otherwise the Act was to be treated as null and void, so far as regards any national liability upon a neutral for any of its subjects successfully evading it. This view was supported by Mr. Seward, who, under date of April 21, 186 1, wrote to Mr. Adams, our Minister to England, as follows : " I am bound to conclude as a general principle, that a decree by a sovereign Power, closing to neutral commerce ports held by its enemies, whether foreign or domestic, can have no international validity and no extra territorial effect in the direction of imposing any obligation upon the Governments of neutral powers to recognize it or contribute towards its enforcement by any domestic action on their part." In the same letter he also says : " But the sovereign Power de creeing the blockade may seize and subject to the adjudication of a prize court vessels which may attempt to run the blockade after notice." This view of the law has been maintained ever since, and Professor Pcrel, late judge of the Admiralty Court of Berlin, acquiesces in the same and says : " That unless an effective blockade is maintained, there can be no closure of a port;" that is, a port cannot be closed on a mere procla mation, the Act itself must be strictly en forced; unless it is, no vessel is subject to seizure through any sporadic effort to main tain it. Mr. Forsyth, secretary of state in 1837, wrote to the Mexican Government in refer ence to the subject and said : " A block ade, to be valid under the law of nations, must be efficient, that is to say, carried on by a force competent to prevent the entrance of neutrals to the blockaded port. Neutrals proceeding to such ports cannot lawfully be captured for the mere intent, express or implied, of entering them, but must be warned off by the blockading force; but if after having been warned they should again attempt to enter, they are liable to capture." Mr. Webster and Mr. Marcy, both as secretaries of state, agreed in the above
views. Therefore, as to the right of block ade and the binding of neutral powers to respect it, the law is settled; but, as to the right of a government to protect its harbors by the use of submarine explosives, the question is an open one so far as regards any rules being adopted by the Powers to regulate it. But this Government holds that it cannot be done recklessly and with out notice. . ' Mr. Evarts, on January 25, 1881, wrote to our Minister to Peru: "I regret that a report which has been communicated to the Department obliges me to request that you will make a strong representation in the premises to the Peruvian Government, should you find on inquiry that the report is well founded. The report is that the Peruvians have made use during the present war with Chili of boats containing explosive materials, which have been left adrift on the chance of their being fallen in with by some of the Chilian blockading squadron. It is sufficiently obvious that this practice must be fraught with danger to neutral vessels entitled to protection under the law of nations, and that in case American vessels are injured, this Government can do no less than hold the Government of Peru respon sible for any damage which may be thus occasioned. That in case it is ascertained that means and ways so dangerous to neu trals as those adverted to have been for any reasons suffered to be adopted by her forces or any part of them, they should be at once checked, not only for the benefit of Peru, but in the interest of a wise and chiv alrous warfare, which should constantly afford to neutral Powers the highest possible consideration." Again, in 1884, the Hon. John Russell Young, as Minister to China, was confronted with the threat that China would place obstructions in the water approaches to Canton, because of a contemplated war with France. Corresponding with Mr. Frelinghuysen, secretary of state, as to his duties
