Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE BLOCKADE

In an instruction of March 6, 1862, to the Minister in Great Britain, Secretary Seward discussed the effectiveness of the American blockade. He thought that "the true test of the commercial blockade lies in the results." The following facts were "certainly demonstrative": The price of cotton in New York was four times greater than in New Orleans, the price of salt in New Orleans was ten times greater than in New York, and gold was more scarce in Charleston than cotton was in Liverpool. Seward felt that the pleaders in Parliament for our destruction should cease to complain of the ruin brought into England by the failure of supplies from the blockaded districts, " or else they ought to admit the efficiency of the blockade."

Two days later Seward repeated some of these statements, regarding the effectiveness of the blockade, to the Minister in France.2 He also mentioned that nothwithstanding the great outlay of the insurgents in Europe for arms, equipment, and clothing, the prisoners taken were wretchedly armed and clothed. Passengers from the insurgent States escaped into neutral States only across overland barriers. Judged by the test of results Seward was "satisfied that there was never a more effective blockade."

CONTRABAND REGULATIONS

No list of articles contraband of war was proclaimed through the Department of State or incorporated by the Navy Department in instructions to officers during the Civil War. The initiative in defining contraband was left to the Treasury Department, which used the term in its instructions to collectors of customs regarding commerce with southern ports. Since these instructions were designed for the regulation of exports from northern States, they had no immediate bearing on the treatment of neutral commerce. Nevertheless, they, with the lists of contraband articles set forth in them, came indirectly to have such a bearing as certain southern ports were opened to trade under restrictions and foreign vessels bound to them were no longer subject to interception on the ground of the blockade. On May 12, 1862, the President issued a proclamation declaring that "the blockade of the said ports of Beaufort, Port Royal, and New Orleans shall so far cease and determine, from and after the first day of June next, that commercial intercourse with those ports, except as to persons and things and information contraband

1Document 127, p. 439.

2

Document 128, p. 441.

of war," might from that date be carried on, subject to regulation.1 On the same date the Secretary of the Treasury issued regulations relating to trade with these ports.2 Vessels clearing from foreign ports and destined for ports opened by the proclamation would be licensed by American consuls "upon satisfactory evidence that the vessels so licensed will convey no persons, property, or information contraband of war, either to or from the said ports." The licenses were to be exhibited to the collector of the designated port and, if required, to any officer in charge of the blockade.

Secretary of State Seward, on May 12, sent a circular to American consuls enclosing the Treasury regulations of that date and calling especial attention to the above-quoted phrase regarding satisfactory evidence upon which licenses were to be granted. A form of license was enclosed with the circular, in which it was stated that the license was issued on the condition that the licensed vessel would "convey no persons, property, or information contraband of war," to or from the ports concerned.*

The Secretary of the Treasury on May 23, 1862, in a circular to the collectors of customs, stated that in pursuance of the President's proclamation of May 12 no articles contraband of war were to be permitted to enter the three ports concerned and that the collectors would accordingly refuse clearance to vessels bound for them with any such articles on board. Until further instructed, the collectors were to regard as contraband of war arms, munitions, war supplies, naval stores, ardent spirits, military persons in enemy service, despatches of the enemy, "and articles of like character with those specially enumerated." Furthermore, the collectors were to be especially careful to require bonds from shippers of the following articles to ports opened, or to any other ports from which they might easily be reshipped in aid of the existing insurrection: liquors of all kinds other than ardent spirits, coals, iron, lead, copper, tin, brass, telegraphic instruments, wire, or other telegraphic materials, marine engines, and every article or other component part of an engine or boiler, or any article which was, could, or might become applicable for the manufacture of marine machinery, or for the armor of vessels.

Secretary Seward, on May 30, 1862, referred the American consuls to his circular of May 12, and enumerated the articles contraband of war appearing in the Treasury circular of May 23. Seward stated that all vessels having on board articles which were thus indicated as contraband by the Secretary of the Treasury would be refused clear

[blocks in formation]

ances to the ports mentioned in the President's proclamation of May 12. Seward also called attention of the consuls to the second list of articles in the Treasury circular of May 23, for which bonds were required.

In accordance with the spirit of the Treasury instructions, the consuls were "specially instructed to refuse licenses to all vessels which, whatever the ostensible destination, are believed by you, on satisfactory grounds, to be intended for ports or places in possession or under control of insurgents," or from whence there was imminent danger that the goods, of whatever description, in such ships would fall into the possession or control of insurgents. Furthermore, licenses were to be refused in all cases where there was ground for apprehension that any goods shipped would be used to aid the insurgents or be transported to any place under insurrectionary control. In short, the consuls were "to refuse every application for a license for any vessel having on board as part of her cargo any of the articles designated in either of the lists furnished by the Secretary of the Treasury." These lists had been prescribed under the powers conferred by law on the Secretary of the Treasury to regulate domestic trade, and security by bond was required from all American shippers of goods to the designated ports against any abuse of the privilege, and foreign shippers could not be placed "on a more favorable footing than American merchants in the loyal ports of the United States."

Secretary Seward informed the American diplomatic and consular representatives on April 26, 1864, that they were to add coin and bullion to the prohibited articles enumerated in his circular of May 30, 1862, and they were, as far as they were able, to prevent such importations by giving publicity to this instruction.1

In a letter of June 6, 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Chase replied to a letter of the Secretary of State in which the latter had presented a French inquiry as to whether wines were contraband of war.2 Secretary Chase enclosed a copy of the circular of May 23 and called attention to the fact that "ardent spirits" were declared contraband of war, and their shipment prohibited; but wines, not coming properly under this head, were permitted to be shipped.

INSTRUCTIONS TO NAVAL COMMANDERS

In a circular of August 18, 1862, to naval commanders, the Secretary of the Navy recapitulated the instructions that had previously been given. Two "explicit " instructions are of interest in this survey: (1) The commanders were to "exercise constant vigilance to prevent supplies of arms, munitions, and contraband of war from

1

1 Document 134, p. 451. 2 Document 132, p. 449.

3

Document 133, p. 450.

being conveyed to the insurgents." (2) When visiting a vessel it was not "then to be seized without a search carefully made, so far as to render it reasonable to believe that she is engaged in carrying contraband of war for or to the insurgents, and to their ports directly or indirectly by transshipment, or otherwise violating the blockade." If after visit and search, it should appear to the commander's satisfaction that the ship was "in good faith and without contraband, actually bound and passing from one friendly or socalled neutral port to another, and not bound or proceeding to or from a port in the possession of the insurgents," then it could not be lawfully seized.

PROCLAMATION OF JUNE 13, 1865

On June 13, 1865, President Johnson issued a proclamation declaring that "all restrictions upon internal, domestic and coast wise intercourse and trade and upon the removal of products of States heretofore declared in insurrection, reserving and excepting only those relating to contraband of war," were annulled, and that all restrictions upon foreign commerce with the said ports, with the abovementioned reservations, were likewise removed.1 The following articles contraband of war were exempted from the effect of the proclamation: "arms, ammunition, all articles from which ammunition is made, and gray uniforms and cloth."

[merged small][ocr errors]

Three Civil War cases decided by the United States Supreme Court contain the most significant statements on the points considered in this study of commerce in war.

The first was the case of The Bermuda,2 a ship captured on a voyage from England, ostensibly to Bermuda. In an opinion of December, 1865, the Court stated that neutrals might convey in neutral ships, from one neutral port to another, any goods, whether contraband or not, if intended for actual delivery at the port of destination and to become part of the common stock of the country or of the port. However, a neutral ship could not take on a contraband cargo "ostensibly for a neutral port, but destined in reality for a belligerent port, either by the same ship or by another, without becoming liable, from the commencement to the end of the voyage, to seizure, in order to the confiscation of the cargo."

The court stated that a large part of the cargo of the Bermuda was contraband in the narrow sense of the word and of such character to make "its ulterior, if not direct, destination to a rebel port

'Document 135, p. 452.

2 Document 136, p. 454.

quite certain." It made no difference whether the destination to the rebel port was ulterior or direct; nor could the question of destination be affected by transshipment, for that could not break the continuity of transportation of the cargo. The interposition of a neutral port between neutral departure and belligerent destination had always been a favorite resort of contraband carriers and blockade runners, but it never availed them when the ultimate destination was ascertained. Transportation from one point to another remained continuous, so long as intent remained unchanged, no matter what stoppages or transshipments intervened.

This rule of continuity the Court considered well established in respect to cargo. Sir William Scott at first held that the landing and warehousing of the goods and the payment of the duties on importation was a sufficient test of the termination of the original voyage; and that a subsequent exportation of them to a belligerent port was lawful. But in a later case Sir William Grant established the rule, which had never been shaken, that even the landing of goods and payment of duties did not interrupt the continuity of the voyage of the cargo unless there was an honest intention to bring it into the common stock of the country.

THE CASE OF "THE SPRINGBOK "

In December, 1866, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of The Springbok, a British vessel captured during a voyage from London to Nassau. A small part of the cargo consisted of arms and munitions of war, which the Court considered contraband within the narrowest definition. Another and larger portion consisted of articles useful and necessary in war, and therefore contraband within the constructions of the American and English prize courts. However, the Court did "not now refer to the character of the cargo for the purpose of determining whether it was liable to condemnation as contraband, but for the purpose of ascertaining its real destination." The Court said it could not be condemned, whether or not contraband, if really destined for Nassau and not beyond; and, contraband or not, it must be condemned if destined to any rebel port, for all rebel ports were under blockade.

The Court did not doubt that a considerable portion of this cargo was going to the rebel States. If the cargo was not to be carried to its ultimate destination by the Springbok, the plan must have been to send it forward by transshipment.

In conclusion, the Court held that the cargo was originally shipped with intent to violate the blockade; that the owners of the cargo

1 Document 137, p. 460.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »