But, besides the fact that the mere blowing of a whistle has no precise signification, that it is possible for the motion or hoisting of a flag not to be remarked, and that the cannon was fired after the Haytian Republic had entered the port; besides these facts, we say, there is one circumstance which proves that these warnings did not signify the pursuit of the Dessalines and the existence of the blockade. On board of the Haytian Republic were the delegation of the insurrectionists of the North, returning from Jacmel, together with the constituents of that city, the constituents of Bainet, and other passengers who could not delude themselves nor hope to delude others with respect to their true character as enemies of the Government of Port au Prince, and who certainly were not anxious to be captured unnecessarily, having it in their power at the same time to avoid such a misfortune. Very well! If, on the Haytian Republic, they had been able to see or to hear the signals given by the Dessalines, if, above all, they had been able to understand the signification of these signals, is it not irresistibly clear that the delegates, the constituents, and the Haytian passengers would, on arriving at St. Marc, have abandoned the sea altogether and have continued their voyage by land, seeing, too, that all the territory from this point to Cape Hayti was in favor of the insurrection? If they acted otherwise, if they quitted St. Marc again immediately on the same vessel (as they unquestionably did, it is certainly because the signals did not warn them in an unmistakable manner that the port was blockaded by the Dessalines.

But the sounds of a whistle, the motion of a flag, the distant reports of cannonare these, properly speaking, the "special notification" of a blockade? Although in general the form of individual warning is not determined, it is not by signals that the French practice has decided that it shall be given. These signals are equivocal. The "special notification" must be made in writing and must be registered on the muster-roll of the neutral vessel. (See Comte Molé, Dépêche du 17 Mai, 1833; French treaty with Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, New Grenada; years 1828, 1835, 1843, 1844.)

Thus, also, the conseil d'état (council of state) annulled the capture of the Louisa because it was not sufficient that the blockade had been notified to foreign powers; it was necessary, besides, that the vessel should have been specially notified of the existence and extent of the blockade, and that the announcement of this notification should have been written on her muster-roll. (See Calvo, Vol. 4, sec. 2661.)

The Government of the United States has recently adopted a rule of conduct which assimilates itself to the French practice. The declaration of the blockade of the ports of the Southern States, made by President Lincoln, on the 19th of April, 1861, contains the following:

"If, with the intention of violating this blockade, any vessel whatever attempts to enter or to leave these ports, she shall be notified by the commander of one of the ships of the blockading squadron, who shall record in the ship's journal the fact, and the date of the notification."

Hayti receives, and holds, her customs, her legislation, and her jurisprudence from France. The treaty of the 3d of November, 1861, has established a communion of international principles between her and the United States. How, then, can she escape from the obligation of adopting the rules and principles which obtain in both countries?

A viva voce announcement of the blockade must assuredly be received with much more favor than signals made at a great distance which, possibly, may not be remarked, and the meaning of which may need interpretation. For this reason, the conseil d'état of France, on the 17th of July, 1843, pronouncing as a prize court (tribunal des prises) declared null and void the capture of the Joséphine by the Eclair, a ship of the blockading squadron, because, in that particular case, although it had been shown in the report prepared by the commander of the Eclair that notification of the blockade had been given verbally to the captain, on the day preceding the captnre, it was not shown at the investigation that the captain of the Joséphine had understood the notification, nor that the commander of the Eclair had supplemented this deficiency by registering the notification on the muster-roll of the captured vessel.

Another observation will demonstrate the emptiness of this pretension of the judgment of the prize court of Port au Prince to make the signal of the Dessalines pass for the special notification of the blockade. What is to be obtained by these signals? At the most, they invite the passing vessel to stop and to await the cruiser who makes the signals. This is only in order that (if the neutral vessel obeys the summons and allows the cruiser to reach her) the officer of the blockading ship should have the occasion and the means of giving the notification required. The prize court of Port au Prince have, therefore, confounded two things absolutely distinct and different. It is not to be thought that a special notification would have been an idle formality. The Haytian Republic could not have been able otherwise to know of the existence of the blockade. On this point Mr. John D. Metzger wished to have the fullest knowledge, and he applied to official sources, demanding to be informed if the decree

of the 15th of October, proclaiming the blockade, had been published at Jacmel. A direct and formal reply would have been of great value to him, but the councilor of the interior studiously avoided giving him such a reply, stating simply, in his dispatch of the 30th October, that Jacmel being in a state of rebellion against the Government, uo acknowledgment of the receipt of the decree had been made. It is easy however to fill up the gap which ministerial discretion has left open. The decree of the blockade was published in Le Moniteur of the 18th of October, 1883. This jour nal not having been sent to the provinces, except by the ordinary courier on Saturday, it was therefore on the 20th that it left the capital. Now the Haytian Republic spent the 17th at Miragoâne, the 18th at Cayes, the 19th at Jacmel. She had been in advance of the decree in each of the cities which she visited before returning to St. Marc; therefore she was necessarily ignorant of the blockade. From that time she was in the position contemplated by article 18 of the treaty of 1864 between the United States and the Republic of Hayti, to wit:

"ART. 18. As it frequently happens that vessels leaving for a port or a place belonging to the enemy, without knowing that these points are besieged, blockaded, or invested, it is here agreed that every vessel that shall be found in such case shall be sent away from these ports or places, but shall not be detained, unless after notice of such blockade or investment, the same vessel should attempt again to enter.”

Thus, supposing that the Haytian Republic had been reached by the Dessalines, she could not have been legally captured in attempting to enter the port of St. Mare; she could not have been even momentarily stopped, except for the purpose of giving notification of the blockade. It is therefore conclusive, that the Haytian Republic, who had entered into the harbor before the Dessalines had arrived to forbid access to it, and above all, before she had received a special notification of the blockade, has not violated the obligations of neutrality; on the contrary, she has exercised and enjoyed the right of free commerce.

But it was not in attempting to enter a port declared to be blockaded that the Haytian Republic was captured; it was in leaving the port. If (as we think we have demonstrated) this vessel has exercised her right in entering this port, because the blockade had not been notified to her (a fact which is clear, since she had never been in a position to know it), the Haytian Republic, as regards her leaving the port, was, to all intents and purposes, in the same situation as a vessel on station. In such a case, before the capture can be valid, it is necessary that the commander of the blockading forces should previously signify the decree of the blockade to the authorities of the place whose communications he has been commissioned to intercept.

"This is," says Calvo, "a preliminary rigorously exacted, and the omission of which nullifies absolutely the capture of vessels leaving a port." (See Calvo, vol. 4, § 2580.) A delay must be accorded for the free retirement or exit of neutral vessels. Such was the principle followed by Denmark in 1848, by England and France during the war in the East, by France during her struggle with Germany in 1870, and by the United States of America in 1861.

In our particular case no notification had been made to the authorities of St. Marc. They had not been able from that time to notify the vessels lying in the port, and the Haytian Republic, who had no knowledge of the blockade when she entered that port, was equally ignorant of it when she attempted to leave.

There are three versions of the capture:

(1) According to the copy of the report of Mr. Gaillard, the commander of the Dessalines, which has been delivered to Mr. John D. Metzger by the prize court, this officer, speaking of the Sunday morning when the Haytian Republic weighed anchor to leave the bay, said: "I sounded the whistle to her; I ran down towards her; seeing that she would not stop I fired a cannon, and it was not until then that she changed her course."

(2) By the report published in "Le Progrès," and which Mr. Gaillard has not disavowed, the commander said: "We blew the whistle and fired a cannon, so as to oblige her to surrender at our demand. At last the Haytian Republic, for it was certainly she, stopped."

(3) Mr. Solon Ménos, who repeats a recital of the same commander, says in his deposition:* "The Dessalines cruised before the blockaded port to arrest the refractory boat on ner return; the next day, very early in the morning, the capture took place." By this deposition, one does not know what were really the circumstances which accompanied the capture. But whether one or the other text of this report is accepted, the commander of the Dessalines recognizes that after the blowing of the whistle and

Nothing can more clearly show the character of Haytian justice than this deposition. Mr. Solon Ménos, who was all the while in Port au Prince, was called upon to testify, and was permitted to testify to an occurrence which took place at St. Marc whilst he was in Port au Prince. Wha right had this man to testify to what he did not know? This alone proves the predetermination of the prize court to convict the Haytian Republic whether she was guilty or not.

the report of the cannon, the Haytian Republic, who had good reason to flee on account of the character of her passengers, stopped, however, or what is tantamount to that, changed her course doubtlessly so as to meet the Dessalines; that, in a word, she did not attempt to escape from the Dessalines. Can it be said, then, that there was an attempt to violate the blockade? Assuredly not, and this conclusion has the respectable authority of Calvo in favor of it. He says: "The fact of not stopping immediately after the signals and invitation have been made is not to be regarded as an attempt to violate the blockade." (See Calvo, vol. 4, § 2626 in fine.)

VII.

The blockade must be real and effective; otherwise nentral vessels are not obliged to respect it. The Haytian authorities seem to persuade themselves, by dint of repeating that the blockade of St. Marc is effective, that finally the use of the word will dispense them from the necessity of having that which it designates. But the effectiveness of a blockade is something besides the proclamation and notification of any kind which may be made concerning it. According to the maritime convention of 1801 between Great Britain and Russia, which convention is the basis of the modern doctrine, no port is accounted as blockaded except one into which, owing to the measures taken by the powers attacking with ships, either stationed or sufficiently near, there is evident danger in entering. Civilized powers agree in recognizing the principle that a blockade, to be effective, must be maintained by a force really sufficient to prevent access to the hostile coast.

The provisional government, by their decree of the 15th October, 1858, have placed simultaneously in a state of blockade the ports of St. Marc, Gonaïves, and Cape Hayti. To perform the service of the blockade they had only two war ships, the Dessalines and the Toussaint L'Ouverture, not having yet armed with cannon the merchant vessels which they have since employed. How can they pretend, without shamelessly inviting ridicule, that two ships were a force sufficient to prevent access to three different ports at the same time, especially when, as in the case under consideration, these three ports are situated at a great distance from each other and when the configuration of the coast to be guarded prevents these ports from being in view at the same time? In this way the Dessalines, not being obliged to remain fixed (on station), was not guarding the port of St. Marc when the Haytian Republic presented herself. According to the "report," she was at the point of the "Grande Salines," or "Grande Pierre Baie," a distance of 6 miles from St. Marc; that is to say, very far beyond the "Table à Diable," on the route to Gonaïves. How, then, was the entrance of the port of St. Marc intercepted by her? It is necessary for the blockading ships either to station themselves before the port or at least to be sufficiently near to it. But the Dessalines had placed between St. Marc and herself a promontory (the "Table à Diable") from which she was distant 6 miles. It was from this great distance that she started when she saw on the horizon the uncertain smoke of the Haytian Republic. There must be evident danger in entering. But the Dessalines, at a distance of 6 miles north of the bay, with her slowness of motion and her cannon of feeble projectile powers, did not constitute an "evident danger" for a vessel which was entering under the southern point or "Point of St. Marc." From one point to the other there is a distance of 10 miles or 18,520 meters. Let us suppose that, in returning, the war ship had had time to arrive at the "Table à Diable;" even then it is impossible that her cannon, which threw 3,500 meters, should have menaced efficaciously, or in an evident manner the vessel entering at a distance of about 18,000 meters, under the opposite promontory. Thus Commander Gaillard, who, with a suspicious complacency, curtails the distance, has not been able to prevent himself from admitting, at least, that his sixth and last cannon-ball, which could not reach his object any more than the others, had fallen a quarter of a mile short of the Haytian Republic.

Neither is it held that the capture effected on the 21st October furnishes an argument in favor of the effectiveness of the blockade. Not at all. According to the practice of maritime nations, attested to by Calvo, the accidental capture of a neutral vessel by a cruiser does not suffice to render a blockade effective. (See Calvo, vol. 4, § 2578.)

It is, therefore, nothing but an empty semblance of a blockade which they had placed before the port of St. Marc.

One last observation. They have severely blamed Captain Compton for having refused to reply to questions customary on similar occasions and to show his papers, and they have quoted in this connection the case of the Perle, a French corvette, who, for the same reason, captured two American brigs in the month of March, 1839; but they have omitted to declare the conclusion of that affair, which is that, on the demand of the commander of the United States squadron, the French admiral ordered the surrender of the captured vessels to their owners. (Calvo, vol. 4, § 2683.)

VIII.

Political passions have the disastrous effect of obscuring the soundest intellects and of untuning the most upright consciences. To this must be attributed the unjustifiable conviction and judgment pronounced against the Haytian Republic, her captain, and owners. But Mr. John D. Metzger, who can not be expected to place the great interests which he represents at the discretion of his opponents, protests against the conviction and judgment, because it is the work of a jurisdiction illegally instituted; because this jurisdiction has disregarded his indisputable right to a lawful defense; because under the circumstances of the case no cause of action exists for the transportation of contraband of war, of soldiers, and adherents of the insurrectionists; because the blockade of St. Marc had not been notified, either to the captain of the Haytian Republic or to the authorities of the place said to be blockaded; because, in fine, this blockade was not effective.

PORT AU PRINCE, November 12, 1888.

JOHN D. Metzger,

Agent Hayti Mail Steam-ship Line.

ANNEXES TO MR. METZGER'S PROTEST.

(1.) Mr. Metzger to Mr. Léon.

PORT AU PRINCE, November 8, 1888.

DEAR SIR: At last this afternoon I have received the copy of the report of Commander Gaillard, but I am not able to conceal my astonishment on discovering that the tenor of this important document is not at all the same as that of the document published by the same Commander Gaillard in Le Progrès of the 20th ultimo.

I am desirous also of having copy of the judgment pronounced on my petition for a delay, which judgment I beg that you would have the goodness to cause to be delivered to me without further delay. In the mean time, believe me to be, dear sir, your very devoted servant,

EMANUEL LÉON,

Advocate of the Government, Present.

JOHN D. MEtzger.

N. B.-To this letter, which points out a fact calculated to destroy the authority of the judgment of the prize court rendered the 31st October last, the advocate of the Government has been unable to reply.

(2.) Text of the strange judgment in which the petition of Mr. John Metzger, praying for the legal delay, was rejected.

Liberty.

Equality.

REPUBLIC OF HAYTI-IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC.

Fraternity.

The prize court sitting at Port au Prince and competently assembled in the rooms of the commercial court of this city has, in public session, rendered the following judgment:

Mr. Emanuel Léon explained the affair of the capture of the steamer Haytian Republic, and Mr. John D. Metzger, agent of the Hayti Mail Steam-ship Line, replied by the following counter-plea:

"The undersigned, agent of the Hayti Mail Steam-ship Line, has the honor of praying the prize court for a postponement of the affair of the Haytian Republic to Saturday, the 3d November (unless there occur an unforeseen prevention, which will be satisfactorily explained), seeing that, in an affair so important, it is impossible for him to prepare his means of defense in the brief delay of one full day only, the Government of Hayti, who is the chief witness for the defense, having been the first to fail in giving him some simple information which he has demanded of them since Saturday, the 28th instant.

"POLT AU PRINCE, October 30, 1888."

"JOHN D. METZGER.