en-
forced was only about year ago, when the
European powers Practically biockaded the
islands of Crete. 1t was inaugurated March
20 by proclamation made by the six powers,
which declared ships of the six powers or
neutral powers may enter into the ports oc-
cupied by the powers and land their mer-
chandise, but only if it is not for the Greek
troops or the interior of the islands. These
ships may be visited by the ships of the in
ternational fleets.
AS il happened, no ships other than Greek
attempted to enter Cretan ports during the
blockade and there was therefore no test of
the question whether this blockade was
binding on neutral governments or even on
the citizens of one of the six powers. At
the time Sir Walter Phillimore, who is a
strong authority on international law, put
the case of the rights of British citizens as
follows:
"One would wish to know whether the
government has consulted its legal advisers
as to certain eventualities which are not
unlikely to follow upon this so-calied block
ade of Crete. Surprising that British ship,
seeing a chance of doing a good trade in
provisions sails for port in Crete. She
will be perfectly within her legal rights,
and it wall be illegal ito stop her. We are
not at war with Crete or Greece. So it will
not be q. case of trading with an enemy,
and nothing short Of an act of Parliament
can take away the right of any British
subjects to go to or trade with Crete. Sup
pose this. ship is stopped and turned back.
x1yiil ha frro 10 0Ioi
ages at the suit of the sufferers against the
captain of the British man-of-war. Suppose
she is fired at and sunk. The damages
will be greater. Suppose one of her crew
Is drowned. | see no defense to an lnd1ct-
ment for murder
There have been repeated other instances,
but in most of them no one other than the
blockading and the blockaded powers had
any occasion to contraVene their rules. Of
course, the blockaded power would have
gone to war at any time in resistance, but
in most instances it did not care to do so.
When it did the blockade of course, became
a legitimate war measure, Subjecting neu-
trail ships that tried to run it to capture in
stead of merely to being prevented and
turned back. Hence it was to the advan-
tage of neutral powers not to force the
blockader to transform his rights, and the
exact question has passed unsettled.
Several presidents may be noted. In 1927
when Greece was fighting for Independence
from Turkey three powers, France, Rus
STA and England, blockaded all the Greek
coast where the Turkish armies were en-
camped They stated that this pacific
measure, despite the fact that it was in
tended to paralyze the Turkish armies. The
Sultan did not consider it so, and to prevent
hostile acton by his fleet it was destroyed
by the British at the battle of Navarino.
In 1881 France blockaded the Tagus in or
der to compel Portugal to pay certain
claims against her. Otherwise peace was
not interrupted, and Portugal finally gave
up and France restored the vessels she had
captured.
In 1888 France and Great Britain exercised
pacific blockade against Holland until she
permitted Belgian independence to become
In 1888 France blockaded Mexican ports.
protesting the while that her intentions were
friendly: Mexico, however resented this act
and declared war. Practically hostilities did
not take place, and after two years peace
was made.
In the same year France and Great Britain
against Argentina, which lasted no less
that time continuing to insist that peace
continued.
In 1850 Great Britain blockaded Greece to
compel reparation for certain offenses, but
no war resulted.
In 1860 Victor Emmanuel, then King Of
Piedmont, Joined the. revolutionary govern
out any war resulting.
In 1862 Great Britain blockaded Rio
Janeiro, the while declaring that she was
animated by the most friendly sentiments
toward that country.
In 1879 Bolivia was blockaded by Chile for
three months before war was declared or
even begun.
In 1883 France blockaded Siam. quickly
following it with war
Yet, despite all these instances, the
weight of authority is that while a block
ade, when effectual, will be regarded as a
war I'm measure, it may be disregarded by
a pacific pressure. The declaration of Paris,
which we have heard so much in connec-
ton with privateerng, forbids all pacific
blockades. Thus it seems that a blockade
of Cuban ports instituted by the United
States would be binding only on the United
fcfn 1NafF 1itrht 10 1fev@ <1A1
by other powers. AS there seems to be lit
tie doubt, however. that before ships from
other countries could reach Cuba this block
ure the question is not so important as it
seems, merely postponing the inevitable for
a few days.