the belligerents, it forfeits the immunities of its neutral character with respect to the other, and may be treated by it as an enemy. (Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 3, §§ 155-157; Kent, Com. on Am. Law, vol. 1, pp. 117, 118; Chitty, Law of Nations, p. 150; The Vrow Anna Catharina, 5 Rob. Rep., p. 15; The Anna, 5 Rob. Rep., p. 348; Heffter, Droit International, §§ 146-150; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 2, cap. 7, § 6; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 1, tit. 2, cap. 17; Hautefeuille, Des Nations Neutres, tit. 4, ch. 1; De Cussy, Droit Maitime, liv. 1, tit. 3, § 13.)

§ 22. Although it is the duty of a belligerent state to make restitution of the property captured within the territorial jurisdiction of a neutral state, yet it is a technical rule of the prize court to restore to the individual claimant, in such a case, only on the application of the neutral government whose territory was violated in effecting the capture. This rule is founded upon the principle, that the neutral state alone has been injured by the capture, and that the hostile claimant has no right to appear, for the purpose of suggesting the invalidity of the capture. He must look to the neutral government for redress of the violation of the right of asylum, and that government is bound to effect a restitution, or procure indemnity for the injury suffered. This claim is usually preferred by the ambassador of the neutral state in the captor's country, to the prize court before which the captured property is brought for adjudication. (Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 3, § 158; Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 4, ch. 3, § 11; The Eutrusco, 3 Rob. Rep., p. 31, note; The Anne, 3 Wheaton Rep., p. 447; The Gen. Armstrong, Ex. Doc. No. 53, H. R., 32d Cong., 1st Sess.; No. 24, Senate, 2d Sess.; Revue Etr. et Fr., tome 7, p. 751.)

ers.

§ 23. But if the property captured in violation of neutral rights comes into the possession of the neutral state, it is the right and duty of such state to restore it to its original ownThis restitution is generally made through the agency of the courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Traces of the exercise of such a jurisdiction are found in the history of English jurisprudence as early as the reigns of Charles II. and James II., and are now matters of ordinary occurrence in English and American courts of admiralty. Such restitu

tion is not confined to captures within neutral jurisdiction, but extends to all captures made in violation of neutral rights, such as by vessels which had been armed and equipped, or had received military munitions, or had enlisted men, or in any other way had violated the sanctity of neutral territorial jurisdiction. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 4, ch. 3, § 12; Life and Works of Sir L. Jenkins, vol. 2, p. 727; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 3, § 158; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 1, tit. 2, cap. 17.)

§ 24. The power and duty of the United States to restore captures made in violation of our neutral rights and brought into American ports, have never been matters of question; but, in the constitutional arrangement of the different authorities of the American federal union, doubts were at first entertained, whether it belonged to the executive government, or to the judiciary, to perform the duty of inquiry into captures made in violation of American sovereignty, and of making restitution to the injured party. But it has long 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. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 4, ch. 3, §§ 12, 13; The United States v. Peters, 3 Dallas Rep., pp. 121-131; The Divina Pastora, 4 Wheaton Rep., p. 65, note; The Amistad de Rues, 5 Wheaton Rep., p. 385; The Arrogante Barcelones, 7 Wheaton Rep., p. 519; La Nereyda, 8 Wheaton Rep., p. 108; The Fanny, 9 Wheaton Rep., p. 658; The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheaton Rep., p. 283; Glass v. The Betsey, 3 Dallas Rep., p. 65, note a; McDonough v. The Mary Ford, 3 Dallas Rep., p. 188; Waite, State Papers, vol. 6, p. 195.)

§ 25. In the case of capture by an armed vessel, fitted out in the ports of the United States, in violation of our neutrality, the claim by an alleged bonae fidei purchaser in a foreign port was rejected, and restitution decreed to the original owners. It, however, was decided that a bonae fidei purchaser, without notice, in such a case is entitled to be reimbursed the freight 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. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 4, ch. 3, §14; Kent, Com. on Am. Law, vol. 1, p. 123; The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheaton Rep., p. 283; The Fanny, 9 Wheaton Rep., p. 658.)

$ 26. If such property, captured in violation of neutral immunity, be carried infra praesidia of the captor's country, and there regularly condemned in a competent court of prize, the question arises whether the courts of the neutal state will exercise jurisdiction, and restore such property to the original owners. If the property be found in the hands of the original wrongdoer, 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. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 4, ch. 3, § 14; The Arragante Barcelones, 7 Wheaton Rep., p. 496; The Amistad de Rues, 5 Wheaton Rep., p. 390.)

§ 27. Illegal equipment and outfit, in violation of neutral immunity, will not effect the validity of captures made after

the cruise, to which the outfit had been applied is actually terminated. The offense is deemed to be deposited at the termination of the voyage, and does not effect future transactions. This rule would result from analogy to other cases of violation of public law, and has been directly announced by the U. S. supreme court. (Kent, Com. on Am. Law, vol. 1, p. 123; Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 4, ch. 3, § 13; The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheaton Rep., p. 348.)

CHAPTER XXIII.

LAW OF SIEGES AND BLOCKADES.

CONTENTS.

1. Interdiction of intercourse with places besieged or blockaded - 2. Authority to institute sieges and blockades — 3. Distinction between them 24. Actual presence of an adequate blockading force-25. 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 1856-8 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 sea16. 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 enter24. Inception of voyage - 25. Exception in case of distant voyages 26. In 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 egress34. When egress is allowed - 35. Penalty of breach of blockade-36. When cargo is excepted from condemnation 37. Duration of offense 38. Insurance, how affected by violation of a blockade-839. Hautefeuille's theory of the law of blockades.

§1. The same law which confers upon belligerents the right to capture and destroy each others property, imposes