the existence of the blockade is placed upon the local authorities of the blockaded belligerent. A neutral vessel coming out of a blockaded port cannot, in general, plead ignorance of the blockade if the local authorities have been notified before she sailed. The blockading commander cannot hold a neutral vessel liable for information which he has not given; e. g., if the commander has not specified how many days will be allowed for neutral vessels to leave port, it is assumed that he did not intend to place a limit upon such departure, and the vessels are allowed to pass free. If, however, the neglect to communicate the conditions of the blockade rests upon the local authorities, ignorance on the part of neutral vessels leaving the port will not affect the liability of vessels as regards the blockading force.

The American, British, and Japanese practice had assumed that a neutral vessel, leaving port after its government had been officially notified, had knowledge of the blockade and was liable to penalty. The United States position was as follows:

"Neutral vessels are entitled to notification of a blockade before they can be made prize for its attempted violation. The character of this notification is not material. It may be actual, as by a vessel of the blockading force, or constructive, as by a proclamation of the government maintaining the blockade, or by common notoriety. If a neutral vessel can be shown to have had notice of the blockade in any way, she is good prize, and should be sent in for adjudication; but, should formal notice not have been given, the rule of constructive knowledge arising from notoriety should be construed in a manner liberal to the neutral." 10

The Declaration of London, 1909, announces :

"Article 15. Failing proof to the contrary, knowledge of the blockade is presumed if the vessel left a neutral port subsequently to the notification of the blockade made in sufficient time to the power to which such port belongs."

(b) In case of de facto blockades, and in cases where there is reasonable doubt as to the knowledge of the existence of the blockade on the part of the neutral vessel, the vessel is

10 General Order 492, Navy Department, June 20, 1898, No. 3, Foreign Relations U. S. 1898, p. 780.

entitled to notification by a vessel before the blockaded port.11 Such notification should be entered on the ship's log, with the officer's official signature.

The continental practice was to give public notification of the blockade to neutral states as an act of international courtesy, in order that undue hardship to neutral commerce may so far as possible be prevented, and also to notify a neutral vessel as it approaches the blockaded place.

VESSELS IN THE BLOCKADED PORT.

195. Neutral vessels in a blockaded port when a blockade is established are, by general usage, allowed to discharge and load cargo and to depart within a specified time.

Vessels within a neutral port at the establishment of a blockade were formerly presumed to be notified.12 The Declaration of London, 1909 (article 9), provides that, in order that neutral vessels in port at the establishment of a blockade may be liable to condemnation for breach of blockade on leaving the port, there must be in the notified declaration a state

11 Id. Nos. 4, 5; Declaration of London, 1909, art. 16.

"When the commanding officer of a squadron or a man of war declares a blockade, he shall take the following steps:

"1. He shall report the declaration of the blockade to the minister of the navy.

"2. He shall report the declaration of the blockade to every Japanese minister residing in the countries near the blockaded area, and shall request him to inform the government of the country and all the foreign ministers and consuls residing in the country to which he is accredited of the establishment of the blockade.

"3. He shall communicate the declaration of the blockade to all the foreign consuls residing in neutral districts in the neighborhood of the blockaded area, and shall take any other measures necessary to make known the fact of the blockade.

"4. He shall inform as far as possible, by means of a flag of truce, the proper officers and consuls of neutral countries residing within the blockaded area, of the declaration of the blockade."

Article 24, Japanese Regulations Governing Captures at Sea, March 7, 1904.

The Johanna Maria, Spinks, 307.

12 In re Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635, 17 L. Ed. 459.

ment of the period within which neutral vessels may depart; otherwise (article 16) they are free to depart at any time.

The practice of allowing neutral vessels to withdraw from a blockaded port is comparatively modern. The period allowed has usually been fifteen days, but this has not been uniform. The United States proclamations in the SpanishAmerican War in 1898 stated that "neutral vessels lying in any of said ports at the time of the establishment of such blockade will be allowed thirty days to issue therefrom." 13 It is now understood that neutral vessels should be allowed a reasonable time to depart from a blockaded port. The period thus allowed will depend upon the circumstances in each case.

MAINTENANCE OF A BLOCKADE.

196. By the Declaration of Paris, of 1856, it was set forth that "blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective; that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient to prohibit access to the coast of the enemy." 14

This definition of an effective blockade was generally accepted in order to put an end to paper blockades of the earlier part of the nineteenth century. It is manifest, with the present development of means of communication, that strict maintenance of such a blockade would be impossible.15 The declaration has therefore been interpreted in a liberal spirit. On the continent the interpretation has been more strict than else

13 Foreign Relations U. S. 1898, pp. 769, 773.

14 "Art. 4. Les blocus pour être obligatoires, doivent être effectifs, c'est à dire maintenus par une force suffisante pour interdire l'accès du littoral ennemi."

15 "A blockade to be effective need not be perfect. It is not necessary that the beleaguered port should be hermetically sealed. It is not enough to make the blockade ineffective that on some particularly stormy night a blockade runner slid through the blockading squadron. Nor is it enough that through some exceptional and rare negligence of the officers of one of the blockading vessels a blockade runner was allowed to pass when perfect vigilance could have arrested him. But if the blockade is not in the main effective-if it can be easily eluded-if escaping its toils is due not to casus or some rare and exceptional negligence, but to a general laxity or want of efficiency-then such blockade is not valid.”

Wharton, Commentaries American Law, § 233.

where. A decision of the United States Supreme Court in 1899 contains the following:

"To be binding, the blockade must be known, and the blockading force must be present; but is there any rule of law determining that the presence of a particular force is essential in order to render a blockade effective? We do not think so, but, on the contrary, that the test is whether the blockade is practically effective, and that that is a question, though a mixed one, more of fact than of law.

"The fourth maxim of the Declaration of Paris (April 16, 1856) was: 'Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective; that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.' Manifestly this broad definition was not intended to be literally applied. The object was to correct the abuse, in the early part of the century, of paper blockades, where extensive coasts were put under blockade by proclamation, without the presence of any force, or an inadequate force; and the question of what might be sufficient force was necessarily left to be determined according to the particular circumstances.

* * *

"As we hold that an effective blockade is a blockade so effective as to make it dangerous in fact for vessels to attempt to enter the blockaded port, it follows that the question of effectiveness is not controlled by the number of the blockading force. In other words, the position cannot be maintained that one modern cruiser, though sufficient in fact, is not sufficient as matter of law." 16

This decision of the United States Supreme Court seems to be most reasonable, and is in effect in full accord with the conclusions of the International Naval Conference of 1908–09, as shown in articles 2 and 3 of the Declaration of London and in the report upon these articles.17

16 The Olinde Rodrigues, 174 U. S. 510, 19 Sup. Ct. 851, 43 L. Ed. 1065.

An English opinion states that: "In the eye of the law a blockade is effective if the enemies' ships are in such numbers and position as to render the running of the blockade a matter of danger, although some vessels may succeed in getting through." Geipel v. Smith, L. R. 7 Q. B. 404.

17 British Parliamentary Papers, Miscellaneous No. 4 (1909) p. 36.

Questions have been raised as to the meaning of the words "sufficient force." Shore batteries commanding the approach to the blockaded port, supported by a naval force, have been considered "sufficient." 18 The sinking of vessels laden with stone or similar obstructions in a part of the harbor mouth or in a part of the outlets has been allowed as auxiliary to blockade.19 There was considerable discussion at the Hague Conference in 1907 as to the use of submarine mines for the purpose of blockade. No definite conclusion was reached beyond that of article II of the Convention Relative to the Laying of Submarine Automatic Contact Mines: "It is forbidden to lay automatic contact mines off the coast and ports of the enemy, with the sole object of intercepting commercial shipping." 20 This limitation would not usually be specially burdensome, as the use of mines for the "sole object of intercepting commercial shipping" would not be common, and intent is difficult to prove.

The United States announced in 1898 the simple proposition that "a blockade, to be effective and binding, must be maintained by a force sufficient to render ingress to or egress from the port dangerous." 21

TERMINATION OF A BLOCKADE.

197. A blockade ceases:

(a) On the conclusion of peace.

(b) When the blockading vessels voluntarily withdraw. (c) When these vessels are driven away by the enemy, however short the time of absence.

(d) When it ceases to be effective, except because of stress of weather.

(e) When the blockaded place comes into possession of the forces of the blockading belligerent.

(a) As blockade is a measure of war, it comes to an end when peace is restored An armistice or suspension of hostili

18 The Circassian, 2 Wall. 135, 17 L. Ed. 796.

19 U. S. Dip. Correspondence 1862, pp. 36, 316; Foreign Relations U. S. 1884, pp. 66, 96; Id. 1886, p. 95; Id. 1894, Appendix I, p. 71. 20 Scott, Hague Conferences, p. 253.

21 Foreign Relations U. S. 1898, p. 780.

WILS. INT.L.-29