of blockade by the American Courts. The same happened to the British vessel" Stephen Hart," 1 which was seized on her voyage to the neutral port of Cardenas, in Cuba. And in the famous case of the "Springbok," "a British vessel also destined for Nassau, in the Bahama Islands, which was seized on her voyage to this neutral British port, the cargo alone was finally condemned for breach of blockade, since, in the opinion of the Court, the vessel was not cognisant of the ulterior destination of the cargo for a blockaded port. The same happened to the cargo of the British vessel "Peterhoff" 3 destined for the neutral port of Matamaros, in Mexico. The British Government declined to intervene in favour of the British owners of the respective vessels and cargoes.4 5 It is true that the majority of authorities assert the illegality of these judgments of the American Prize Courts, but the fact that Great Britain recognises as correct the principles which are the basis of these judgments will probably have the consequence that they will in future be applied by British as well as foreign Prize Courts. The whole matter calls for an international agreement of the members of the Family of Nations. § 386. Although blockade inwards interdicts ingress to all vessels, if not especially licensed, necessity makes exceptions to the rule. Whenever a 3 Wallace, 559. 2 5 Wallace, 1. 3 5 Wallace, 28. 4 See Parliamentary Papers, Miscellaneous, N. 1 (1900) "Correspondence regarding the Seizure of the British Vessels Springbok and Peterhoff by the United States Cruisers in 1863." 5 See, for instance, Holland, Prize Law, p. 38, note 2; Philli more, III. § 298; Twiss, Belli- When not considered Ingress is Breach of Blockade. When not con- Breach of vessel is by need of repairs,1 stress of weather,2 want of water or provisions, or upon any other ground absolutely obliged to enter a blockaded port, such ingress does not constitute a breach of blockade. On the other hand, according to the British practice at least, ingress does not cease to be breach of blockade if caused by intoxication of the master,4 ignorance of the coast, loss of compass, endeavour to get a pilot, and the like, or an attempt to ascertain whether the blockade was not raised.9 5 § 387. There are a few cases of egress which are, according to British and most other States' practice, not considered breaches of blockade outwards.10 Thus, a vessel that was in the blockaded port before the commencement of the blockade 11 may sail from this port in ballast, as may a vessel that entered during a blockade either in ignorance of it or with the permission of the blockading squadron.12 Thus, further, a vessel the cargo of which was put on board before the commencement of the blockade may leave the port afterwards unhindered.13 Thus, again, a vessel obliged by absolute necessity to enter a blockaded port may afterwards leave it unhindered. And a vessel employed by the diplomatic envoy of a neutral State for the exclusive purpose of sending home from a blockaded port distressed seamen of his nationality may also pass unhindered.14 through § 388. A breach of blockade can only be com- Passage mitted by passing through the blockaded approach. UnblockTherefore, if the maritime approach to a port is aded Canal no blockaded from which an inland canal leads to an- Breach of other unblockaded port of the enemy or to a neutral Blockade. port, no breach of blockade is committed through the egress or the ingress of a vessel passing such canal for the purpose of reaching the blockaded port.1 V CONSEQUENCES OF BREACH OF BLOCKADE See the literature quoted above at the commencement of § 368. running § 389. It is generally recognised that a vessel Capture of may be captured for a breach of blockade in delicto Blockadonly, that means, during the time an attempt to Vessels. break it, or the breach itself, is committed. But here again practice as well as theory differ much, since there is no unanimity with regard to the extent of time during which an attempt of breach and the breach itself can be said to be actually continuing. (1) It has already been stated above in § 385 that it is a moot point when an attempt to break a blockade can be said to be continuing, and that according to the practice of Great Britain and the United States such attempt is already to be found in the fact that a vessel destined for a blockaded port is starting on her voyage. It is obvious that the controversy bears upon the question from what point of time a blockade-running vessel must be considered in delicto. (2) But it is likewise a moot point when the period 1 The Stert, 4 Rob. 65. See Phillimore, III. § 314. VOL. II. EE of time comes to an end during which a blockaderunning vessel may be said to be in delicto. According to Continental theory and practice, such vessel is in delicto only as long as she is on the spot of the line of blockade, or, having fled from there, as long as she is pursued by one of the blockading cruisers. On the other hand, according to the practice of Great Britain and the United States,2 a blockade-running vessel is held to be in delicto as long as she has not completed her voyage from the blockaded port to the port of her destination and back to the port from which she started originally, the voyage out and home being considered one voyage. But a vessel is held to be in delicto as long only as the blockade continues, capture being no longer admissible in case the blockade has been raised or has otherwise come to an end. $390. Capture being effected, the blockade-runner for Breach is to be sent to a port to be brought before a Prize Blockade. Court. For this purpose the crew may be temporarily detained, as they will have to serve as witnesses. In former times the crew could be imprisoned, and it is said that even capital 3 punishment could have been pronounced against them. since the eighteenth century this practice has been abandoned, and nowadays the crew cannot even be made prisoners of war, but must be released as soon as the Prize Court has pronounced its verdict.+ The only penalty which may be pronounced is confiscation of the vessel and the cargo. But the practice of the different States differs much concerning the penalty for breach of blockade. Penalty of 1 The Welvaart van Pillaw, 2 Rob. 128; General Hamilton, 6 Rob. 61. publ., I. c. 11. But See Calvo, V. §§ 2897-2898. U.S. Naval War Code, article 45. 5 See Fauchille, Blocus, pp. 357-394; Gessner, pp. 210-214; 3 See Bynkershoek, Quaest. jur. Perels, § 51, pp. 276–278. 2 See U.S. Naval War Code, article 44. 5 According to British and American practice, confiscation of both vessel and cargo takes place in case the owners of the vessel are identical with those of the cargo. In case vessel and cargo have not the same owners, confiscation of both takes place only when either the cargo consists of contraband of war or the owners knew of the blockade at the time the cargo was shipped for the blockaded port. And it matters not whether the captured vessel which carries the cargo has herself actually passed through the blockaded line, or the breach of blockade was effected through a combined action of lighters and the vessel, the lighters passing the line and discharging the cargo into the vessel near the line, or vice versa.2 3 The cargo alone was confiscated according to the judgments of the American Prize Courts during the Civil War in the case of the " Springbok" and in similar cases when goods ultimately destined for a blockaded port were sent to a neutral port on a vessel whose owners were ignorant of this ulterior destination of the goods. 1 The Mercurius, 1 Rob. 80; Columbia, I Rob. 154; Alex. ander, 4 Rob. 93; Adonis, 5 Rob. 256; Exchange, Edwards, 39; Panaghia Rhombia, 12 Moore, P.C. 168. See Phillimore, III. The Maria, 6 Rob. 201. |