U. S. 8 Wall 1; Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S. 176; Ford v. Surget 97 U. S. 594; Dow v. Johnson, 100 U. S. 158, and other cases.

Existence of

of war not neces

ent upon an ac

of belligerency.

Revolutions or insurrections may inconvenience other nations, but by accommodation to the facts the applica- sarily dependtion of settled rules is readily reached. And where the knowledgment fact of the existence of war is in issue in the instance of complaint of acts committed within foreign territory, it is not an absolute prerequisite that that fact should be made out by an acknowledgment of belligerency, as other official recognition of its existence may be sufficient proof thereof. The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1.

this case.

In this case, the archives of the state department show Conditions in that civil war was flagrant in Venezuela from the spring of 1892; that the revolutionary government was recognized by the United States as the government of the country, it being, to use the language of the Secretary of State in a communication to our minister to Venezuela, "accepted by the people, in the possession of the power of the nation and fully established."

That these were facts of which the court is bound to take judicial notice, and for information as to which it may consult the Department of State, there can be no doubt. Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202; Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, 1 Q. B. 149.

It is idle to argue that the proceedings of those who thus triumphed should be treated as the acts of banditti or mere mobs.

Defendant's acts those of a mander of suc

We entertain no doubt upon the evidence that Hernandez was carrying on military operations in support of the revolutionary party. It may be that adherents of that side of the controversy in the particular locality where Hernandez was the leader of the movement entertained a preference for him as the future executive head of the nation, but that is beside the question. The acts complained of were the acts of a military commander repre- military com senting the authority of the revolutionary party as a cessful party, government, which afterward succeeded and was recog- ognized by Unitnized by the United States. We think the circuit court of appeals was justified in concluding "that the acts of the defendant were the acts of the government of Venezuela, and as such are not properly the subject of adjudication in the courts of another government."

The decisions cited on plaintiff's behalf are not in point. Cases respecting arrests by military authority in the

afterwards rec

ed States.

Statement of the case.

absence of the prevalence of war, or the validity of contracts between individuals entered into in aid of insurrection, or the right of revolutionary bodies to vex the commerce of the world on its common highway without incurring the penalties denounced on piracy, and the like-do not involve the questions presented here.

We agree with the circuit court of appeals, that "the evidence upon the trial indicated that the purpose of the defendant in his treatment of the plaintiff was to coerce the plaintiff to operate his waterworks and his repair works for the benefit of the community and the revolutionary forces," and that "it was not sufficient to have warranted a finding by the jury that the defendant was actuated by malice or any personal or private motive;" and we concur in its disposition of the rulings below. The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

CASE OF THE OLINDE RODRIGUES.

(Vol. 174, United States Reports. Decided May 15, 1899. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.)

This was a libel filed by the United States against the steamship Olinde Rodrigues and cargo in the District Court for South Carolina, in a prize cause, for violation of the blockade of San Juan, Porto Rico. The steamship was owned and claimed by La Compagnie Générale Transat lantique, a French corporation.

The Olinde Rodrigues left Havre June 16, 1898, upon a regular voyage on a West Indian itinerary prescribed by the terms of her postal subvention from the French Govern ment. Her regular course, after touching at Paulliac. France, was St. Thomas, San Juan, Port au Platte or Puerto Plata, Cape Haitien, St. Marque, Port au Prince, Gonaives, and to return by the same ports, the voyage terminating at Havre. The proclamation of the President declaring San Juan in a state of blockade was issued June 27, 1898. The Olinde Rodrigues left Paulliac June 19, and arrived at St. Thomas July 3, 1898, and on July 4, in the morning, went into San Juan, Porto Rico. She was seen by the United States auxiliary cruiser Yosemite, then blockading the port of San Juan.

On the fifth of July, 1898, the Olinde Rodrigues came out of the port of San Juan, was signaled by the Yosemite, and on communicating with the latter asserted that she

had no knowledge of the blockade of San Juan. Thereupon a boarding officer of the Yosemite entered in the log of the Olinde Rodrigues an official warning of the block ade, and she went on her way to Puerto Plata and other ports of San Domingo and Haiti. She left Puerto Plata on her return from these ports, July 16, 1898, and on the morning of July 17 was captured by the United States: armored cruiser New Orleans, then blockading the port of San Juan, as attempting to enter that port. A prize crew was put on board and the vessel was taken to Charleston, South Carolina, where she was libelled, as before stated, July 22, 1898. Depositions of officers, crew and persons on board the steamship were taken by the prize commissioners in preparatorio, in answer to certain standing interrogatories, and the papers and documents found on board were put in evidence. Depositions of officers and men. from the cruiser New Orleans were also taken de bene esse, but were not considered on the preliminary hearing except on a motion by the District Attorney for leave to take further proofs.

The cause having been heard on the evidence in preparatorio, the District Judge ruled, August 13, for reasons given, that the Olinde Rodrigues could not, under the evidence as it stood, be condemned for her entry into the blockaded port of San Juan on July 4, and her departure therefrom July 5, 1898; nor for attempting to enter the same port on July 17; but that the depositions de bene esse justified an order allowing further proofs, and stated also that an order might be entered, "discharging the vessel upon stipulation for her value, should the claimant so elect." 89 Fed. Rep. 105. An order was accordingly entered that the captors have ninety days to supply further proof "as to the entry of the 'Olinde Rodrigues' into the port of San Juan, Porto Rico, on July 4, 1898, and as to the courses and movements of said vessel on July 17, 1898;" and "that the claimants may thereafter have such time to offer testimony in reply as may seem proper to the court."

The cargo was released without bond, and on September 16 the court entered an order releasing the vessel on "claimants giving bond by the Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, its owners, without sureties, in the sum of $125,000 conditioned for the payment of $125,000 upon the order of the court in the event that the vessel should be condemned." The bond was not given, and the vessel remained in custody.

Statement the case..

of

Statement

the case.

Opinion

of

blockade not de

Evidence was taken on behalf of the United States, and the cause came on for hearing on a motion by the claimants for the discharge and restitution of the steamship on the grounds: (1) That the blockade of San Juan at the time of the capture of the Olinde Rodrigues was not an effective blockade; (2) that the Olinde Rodrigues was not violating the blockade when seized.

The District Court rendered an opinion December 13, 1898, holding that the blockade of San Juan was not an effective blockade, and entered a decree ordering the restitution of the ship to the claimants. 91 Fed. Rep. 274. From this decree the United States appealed to this court and assigned errors to the effect: (1) That the court erred in holding that there was no effective blockade of the port of San Juan on July 17, 1898; (2) that the court erred in not finding that the Olinde Rodrigues was captured while she was violating the blockade of San Juan, July 17, 1898, and in not decreeing her condemnation as lawful prize.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court:

We are unable to concur with the learned District Judge in the conclusion that the blockade of the port of San Juan at the time this steamship was captured was not an effective blockade.

Effective To be binding, the blockade must be known, and the pendent upon blockading force must be present; but is there any rule particular force. of law determining that the presence of a particular force

the presence of a

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.

ions cited.

This was put by Lord Russell in his note to Mr. Mason Various opinof February 10, 1861, thus: "The Declaration of Paris was in truth directed against what were once termed 'paper blockades; that is, blockades not sustained by any actual force, or sustained by a notoriously inadequate naval force, such as an occasional appearance of a man-of-war in the offing or the like. . . . The interpretation, therefore, placed by Her Majesty's government on the Declaration was, that a blockade, in order to be respected by neutrals, must be practically effective. . . . It is proper to add, that the same view of the meaning and effect of the articles of the Declaration of Paris, on the subject of blockades, which is above explained, was taken by the representative of the United States at the Court of St. James (Mr. Dallas) during the communications which passed between the two governments some years before the present war, with a view to the accession of the United States to that Declaration." Hall's Int. Law, § 260, p. 730, note.

The quotations from the Parliamentary debates, of May, 1861, given by Mr. Dana in note 233 to the eighth edition of Wheaton on International Law, afford interesting illustrations of what was considered the measure of effectiveness; and an extract is also there given from a note of the Department of Foreign Affairs of France of September, 1861, in which that is defined: "Forces sufficient to prevent the ports being approached without exposure to a certain danger."

In The Mercurius, 1 C. Rob. 80, 84, Sir William Scott The Mercurius. stated: “It is said, this passage to the Zuyder Zee was not in a state of blockade; but the ship was seized immediately on entering it; and I know not what else is necessary to constitute blockade. The powers who formed the armed neutrality in the last war, understood blockade in this sense; and Russia, who was the principal party in that confederacy, described a place to be in a state of blockade, when it is dangerous to attempt to enter into it."

And in The Frederick Molke, 1 C. Rob. 86, the same great jurist said: "For that a legal blockade did exist, results necessarily from these facts, as nothing farther is necessary to constitute blockade, than that there should be a force stationed to prevent communication, and a due notice, or prohibition given to the party."

Such is the settled doctrine of the English and American courts and publicists, and it is embodied in the second

The

Frederick

Molke.