fact that the unneutral service was rendered in ignorance of the existence of war does not excuse an offender who is brought before a prize court of his own country, The Zambesi (New South Wales, 1914), 1 Br. & Col. P. C. 358. If a vessel which is engaged in an unlawful voyage is captured while rendering unneutral service a plea of duress or compulsion will not be accepted, The Catherina Maria (1809), Edwards, 337, The Seyerstadt (1813), 1 Dodson, 241; but a vessel engaged in a lawful voyage which is compelled by force majeure to render unneutral service is innocent of wrong, The Pontoporos (Singapore, 1915), 1 Br. & Col. P. C. 371; The Chrysopolis (Italy, 1917), Gazzetta Ufficiale, March 10, 1917. A vessel carrying supplies to enemy submarines and hydroplanes and giving them information which enables them to attack the captor's fleets and coast cities, La Bella Scutarina (Italy, 1916), Gazzetta Ufficiale, May 15, 1916; or carrying Austrian and German reservists from Barcelona to Genoa, The Féderico (France, 1914), Décisions du Conseil des Prises, 162; or a vessel manned by Germans but carrying no flag or papers to indicate its nationality, The Rosita (France, 1914), Ib. 171; or a vessel carrying Turkish officers with arms and money concealed in the hold, flying the Greek flag but with no papers to establish its identity, The Olympia (France, 1914), Ib. 173, is subject to condemnation for unneutral service. For further discussion of unneutral service see The Emanuel (1799), 1 C. Robinson, 296; The Rosalie and Betty (1800), 2 Ib. 343; The Carolina (1802), 4 Ib. 256; The Friendship (1807), 6 Ib. 420; The Rapid (1810), Edwards, 228; The Nigretia (Japan, 1905), Takahashi, 639; The Industrie (Japan, 1905). Ib. 732; The Quang-nam (Japan, 1906), Ib. 735; The Manouba (1913), Wilson, The Hague Arbitration Cases, 326; The Thor (St. Lucia, 1914), 1 Br. & Col. P. C. 229; The Hanametal (Hong-Kong, 1914), 1 Ib. 347; The Proton (Egypt, 1916), 2 Ib. 107; The Svithiod (1920), L. R. [1920] A. C. 718. See also Int. Law Sit. 1901, 86; Ib. 1902, 7; Int. Law Topics, 1905, 171; Ib. 1906, 88; Borchard, sec. 358; Cobbett, Cases and Opinions, II, 447; Hyde, II, 635; Moore, Digest, VII, 752. CHAPTER XVII. BLOCKADE. SECTION 1. GENERAL RULES. THE BETSEY. HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY OF ENGLAND. 1798. This was a case of a ship and cargo, taken by the English, at the capture of Guadaloupe, April the 13th, 1794; and retaken, together with that island, by the French, in June following. The first seisure was defended on a suggestion, that The Betsey had broken the blockade at Guadaloupe. SIR W. SCOTT [LORD STOWELL]. On the question of blockade three things must be proved: 1st, The existence of an actual blockade; 2dly, The knowledge of the party; and, 3dly, Some act of violation, either by going in, or by coming out with a cargo laden after the commencement of blockade. The time of shipment would on this last point be very material, for although it might be hard to refuse a neutral, liberty to retire with a cargo already laden, and by that act already become neutral property; yet, after the commencement of a blockade, a neutral cannot, I conceive, be allowed to interpose in any way to assist the exportation of the property of the enemy. After the commencement of the blockade, a neutral is no longer at liberty to make any purchase in that port. It is necessary, however, that the evidence of a blockade should be clear and decisive: but in this case there is only an affidavit of one of the captors, and the account which is there given is, "that on the arrival of the British forces in the West Indies, a proclamation issued, inviting the inhabitants of Martinique, St. Lucie, and Guadaloupe, to put themselves under the protection of the English; that on a refusal, hostile operations were com menced against them all:" but it cannot be meant that they began immediately against all at once; for it is notorious that they were directed against them separately and in succession. It is further stated, "that in January, 1794, (but without any more. precise date,) Guadaloupe was summoned, and was then put into a state of complete investment and blockade." The word complete is a word of great energy; and we might expect from it to find, that a number of vessels were stationed round the entrance of the port to cut off all communication: but from the protest I perceive that the captors entertained but a very loose notion of the true nature of a blockade; for it is there. stated, "that on the 1st of January, after a general proclamation to the French islands, they were put into a state of complete blockade." It is a term, therefore, which was applied to all those islands at the same time, under the first proclamation. The Lords of Appeal have determined that such a proclamation was not in itself sufficient to constitute a legal blockade: it is clear, indeed, that it could not in reason be sufficient to produce the effect which the captors erroneously ascribed to it: but from the misapplication of these phrases in one instance I learn, that we must not give too much weight to the use of them on this occasion; and from the generality of these expressions, I think we must infer that there was not that actual blockade, which the law is now distinctly understood to require. But it is attempted to raise other inferences on this point, from the manner in which the master speaks of the difficulty and danger of entering; and from the declaration of the Municipality of Guadaloupe, which states "the island. to have been in a state of siege. It is evident that the American master speaks only of the difficulty of avoiding the English cruisers generally in those seas; and as to the other phrase, it is a term of the new jargon of France, which is sometimes applied to domestic disturbances; and certainly is not so intelligible as to justify me in concluding, that the island was in that state of investment from a foreign enemy, which we require to constitute blockade: I cannot, therefore, lay it down, that a blockade did exist till the operations of the forces were actually directed against Guadaloupe in April. It would be necessary for me, however, to go much farther, and to say that I am satisfied also that the parties had knowledge of it: but this is expressly denied by the master. He went in without obstruction. Mr. Incledon's statement of his belief of the notoriety of the blockade is not such evidence as will alone be sufficient to convince me of it. With respect to the shipment of the cargo, it does not appear exactly under what circumstances or what time it was taken in: I shall therefore dismiss this part of the case. THE NEPTUNUS. HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY OF ENGLAND. 1799. 2 C. Robinson, 110. This was a case of a vessel sailing on a voyage from Dantzick to Havre, 26th October 1798, and taken in attempting to enter that port on 26th November. Sir WM. SCOTT [LORD STOWELL]. This is a case of a ship and cargo seized in the act of entering the port of Havre in pursuance of the original intention under which the voyage began. The notification of the blockade of that port was made on the 23d February 1798, and this transaction happened in November in that year; the effect of a notification to any foreign government would clearly be to include all the individuals of that nation; it would be the most nugatory thing in the world, if individuals were allowed to plead their ignorance of it; it is the duty of foreign governments to communicate the information to their subjects, whose interests they are bound to protect. I shall hold therefore that a neutral master can never be heard to aver against a notification of blockade, that he is ignorant of it. If he is really ignorant of it, it may be a subject of representation to his own government, and may raise a claim of compensation from them, but it can be no plea in the Court of a belligerent. In the case of a blockade de facto only, it may be otherwise, but this is the case of a blockade by notification; another distinction between a notified blockade and a blockade existing de facto only, is that in the former, the act of sailing to a blockaded place is sufficient to constitute the offence. It is to be presumed that the notification will be formally revoked, and that due notice. will be given of it; till that is done, the port is to be considered as closed up, and from the moment of quitting port to sail on such a destination, the offence of violating the blockade is com plete, and the property engaged in it subject to confiscation: it may be different in a blockade existing de facto only; there no presumption arises as to the continuance, and the ignorance of the party may be admitted as an excuse, for sailing on a doubtful and provisional destination. But this is a case of a vessel from Dantzick after the notification, and the master cannot be heard to aver his ignorance of it. He sails:-till the moment of meeting Admiral Duncan's fleet, I should have no hesitation in saying, that, if he had been taken, he would have been taken in delicto, and have subjected his vessel to confiscation; but he meets Admiral Duncan's fleet, and is examined, and liberated by the Captain of an English frigate belonging to that fleet, who told him that he might proceed on his destination, and who, on being asked, Whether Havre was under a blockade? said "It was not blockaded," and wished him a good voyage. The question is, In what light he is to be considered after receiving this information? That it was bona fide given cannot be doubted, as they would otherwise have seized the vessel; the fleet must have been ignorant of the fact; and I have to lament that they were so: When a blockade is laid on, it ought by some kind of communication to be made known not only to foreign governments, but to the King's subjects, and particularly to the King's cruizers; not only to those stationed at the blockaded ports, but to others, and especially considerable fleets, that are stationed in itinere, to such a port from the different trading countries that may be supposed to have an intercourse with it. Perhaps it would have been safer in the English Captain to have answered, that he could not say anything of the situation at Havre; but the fact is, (and it has not been contradicted,) that the British officer told the master "that Havre was not blockaded." Under these circumstances I think, that after this information he is not taken in delicto. I do not mean to say that the fleet could give the man any authority to go to a blockaded port; it is not set up as an authority, but as intelligence affording a reasonable ground of belief; as it could not be supposed, that such a fleet as that was, would be ignorant of the fact. From that time I consider that a state of innocence commences; the man was not only in ignorance, but had received positive information that Havre was not blockaded. Under these circumstances, I think it would be a little too hard to press the former offence against him; it would be to press a pretty strong principle rather too strongly; I think I cannot look retro |