CHAPTER XIII THE WAR WITH SPAIN AND THE FIRST HAGUE CONFERENCE BLOCKADE PROCLAMATIONS 1 On April 22, 1898, President McKinley issued a proclamation in which he stated that he deemed it "necessary to set on foot and maintain a blockade of the north coast of Cuba." He therefore declared and proclaimed that "the United States of America have instituted and will maintain a blockade of the north coast of Cuba, including ports on said coast between Cardenas and Bahia Honda and the port of Cienfuegos on the south coast of Cuba." An efficient force would be posted so as to prevent the entrance and exit of vessels from these ports. By a proclamation of June 27, 1898, the President added to the extent of the blockade of April 22 by stating that the United States had instituted and would "maintain an effective blockade of all the ports on the south coast of Cuba, from Cape Frances to Cape Cruz, inclusive, and also of the port of San Juan, in the island of Porto Rico." 2 RULES TO BE OBSERVED BY THE UNITED STATES In a circular telegram of April 22,3 Secretary of State Sherman informed the American diplomatic representatives that in the event of hostilities between the United States and Spain the policy of the Government would be not to resort to privateering but to " adhere to the following recognized rules of international law. "First: The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war. Second: Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag, and Third: Blockades, in order to be binding must be effective." In a proclamation of April 26, 1898, President McKinley, by virtue of the power vested in him "by the Constitution and the laws " declared and proclaimed the three above-mentioned rules, using terminology almost identical with that used in the circular.* NAVAL INSTRUCTIONS On June 20, 1898, the Secretary of the Navy issued instructions to blockading vessels and cruisers that they were to be governed by the rules of international law and by the provisions of treaties of the United States. The following specific instructions were given: (1) A blockade to be effective and binding should be maintained by a force sufficient to render dangerous the ingress to or egress from a port. The liability of a blockade runner to capture and condemnation "begins with and terminates with" the voyage. If there was good evidence that the vessel sailed with intent to evade the blockade, it should be considered good prize from the moment it appeared on the high seas. "Blockade running is a distinct offense, and subjects the vessel attempting, or sailing with the intent, to commit it, to seizure" without regard to the nature of the cargo. The presence of contraband of war in the cargo "becomes a distinct cause of seizure of the vessel, where she is bound to a port of the enemy not blockaded, and to which, contraband of war excepted, she is free to trade." (2) In explaining the right of search the statement was made that if the vessel searched was neutral, and trading between neutral ports, the examination should go no further. If the vessel was neutral and bound to an enemy port not blockaded, its papers should be examined. The vessel should be seized if the papers showed contraband of war. (3) Attention was called to the statement in the President's proclamation of April 26 that the neutral flag covered enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war. (4) "The term contraband of war comprehends only articles having a belligerent destination, as to an enemy's port or fleet." Two lists were given. The first, containing articles "absolutely contraband," included arms, war supplies, machinery for the manufacture of arms and munitions, saltpeter, military accouterments and equipments of all sorts, and horses. The second, a conditionally contraband" list, included "Coal, when destined for a naval station, a port of call, or a ship or ships of the enemy; materials for the construction of railways or telegraphs, and money, when such materials or money are destined for the enemy's forces; provisions, when destined for an enemy's ship or ships, or for a place that is besieged." PRESIDENT MCKINLEY'S MESSAGE ON IMMUNITY 66 In a message to Congress of December 5, 1898,2 President McKinley stated that the experiences of the last war brought "forcibly home to us a sense of the burdens and the waste of war," and that we de 1Document 148, p. 488. 2 Document 150, p. 490. sired, in common with most civilized nations, to reduce to the lowest possible point the damage sustained in time of war by peaceable trade and commerce. He thought it was true that we suffered in such cases less than other communities, but all nations were damaged more or less by the state of uneasiness and apprehension into which an outbreak of hostilities threw the entire commercial world. Therefore he considered it should be our object to minimize, as far as practicable, this inevitable loss and disturbance, which object could probably best be accomplished by an international agreement to regard all private property at sea as exempt from capture or destruction by the forces of belligerent powers. The United States had for many years advocated this humane and beneficent principle and was now in position to recommend it to other powers without the imputation of selfish motives. The President therefore suggested for the consideration of Congress that "the Executive be authorized to correspond with the Governments of the principal maritime powers with a view of incorporating into the permanent law of civilized nations the principle of the exemption of all private property at sea, not contraband of war, from capture or destruction by belligerent powers." THE FIRST HAGUE CONFERENCE In the instructions of April 18, 1899, to the delegates to the first Hague Conference,1 the Secretary of State authorized them to "propose to the conference the principle of extending to strictly private property at sea the immunity from destruction or capture by belligerent powers which such property already enjoys on land as worthy of being incorporated in the permanent law of civilized nations." In accordance with these instructions the delegation on June 20, 1899, addressed a letter to the President of the Hague Conference," containing the following proposal to the Conference on the subject of immunity of private property at sea: "The private property of all citizens or subjects of the signatory powers, with the exception of contraband of war, shall be exempt from capture or seizure on the high seas or elsewhere by the armed. vessels or by the military forces of any of the said signatory powers. But nothing herein contained shall extend exemption from seizure to vessels and their cargoes which may attempt to enter a port blockaded by the naval forces of any of the said powers." In the letter the Conference was reminded that this proposition was in conformity with a policy urged by the United States upon the various powers at all suitable times for more than a century. Attention was called to the second part of article 23 of the treaty 1 Document 151, p. 491. 2 Document 152, p. 492. of 1785 with Prussia, to the propositions of 1823, 1854, and 1856, and to the treaties of 1858 with Bolivia and 1871 with Italy. Consequently it was to be observed that the proposition then put forward did not “result from the adoption of any new policy by our Government or from any sudden impulse of our people." Mention was also made of the fact that the American proposition had the approval of several recent eminent authorities in international law. No action was taken on this subject by the first Hague Conference, but there was included in the final act of the Conference a resolution expressing the wish that the proposal for inviolability of private property in naval warfare might be referred to a subsequent conference for consideration. purpose. CHAPTER XIV 1900-1914 THE NAVAL WAR CODE OF 1900 The United States Naval War Code adopted June 27, 1900,1 contained the following provisions relating to war-time commerce: (1) A neutral vessel carrying enemy goods was, with its cargo, exempt from capture, except when carrying contraband of war or endeavoring to evade a blockade. (2) In explaining the right of search, the statement was made that if the papers of the vessel searched showed contraband, an offense in respect to blockade, or enemy service, the vessel should be seized. (3) The term "contraband of war " included only articles having a belligerent destination and Such articles were classed under two general heads: (a) those primarily and ordinarily used for military purposes in time of war; and (b) those that might be and were used for purposes of war or peace, according to circumstances. Articles of the first class, destined for ports of the enemy or places occupied by his forces, were always contraband of war; and articles of the second class, when actually and especially destined for the military or naval forces of the enemy, were contraband of war. In case of war, the articles conditionally and unconditionally contraband, when not specifically mentioned in treaties previously made and in force, would be duly announced in a public manner. Vessels, whether neutral or otherwise, carrying contraband of war destined for the enemy, were liable to seizure and detention unless treaty stipulations provided otherwise. The absolutely contraband articles were the same as those given in the order of June 20, 1898, except that mules were added to the list and the phrase "ammunition and explosives of all kinds" had added to it the words "and their component parts." In the case of conditionally contraband articles the list was the same. (4) "Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective; that is, they must be maintained by a force sufficient to render hazardous the ingress to or egress from a port." The liability of a vessel purposing to evade a blockade, to capture and condemnation, "begins with her departure from the home port and lasts until her return, unless in the meantime the blockade of the port is raised." 1Document 153, p. 495. 105 |