rected that all English men-of-war should be denied our ports. Great Britain apologized for this affair and offered indemnity for the victims. Again, in 1870, the President of the United States proposed, in the way of an indemnity, that power should be given him to suspend all laws authorizing the transportation of merchandise across the territory of the United States to Canada and further, if necessary, to forbid vessels of the Dominion of Canada from entering the waters of the United States. This was asked for on account of the action of the Canadians toward our fishermen but was never exercised by the United States. The suspension of treaties, in 1798, at the time of the quasiwar referred to above with France, is another case. At this time the United States annulled its treaties with France and directed the seizure of all French vessels in certain portions of the world. The withdrawal of privileges to aliens has been exercised at times by the United States, as in the passage of the alien act of 1798. This withdrawal is now rarely exercised, but still remains within the power of states in times of peace. 133. Pacific Blockade.-As to pacific blockade there are now a number of cases of this species of reprisal or application of force. The legal position of pacific blockade is still unsettled, as the attitude of the blockaders toward vessels of states not concerned has varied with almost every pacific blockade, and the pacific blockade itself has always been applied by the stronger naval power against the weaker one. The alternative of war has generally not been accepted by the weaker power on account of its weakness and the hopelessness of its success. The increasing tendency to use the powerful argument of the pacific blockade to coerce a nation, as a step short of war, is somewhat due to the varying combinations of the great powers of Europe, with a view to keeping matters quiet in any event in fear of general European war. It is an anomaly in international law, there being no war and consequently no belligerents and no neutrals. It is, on the whole, considered illegal to have a blockade apply to a third or non-concerned powers where there is no war, and yet such a blockade will not be fully effective if the vessels and goods of these powers are allowed to enter freely and if the blockade is confined alone to the vessels of the blockading and blockaded countries. Each case properly depends upon its own merits and above all whether it will be worth while for any third or outside powers to interfere. In the so-called pacific blockade in Formosa by the French against the Chinese, which involved a capture of vessels other than Chinese and French, Great Britain took the position that it was not proper and would not be recognized by her unless regular war was declared against China. But in the late blockade of Crete by the European powers, of which she was one, the right of search was exercised by the blockaders upon the so-called neutral vessels, and they were prohibited to land cargo destined for the Greek troops in the interior. De Martens says as to the legality of pacific blockade that it is admissible but not logical, while Perels, a German authority, speaks decidedly of it as coming clearly under the head of reprisals and as an evil less than war. The last statement is probably the one that will make it acceptable alone, and it will probably be treated in the future as a blockade with war powers, but confined to the parties concerned and a localized and a definitely bound area of operations. Two instances not generally mentioned in the text-books may be profitably discussed as late examples of this means of reprisal. One is the blockade of Zanzibar, in 1888, by Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Portugal, and was specifically directed against the slave-trade, which the authorities of Zanzibar were unable or unwilling to stop. As this action was against a specific evil, recognized as such by the civilized world, no international complications were involved. The pacific blockade of Crete commenced March 21, 1897. The naval forces of Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia put the island of Crete in a state of blockade on that date at 8 A. M. The blockade was to be general for all ships under the Greek flag. The ships of the six great powers or what may, for the locality, be called neutral powers were allowed to enter into the ports occupied by the blockading powers and to land their cargoes, provided they were not intended for the Greek troops in the interior. The merchant ships of the neutral and blockading powers were to be visited by the vessels of war of the international fleet. This, though infringing the rights of neutrals, was less radical than the first definite pacific blockade of the French at Vera Cruz, in 1838, where the vessels of the third powers were captured and confiscated. The United States declared with respect to this blockade, and has taken the position as a general one, that it does "not acquiesce in any extension of the doctrine of pacific blockade which may adversely affect the rights of states not parties to the controversy or discriminate against the commerce of neutral nations." In regard to the blockade of Venezuelan ports in 1902 by Germany and Great Britain, this enunciation of the position of the United States was repeated. The blockade of the Venezuelan ports was stated to be a warlike blockade, and a notice was published to that effect on December 20, 1902, for the information of neutrals. Moore says that it may be observed that the United States did not take the ground that there could not be such a thing as a pacific blockade, for it stated that it could not acquiesce "in any extension" of the doctrine of pacific blockade so as to affect "the rights of states not parties to the controversy." It can thus be seen that without admitting the pacific blockade to be a legal means of restraint or reprisal short of war, the tendency of writers is to favor its existence in a manner not to involve the third powers or to antagonize their interests. Localized as it should be, in its fields of operation, it is far better than actual war, especially a European war, which would be likely to be a widely spread calamity. The Institute of International Law, in 1887, adopted the following rules as expressing their judgment as to the proper law upon the matter. They read as follows: "The establishment of a blockade without war cannot be considered as permissible under international law except under the following conditions: "1. Ships under a foreign flag can enter freely notwithstanding the blockade. "2. The pacific blockade must be officially declared and notified and maintained by a sufficient force. "3. The ships of the blockaded power which do not respect such a blockade may be sequestered. When the blockade has ceased they must be restored to their owners with their cargoes but without indemnity on any ground." TOPICS AND REFERENCES 1. Measures of Constraint Short of War in General Hershey's "Essentials," chap. XXII, 343. Stockton's "Manual," 148-152. Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. II, chap. II. 2. Suspension of Diplomatic Relations Moore's "Digest," vol. VII, 103, 105. H. Taylor, "International 3. Retorsions- Hall, "International Law," 6th ed., 360. Oppenheim, 2d ed., 36-38. Davis, "International Law," 3d ed., 263, 264. Halleck, Baker's ed., 4th, vol. I, 503–4. 4. Reprisals Phillimore, "International Law," 3d ed., vol. II, 18-44. Moore's "Digest," vol. VII, 119-135. Lawrence's "Principles of International Law," 4th ed., 334-344. 5. Pacific Blockade Davis, "International Law," 3d ed., 267, 269. Moore's "Digest," vol. VII, 135–142. Oppenheim, 2d ed., 48-53. 1 Westlake, 2d ed., vol. II, pp. 16 and 17. PART IV WAR-RELATIONS OF BELLIGERENTS CHAPTER XVII GENERAL QUESTIONS AS TO WAR. OUTBREAK OF WAR. ARMED FORCES OF THE STATE 134. General Questions as to War.-In Doctor Francis Lieber's code for the instructions for the government of armies of the United States in the field will be found the following definition of public war, which remains, to my belief, the best definition extant. "Public war is a state of armed hostilities between sovereign nations or governments. It is a law and requisite of civilized existence that men live in political, continuous societies, forming organized units, called states or nations, whose constituents bear, enjoy and suffer, advance and retrograde together, in peace and in war. "The citizen or native of a hostile country is thus an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or nation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of the war. "Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit." 1 Lieber's "Instructions," etc., found in Appendix A, Davis, "Int. Law." |