Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 2, 1902
Mr. Adee to Mr. Powell.
Washington, September 11, 1902.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your cablegram of the 9th instant and confirm my cablegram of the 10th in reply.
For your further information on the subject I inclose copy of Department’s No. 71, of June 3, 1902, to the United States consul-general at Santo Domingo City.
I am, etc.,
Acting Secretary.
Mr. Hill to Mr. Maxwell, United States consul-general at Santo Domingo.
Washington, June 3, 1902.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 133, of May 6, 1902, transmitting copies of correspondence between your office and the consular agent at Macoris in regard to clearance being refused the steamship Cherokee at Puerto Plata for Samana, and other matters pertaining to the revolution in the Dominican Republic.
In reply I have to say that you are in error in your advice to the consular agent at Macoris relative to the refusal of the Dominican authorities at Puerto Plata to grant a clearance to the U. S. S. Cherokee for Samana, a port in the possession of insurgent forces. It is well settled that it is not competent for a government during an insurrection to forbid communication with ports in the possession of insurgents in the absence of an effective blockade. The action of the Dominican authorities at Puerto Plata in refusing to clear the American steamship Cherokee to Samana, and threatening, if the steamer attempted to call at that port, to send a Dominican man-of-war to intercept her, was contrary to international law.
The question is very fully discussed by Secretary Bayard in a note to Mr. Becerra, Colombian minister at this capital, under date of April 24, 1885, which is printed in Foreign Relations for 1885, page 254. In this note Mr. Bayard stated in detail the historical attitude of this Government on the question. His conclusion was as follows:
“After careful examination of the authorities and precedents bearing upon this important question, 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 extraterritorial effect in the direction of imposing any obligation upon the governments of neutral powers [Page 652] to recognize it or to contribute toward its enforcement by any domestic action on their part. Such a decree may, indeed, be necessary as a municipal enactment of the state which proclaims it, in order to clothe the executive with authority to proceed to the institution of a formal and effective blockade, but when that purpose is attained its power is exhausted. If the sovereign decreeing such closure have a naval force sufficient to maintain a blockade, and if he duly proclaims such a blockade, then he may seize, and subject to the adjudication of a prize court, vessels which may attempt to run the blockade. If he lay an embargo, then vessels attempting to evade such embargo may be forcibly repelled by him if he be in possession of the port so closed. But his decree closing ports which are held adversely to him is, by itself, entitled to no international respect. Were it otherwise, the de facto and titular sovereigns of any determinate country or region might between them exclude all merchant ships whatever from their ports, and in this way not only ruin those engaged in trade with such States, but cause much discomfort to the nations of the world by the exclusion of necessary products found in no other market.
“The decree of closure of certain named ports of Colombia contains no intimation of an ulterior purpose to resort to a proclaimed and effective blockade. It may, therefore, be premature to treat your announcement as importing such ulterior measures; but it gives me pleasure to “declare that the Government of the United States will recognize any effective blockade instituted by the United States of Colombia with respect to its domestic ports not actually subject to its authority. This Government will also submit to the forcible repulsion of vessels of the United States by any embargo which Colombia may lay upon ports of which it has possession, when it has power to effect such repulsion. But the Government of the United States must regard as utterly nugatory proclamations closing ports which the United States of Colombia does not possess, under color of a naval force which is not even pretended to be competent to constitute a blockade.”
The same question has arisen within the past month with the Venezuelan Government. The Venezuelan consul at Trinidad, acting under the instructions of his Government, refused to clear an American vessel to Cano Colorado, a port in Venezuela in possession of the insurgents. The American consul at that port issued a clearance to the vessel. The Venezuelan consul threatened that if the vessel attempted to land at Cano Colorado, he would send a Venezuelan war vessel after her to seize her as a pirate. This Department instructed the United States minister at Caracas to inform the Venezuelan Government that it regarded the course of that Government as contrary to international law, and to request that the Venezuelan consul be directed to issue clearance papers or that those of the American consul be respected. The result was that the Venezuelan consul was directed to clear the vessel.
I am, etc.,