"This argument is raised upon the terms used by the President, in his proclamation of April 19th, 1861, which are: "If, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach, or shall attempt to leave any of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will indorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured, &c.'"

The official announcement by the proclamation, is, that the President has deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports of the states enumerated, “in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and of the law of nations," and Commodore Pendergrast on the 30th of the same month, gave public warning to all persons interested, that he had sufficient naval force to carry out the blockade, and that "vessels passing the capes of Virginia, coming from a distance, and ignorant of the blockade," will be warned, &c.

"The paramount fact announced by the procla mation, and the public warning by Commodore Pendergrast, was, that the blockade was laid in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and of the laws of nations. The law of nations is explicit and indubitable, that a neutral vessel, know ing a port to be in a state of blockade, and sailing toward it, with intent to evade such blockade, commits a fraud upon the belligerent rights of the blockading power, and is subject to forfeiture therefor (3 Phillimore's International Law, 397; Wheaton, Int. Law, 541, 550; 1 Kent, 148, 149; 1 Duer, on Ins., 663, § 39; Flander's Mar. Law, 168, § 225,

note 3; 2 Arnold's Mar. Ins.; 747 Perkins' ed.)." After a consideration of the question, how far, if at all, this rule of international law may have been modified, or relaxed by the latest authorities (which has been quoted from this able opinion, in another connection), the court proceeds:

"The question then remains, whether this vessel is exempt from that consequence, by the terms of the President's proclamation of April 19th, 1861.

"Previous to the capture herein, the Executive order of blockade was ratified by act of Congress (act of August 6th, 1861, § 3), and that ratifica tion, independent of all adjudications by the courts on the subject, disposes of the objection still continued in these defences, as to the want of authority in the President to impose it, and the only question of moment resting on the case, is, as to the interpretation of its effect, under the laws of the United States, and the law of nations."

"The United States, as a neutral power, has never insisted with belligerent nations, that the public law, required, that a neutral vessel approaching a blockaded port, was, in all cases entitled to re ceive there notice of such blockade, and to be warned off, and be free from liability, for an ap proach to the port, unless attempted by the neutral after such warning."

"This matter has been made the subject of early treaty compacts with England in 1794 (8 Stat. at Large, 125, art. 18), with France in 1800 (8 Stat. at Large, 184, art. 12), and with various other com mercial nations. By these treaties, the principle recognized by this country, as the accepted and governing principle of international law, is declared

to be, that a neutral vessel, visiting a blockaded port, in ignorance of the blockade, shall be entitled to be warned off, and not liable to arrest, unless she again approaches the blockaded port, with intent to enter it. The Supreme Court of the United States regards these treaty compacts as the true exposition of the law of nations in respect to blockades. (Fitz gibbons vs. Newport Ins. Co., 4 Cranch, 199.)

"This subject has been amply discussed in the jurisprudence of the United States in all its bearings, and must be regarded as familiar to the gov ernment and the publicists of the country when the proclamation of April 19th was published.

"The emphatic doctrine announced in the adju dications of the courts of this country, and set forth in the dispatches of learned jurists, is, that a neutral vessel, going voluntarily to a blockaded port, knowing of the blockade, with design to enter the port, and with whatever pretence of inquiry or communication thereat, is guilty of a fraud upon the belligerent rights of the blockading party, and is liable to condemnation therefor. (Cases before cited, 5 Cranch, 335; 6 Cranch, 29; 1 Duer, 691, notes; note to 3 Wheat., 196.)

"In view of the state of the law and its adminis tration, in regard to visitation of blockaded ports by neutral vessels, I think the proclamation of April 19th, 1861, must be understood to refer to, and embrace only, those vessels approaching the port in ignorance of its being under blockade. If the fact of its being blockaded is known to the vessel when the voyage is undertaken, it is unlawful for her to enter within the limits of the blockade to seek information as to its continuance; and immunity

from capture for such act, cannot be predicated upon the terms of the Executive proclamation."

The case of The Revere, adjudicated in the United States District Court of Massachusetts, presented the same question; and it is thus considered by the learned judge presiding in that district:

"The second ground of defence relied upon is that this vessel had no warning indorsed upon her register, as set forth in the President's proclamation of the 19th of April."

“ It is contended that, under the proclamation, The Revere, with information of the existence of the blockade, had a right to sail from Halifax direct to this port (Beaufort), knowing of the blockade, and to enter it, if not there warned off, and the warning indorsed on her register by a ship of war, in the manner set forth in the proclamation; and that. until such warning, she was not liable to capture for an attempt to enter.".

"In support of this proposition, an argument of much force has been presented, from the language of the proclamation and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Maryland Ins. Co. vs. Woods, 6 Cranch, 29, and other authorities, cited by the counsel for the claimants. On the other hand, it is contended, that by the true construction of the proclamation, only those who are ignorant of the blockade are entitled to a warning and indorsement; and that it is not to be presumed that a belligerent would gratuitously narrow his own rights to his own injury; that by the Law of Nations this vessel had such information and notice as to preclude her from the right to inquire at the port and attempt to enter.

"This view is strengthened by the earlier part of the proclamation, which declares that a blockade is set on foot, in pursuance of the law of nations.

"The notice given to the world by Commodore Pendegrast, evidently gives to the proclamation, the construction contended for by the captors.

"After referring to the proclamation, and stating that he had sufficient force for carrying it into effect, he says: 'All vessels passing the capes of Virginia, coming from a distance, and ignorant of the proclamation, will be warned off."

"The world thus had notice, that those only were to be warned who were ignorant.

"This question of a necessity of a warning and indorsement, came before the eminent admiralty judge in the southern district of New York, in the case of The Hiawatha, which had left the port of Richmond, and he held, that previous knowledge of the blockade, dispensed with the necessity of warning.

"In the case of the brig Hallie Jackson, which was attempting to enter a blockaded port, the same learned judge held that she was not entitled to be warned off, 'if approaching with intent to violate the blockade.'"

The learned judge, after thus clearly manifesting his opinion as to the true construction of the Executive proclamation, proceeds to declare his views, that even though the literal construction of that instrument were required, under the rules of interpretation, the immunity claimed by such construction, could only be set up and availed of, by neutral vessels, whose acts had been characterized by fairness, good faith, and honesty.