different application forwarded a few days later, in Chap. X. reference to a British ship, the Hiawatha, led to a short correspondence, to which some importance was given by the subsequent capture and condemnation of the ship : " Sir, Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward. "Washington, May 8, 1861. "The inclosed extracts from letters which I received yesterday from Her Majesty's Consul in Virginia will make you acquainted with a case of some hardship concerning a British vessel, the Hiawatha. This vessel, having come to City Point with a nominal freight in order to take on board a remunerative cargo for the voyage back, may be compelled to return home in ballast in consequence of the blockade, of which, of course, her owners could have had no knowledge when they sent her out. Being assured of the readiness with which the United States' Government is inclined to receive representations in favour of foreign commercial interests, I venture to submit this case for consideration, and to request an early answer respecting it. "I have but two British vessels left within my Consular district, one of 445 tons and one of 63 tons, and if I could be permitted to clear them for England with cargoes partially owned on British account and indirectly wholly connected with British trade, it would remove possible complications and be but a small infraction, if any, of the laws of blockade." "(Extract 2.) "There are parties here about to load the British ship Hiawatha at City Point for Liverpool, under the impression that she will be allowed free egress by the blockading squadron. I have told persons who are here, representing the owners of the ship, that I see no difficulty to the ship leaving in ballast, but to this they will not consent, as the ship came here expressly from Liverpool at a nominal freight to load a remunerative cargo back." Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. "My Lord, Chap. X. Hiawatha, now in Virginia waters, from the operation of the existing blockade of the ports of the State. "Having submitted the matter to the Secretary of the Navy, I now have the honour to inclose to you a copy of that officer's reply, from which it will be seen that there are yet remaining five or six days for neutrals to leave. " Sir, "I have, &c. (Signed) "WILLIAM H. SEWARD." Mr. Welles to Mr. Seward. "Navy Department, May 9, 1861. "I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday, inclosing a note of Lord Lyons, relative to British vessels in Virginia waters, which it is desired to exempt from the operation of the blockade, and inquiring when the blockade of the ports of Virginia may be considered to have commenced; also 'whether the exemption asked for by Lord Lyons may with propriety be granted.' "In answer to the inquiry, I beg leave to refer you to a copy, herewith inclosed, of the notice issued by Flag Officer Pendergrast on the 30th of April, warning all persons that he had a sufficient force to carry into effect the blockade. This notice was sent to the Baltimore and Norfolk papers, and by one or more of them published. "Fifteen days have been specified as a limit for neutrals to leave the ports, after actual blockade has commenced, with or without cargo, and there are yet remaining five or six days for neutrals to leave. With proper diligence on the part of persons interested, I see no reason. for exemption to any. "I beg to thank you for your note of this day's date relative to the case of the Hiawatha, a British ship now at City Point, in Virginia. "You have done me the honour to send to me therewith a copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, in which it is stated that 'fifteen days have been specified as a limit for neutrals to leave the ports after actual blockade has commenced, with or without cargo.' "In order to avoid all possible mistake with regard to the Hiawatha, as well as to future cases of the same kind, I venture to request you to inform me whether I am right in concluding, from the statement just quoted, that the date of the shipment of the cargo is immaterial, and that vessels leaving the ports before the expiration of the fifteen days will be allowed to proceed with their cargoes, whether Chap. X. such cargoes were shipped before or after the actual beginning of the "I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 9th instant, in which application is made for certain information regarding the blockade, and to transmit to you herewith the copy of a letter of this date from the Secretary of the Navy, to whom the matter was referred, in answer to your inquiry. " Sir, Washington, May 11, 1861. "In answer to Lord Lyons's letter of the 9th instant, I have the honour to inform you that neutral vessels will be allowed fifteen days to leave port after the actual establishment of the blockade, whether such vessels are with or without cargoes. The rules of blockade, as commonly enforced, permit a neutral vessel which is in the port at the time when the blockade is instituted to sail in ballast or with cargo, provided the cargo has been bona fide purchased and shipped before that time, but not otherwise. Lord Lyons had certainly some reason, from Mr. Welles's ambiguous letter of the 9th (his own questions having been put with the utmost clearness), to assume that in the case of the Hiawatha leave would be given to load at any time within the fifteen days. The Hiawatha took in cargo accordingly, and by the 16th was ready for sea; she was detained for want of a steam-tug till the 18th, when she sailed, was captured on the 20th, and ultimately was condemned as prize of war. The Judge of the Admiralty Court before which she came for adjudication Chap. X. in the first instance was of opinion that Mr. Welles's letter furnished no sufficient plea for sanctioning a departure from the common rule. The Supreme Court thought otherwise,1 but affirmed the condemnation (a minority dissenting) on the ground that the vessel did not actually get to sea until the fifteen days had expired, although her detention had been accidental. South of the Capes and in the States bordering on the Gulf, the blockade was gradually extended during the month of May to a few of the more considerable ports. 1 " After a careful examination of the correspondence of the State and Navy Departments, found in the record, we are not satisfied that the British Minister erred in the construction that he put upon it, which was, that a license was given to all vessels in the blockaded ports to depart with their cargoes within fifteen days after the blockade was established, whether the cargoes were taken on board before or after the notice of the blockade. All reasonable doubts should be resolved in favour of the claimants. Any other course would be inconsistent with the right administration of the law and the character of a just Government." - Black's R., ii, 675 (Prize Cases). A former American Secretary of State, Mr. Marcy, had disapproved this rule: " In some respects I think the law of blockade is unreasonably rigorous towards neutrals, and they can fairly claim a relaxation of it. By the decisions of the English Courts of Admiralty-and ours have generally followed in their footsteps-a neutral vessel which happens to be in a blockaded port is not permitted to depart with a cargo, unless that cargo was on board at the time when the blockade was commenced or was first made known. Having visited the port in the common freedom of trade, a neutral vessel ought to be permitted to depart with a cargo without regard to the time when it was received on board."-Mr. Marcy to Mr. Buchanan, 13th April, 1854. Another point of blockade law was decided in the above cases. It was contended for the owners of the Hiawatha that, under the terms of the Proclamation of the 19th (which, however, did not apply to the coast of Virginia), she was not liable to capture until "the Commander of one of the blockading vessels" had "duly warned" her, and "indorsed on her registert he state and fact of such warning," and she had again attempted to leave the blockaded port. The Court (four Judges dissenting) overruled this, holding that it would be absurd to require a warning where the master had actual previous knowledge. This is perfectly in accordance with English decisions, and is reasonable, though questioned by some continental jurists. The Niagara, a large screw-frigate which had lately Chap. X. returned from Japan, appeared on the 11th May before Charleston harbour and began to warn off neutral ships.1 She remained for four days, with her steam up, outside the bar and six or seven miles from the mouth of the harbour, and then departed altogether upon another service. From the 15th till the 28th or 29th, when the Minnesota, another powerful steam-frigate, arrived to replace the Niagara, the port continued entirely open, no ship of war showing herself in the neighbourhood. This intermission gave rise to the following correspondence : "Sir, Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward. "Washington, May 22, 1861. "I have the honour to inform you that it appears from reports which I have received from Her Majesty's Consul at Charleston, that a blockade of that port was declared by the United States' ship Niagara to have commenced on the 11th instant; that the Niagara remained off Charleston until the 15th instant; but that subsequently she quitted the neighbourhood, and that no United States' vessel had appeared there up to the 20th instant, the date of the latest account which has reached me. "I take it for granted that, if a blockade of the port of Charleston be again intended, due notice of the actual commencement thereof will be given, and that the period during which neutral vessels will be allowed to depart with their cargoes will be reckoned from the date of such actual commencement. "Trusting that you will favour me with an early acknowledgment of this note, I have, &c. 1 The indorsement made by the officer of the Niagara on the papers of the first British vessel boarded was in the following terms :"Boarded May 12, and ordered off the whole Southern Coast of the United States of America, it being blockaded. "R. L. MAY, Lieutenant, United States' steamship Niagara." The Captain afterwards told the British Consul that twenty days would be allowed for the departure of neutral ships, counted from the evening of the 10th. |