since been settled that this duty appropriately belongs to the federal tribunals, acting as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. It, however, has been judicially determined that this peculiar jurisdiction of the courts of the neutral government to inquire into the validity of captures made in violation of the neutral immunity, will be exercised only for the purpose of restoring the specific property, when voluntarily brought within the territory, and does not extend to the infliction of vindictive damages, as in ordinary cases of maritime injuries, and as is done by the courts of the captor's own country. The punishment to be imposed upon the party violating the municipal statutes of the neutral State, is a matter to be determined in a separate and distinct proceeding. The court will exercise jurisdiction, and decree restitution to the original owner, in case of capture from a belligerent power, by a citizen of the United States, under a commission from another belligerent power, such capture being a violation of neutral duty; but they have no jurisdiction on a libel for damages for the capture of a vessel as prize by the commissioned cruiser of a belligerent power, although the vessel belong to citizens of the United States, and the capturing vessel and her commander be found and proceeded against within the jurisdiction of the court.'

§ 25. In the case of capture by an armed vessel, fitted out in the ports of the United States, in violation of neutrality, the claim by an alleged bona fide purchaser in a foreign port was rejected, and restitution decreed to the original owners. It, however, was decided that a bona fide purchaser, without notice, in such a case is entitled to be reimbursed the freight

1 The United States v. Peters, 3 Dallas R., 121-131; the 'Divina Pastora,' 4 Wheaton R., 65, note; the Amistad de Rues,' 5 Wheaton R., 385; the Arrogante Barcelones,' 7 Wheaton R., 519; ‘La Nereyda,' 8 Wheaton R., 108; Glass v. the 'Betsey,' 3 Dallas R., 65, note a; McDonough v. the 'Mary Ford,' 3 Dallas R., 188; Waite, State Papers, vol. vi. p. 195.

The Courts of the United States have no jurisdiction to redress any sup posed torts committed on the high seas, upon the property of its citizens, by a cruiser regularly commissioned by a foreign and friendly power, except where such cruiser has been fitted out in violation of its neutrality. The courts of the captors are open for redress, and an injured neutral may there obtain indemnity for a wanton or illicit capture. Nor is the jurisdiction of the neutral court enlarged by the fact, that the corpus no longer continues under the control of the capturing power.-The 'Estrella,' 4 Wheat., 298.

which he may have paid upon the captured goods; and that an innocent neutral carrier of such goods, the same having been shipped in a foreign port, is entitled to freight out of the goods.1

§ 26. If such property, captured in violation of neutral immunity, be carried infra præsidia of the captor's country, and there regularly condemned in a competent court of prize, the question arises whether the courts of the neutral State will exercise jurisdiction, and restore such property to the original owners.

If the property be found in the hands of the original wrong-doer, it will be restored by the court, notwithstanding a valid sentence of condemnation, properly authenticated. The offender's touch is said to restore the taint from which the condemnation may have purified the prize, and it is not for him to claim a right springing out of his own wrong.

2

§ 27. Illegal equipment and outfit, in violation of neutral immunity, will not affect the validity of captures made after the cruise to which the outfit had been applied is actually

The Santissima Trinidad,' 7 Wheaton R., 283; the 'Fanny,' 9 Wheaton R., 658.

The 'Arrogante Barcelones,' 7 Wheaton R., 496; the 'Amistad de Rues,' 5 Wheaton R., 390.

Neither an enemy, nor a neutral acting the part of an enemy, can demand restitution of captured property on the sole ground of capture in neutral waters.--The Sir William Peel,' 5 Wall., 517.

Captures by belligerent vessels, lawfully commissioned, are alone exempt from inquiry by neutral courts; and if the capturing vessel claims to be so exempted, the court should inquire and have proof of the exemption.-Talbot v. Jansen, 3 Dall., 133.

In the case of prize, where a neutral has a jus in re, namely, where he is in possession with a right of retention until a certain amount is paid to him, the captor takes cum onere, and should allow the amount of such right; but, where the neutral has merely a jus ad rem, which he cannot enforce without the aid of a court of justice, his claim will not be recognised.-The 'Amy Warwick,' 2 Sprague, 150.

Cases may occur in which a neutral ship may be authorised by the natural rights of self-preservation to defend herself from extreme violence threatened by a cruiser grossly abusing its commission; but in all ordinary cases it is her duty to submit to the captor, and rely on her remedy in costs and damages against it.-The 'Maria,' 1 Rob., 374.

A neutral ship, which had been rescued by her crew from the hands of a lawful cruiser, was condemned on the ground of such resistance. -The 'Dispatch,' 3 Rob., 278.

A neutral cannot be permitted to aver compulsion and duress of one belligerent in justification of a departure from neutrality, to the prejudice of the other belligerent. If he sustain a loss from yielding to such duress, he must seek his remedy from the belligerent government imposing it. -The 'Carolina,' 4 Rob., 260.

с

terminated. The offence is deemed to be deposited at the termination of the voyage, and does not affect future transactions. This rule would result from analogy to other cases of violation of public law, and has been directly announced by the United States Supreme Court.1

TheSantissima Trinidad,' 7 Wheaton R., 348.

211

CHAPTER XXV.

LAW OF SIEGES AND BLOCKADES.

1. Interdiction of intercourse with places besieged or blockaded-2. Authority to institute sieges and blockades—3. Distinction between them—4. Actual presence of an adequate blockading force-5. Temporary absence produced by accident-6. Constructive or paper blockades-7. Ancient text-writers and treaties-8. Course of England and France in the wars of Napoleon-9. Their declarations in 1854 and 1856-10. De facto and public blockades—11. If blockading vessels be driven away by superior force-12. If removed for other duty-13. If blockade be irregularly maintained-14. A maritime blockade does not affect interior communications-15. Effect of a siege upon communications by sea-16. Breach of blockade a criminal act—17. Public notification charges parties with knowledge -18. What constitutes a public notification-19. Effect of general notoriety-20. Cases which preclude a denial of knowledge -21. When presumption of knowledge may be rebutted-22. Proof of actual knowledge or warning-23. An attempt to enter-24. Inception of voyage-25. Exception in case of distant voyages-26. În case of de facto blockades-27. Where presumption of intention cannot be repelled-28. Neutral vessel entering in ballast-29. Declarations of master-30. Delay in obeying warning-31. Disregard of warning-32. When ingress is excused-33. Violation of blockade by egress-34. When egress is allowed-35. Penalty of breach of blockade-36. When cargo is excepted from condemnation -37. Duration of offence-38. Insurance, how affected by violation of a blockade—39. Hautefeuille's theory of the law of blockades.

§ I. THE same law which confers upon belligerents the right to capture and destroy each other's property imposes upon neutrals the obligation not to interfere with the proper exercise of this right. Although as a general rule, neutrals may continue their accustomed trade and intercourse with either, or both of the parties to a war, there are, as already remarked, certain exceptions to this rule, established by the positive law of nations, one of which is, that the neutral shall not communicate or carry on trade with a place or post which is besieged or blockaded. Grotius considers the carrying of supplies to a besieged town or a blockaded port, as an offence exceedingly aggravated and injurious; Bynkershoek thinks the prohibition is founded on natural reason as well as esta

blished usage; both agree that a neutral so offending may be severely dealt with; Vattel says that he may be treated as a public enemy. The views of these distinguished founders of international law are fully concurred in by the opinions of modern publicists, and by the prize courts of all countries. The right of a belligerent to invest the places and ports of an enemy so as to entirely exclude the commerce (otherwise lawful) of neutrals, during the continuance of the investment, is undoubted, and, however serious the grievance, it is one to which neutral governments and their subjects are bound to submit. But as this right of the belligerent is an exception to the general rights of neutrals, and bears with great severity upon their interests, its exercise is always watched with peculiar jealousy in order to prevent its necessary evils from being aggravated by a lax construction of the laws which regulate its application.1

§ 2. The institution of a siege, or blockade, is a high act of sovereignty, and must proceed, either directly from the

1 Grotius, de fur. Bel. ac Pac., lib. iii. cap. i. § 5; Bynkershoek, Quæst. Fur. Pub., lib. i. cap. xi.; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. iii, ch. vii. 117; the 'Juffrow Maria Schroeder,' 3 Rob., 147; the 'Haabet,' 6 Rob., 58.

The Brussels Conference, 1874, directs that fortified places are alone liable to be besieged. Towns, agglomerations of houses, or villages, which are open or undefended, cannot be attacked or bombarded. Art. 15. But if a town or fortress, agglomeration of houses, or village, be defended, the commander of the attacking forces should, before commencing a bombardment, and except in the case of surprise, do all in his power to warn the authorities. Art. 16. In the like case, all necessary steps should be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings devoted to religion, arts, sciences, and charity hospitals, and places where sick and wounded are collected, on condition that they are not used at the same time for military purposes. It is the duty of the besieged to indicate these buildings by special visible signs, to be notified beforehand by the besieged. Art. 17. A town taken by storm shall not be given up to the victorious troops to plunder. Art. 18.

The French military law (Art. 218) 'condemns to capital punishment every commandant who gives up his place without having forced the besiegers to pass by the slow and successive stages of a siege, and before having repulsed at least one assault on the body of the place by practicable breaches.' General Ulrich, although in defending Strasbourg be had made such a defence as no other general had done throughout the Franco-German war of 1870, could not obey this article. He could not repel, or even await an assault, for it was a physical impossibility for his men to remain on the ramparts in presence of the hurricane of fire kept up by the Prussians. Nor did any other French general observe this article. A telegraphic communication ran through the trenches at Strasbourg; and also between the batteries at Kehl, and a church tower close by, whence an artillery officer watched each shot and corrected or approved the gunners' aim.-Edwards's Germans in France.