Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-07-14
Freedom of the Seas

tanned the right of affeetual blockade
of the enemy coasts, the only rule
being that the blockade actually must
be effectual. Obviously a nation can
not simply declare some port blockaded
and expect other nations to take 1t
seriously. But the right Of blockade
may determine the very existence of a
tenuous theories of international law
would stand the test OF practice.
In the Civil War the North appar-
entity had a serious blockade problem
that of shutting of imports of war
material from approximately 5000
miles of coast. Actually this was not
as difficult as it seemed, since an eff
fective blockade of the ports of Nor
folk, Wilmington. Charleston, Savan-
nah, Mobile, New Orleans and Calves
ton was practically all that was needed.
Nevertheless this gave rise to one
very important precedent upon which
Is based the doctrine of ultimate des-
tination," now apparently a. we'll es-
tablished principle In wartime. In the
Napoleonic wars Great Britain had
maintained the doctrine Of continuous
voyage-that is the right to seize a neu-
trail ship bound indirectly to a French
port with war supplies. In the Civil
War British ships carried their cargoes
4OL OOulIl W NdSSdu
Havana, where they were unloaded.
Then they would be reloaded on Con-
federate blockade runners. To stop
this practice the United States began
selling ships on the way to the Bahia
mas or Cuba with war supplies.
Entirely New Doctrine.
Among the captured vessels was the
British ship Springbok-London to
Nassau. 1t was taken to New York
where the United States District Court
condemned both the ship and its cargo
the decision being based on the doc
trine of continuous voyage as originally
laid down by Great Britain. The case
was appealed to the Supreme Court,
where a decision was rendered in
1866. The Springbok was ordered re-
leased as having a neutral destination,
but the cargo was condemned on the
ground that its ultimate destination
regardless of how many hands it might
pass through. was the Confederacy.
TAs separation of ship and cargo con-
stitOted an entirely new doctrine of In.
ternational law. The owners appealed
Russell refused to take up the case, on
the ground that under the British APP
plication of the doctrine of continuous
voyage both ship and cargo probably
would have been conf1scated.
But the Springbok was like the bib
lical sowing of the wind and reaping
of the whirlwind.
Great Britain's Situation.
Great Britain had submitted to the
almost complete destruction of her
commerce with the Southern States
during the Civil War. She had seen
bev fovfiIa y,oilIe el,,,t dourv, for ,r,oyak ~
cotton and her mill workers go hungry.
Despite her grumbling protests and oc-
casional 1ntimations Of reprisal, she
had remained fairly consistent neutral
especially in consideration of the
greatness Of her loss.
But she had not neglected to take
into full account the presidents which
were being established. She took espe-
cial note of the doctrine of ultimate
which she had contributed materially
by admitting its validity in the SPRING
box case.
The next British war was with the
Beers. The South Africans were re-
ceiving supplies from Germany over
indirect routes through German African
possessions. The British captured four
German merchantmen under the ''ul-
innate destination" doctrine. The
German government protested ana
Great Britain, not wishing to NEEDLE
any further with the delicate interna-
tional situation in Europe. which was
threatening to bring about the world
war" then and there, released the ships.
She did not, however, abjure the doc
trine of ultimate destination" She
simply didn't have enough at stake to
make the argument worth while.
VVorlN War CnnNition~
Thus the matter stood at the open
ing Of the World War.
Thus, for all practical purposes, it
stands today. for during that struggle
the actions at sea of both the allies
and the central powers were so be-
clouded with emotionalism and so lit
tie concerned with absolute rights" of
neutrals that only a legacy Of still
greater confusion and inconsistency
was left to international maritime law.
Both belligerents were fighting for
their existenceS, they were fighting on
a far greater scale than ever had been
known in history before, and so in
volved had the scientific progress Of
half century made war that there was
hardly anything made or consumed by
man that could not be considered,
without much contortion Of logic, war
material.
The issues soon began to come to
head. Which belligerent made the first
move is still debated. But the year
1915 found q situation In which, with