the law of maritime capture by the English commissioners, than upon the question of reprisals. The report of this commission was generally accepted as a correct statement of the law of prize as then existing; and indeed, it so continued with little change till 1856. On the other hand, the Prussian contention was an attempt to establish the principle of "free ships," free goods, which was not realized till a hundred years later.

As to the question of reprisal, England virtually yielded the point in controversy in consenting to indemnify the Prussian claimants. Perhaps political reasons may have influenced the final action. The alliance between France and Austria at this time forced England and Prussia into a counter-alliance, and their minor differences were smoothed over rather hastily.

CASE OF DON PACIFICO, 1850.

(Brit. and For. Stat. Pap., vol. 39, pp. 333-932.)

Is a state responsible for the lawless actions of its citizens, to foreign states whose citizens suffer injury? England so held in this case, and proceeded to reprisals to enforce her position.

David Pacifico was a Jew, born at Gibraltar, but in 1847 resident at Athens. By virtue of his birth, he was entitled to the character of a British subject; he had represented himself in that character and had a British passport.

It was customary in Greece for the people to signalize the festival of Easter by burning an effigy of Judas Iscariot; but out of a regard for Mr. Charles de Rothschild, who was at Athens in April, 1847, the police were ordered to prevent this popular ceremony in that year. The mob, attributing this action of the Athenian authorities to the influence of the Jews, was highly incensed against that sect; and proceeded to attack and plunder the house of M. Pacifico, which happened to stand near the place where the effigy was wont to be burned. While his house was being plundered, the family of M. Pacifico received the grossest ill-treatment. M. Pacifico lodged a complaint with the procureur-general of the king, who, on the very day of the riot, held an inquest on the spot, and heard the testimony of the injured parties, but the Greek government took no further action in the matter. M. Pacifico, believing that, by reason of the odium in which his race was held in Greece, he would not be likely to obtain redress through his own efforts, applied to the British minis

ter at Athens, Sir Edmund Lyons. This gentleman called the attention of the Greek government to the facts of the case; but his note was left unanswered for nine months, although he wrote several times subsequently, and when, in January, 1848, he finally received an answer, it was quite unsatisfactory. The government of Greece suggested that M. Pacifico should collect his damages, through the ordinary courts, from the persons who took part in the riot.

There were other British claims pending against Greece, some of which were of long standing, and as no satisfaction could be obtained from the Greek government, Mr. Wyse, successor to Sir Edmund Lyons, was instructed, in December, 1849, to deliver an ultimatum to that government; and in case it was rejected, Admiral Parker, commanding the English fleet in the Mediterranean, was ordered to lay an embargo upon Greek shipping. The demands of the ultima tum were rejected, and the embargo was immediately enforced, several Greek ships of war and many merchant vessels being seized and detained in the Piræus.

Shortly afterwards, in February, 1850, French mediation was accepted, pending which, active measures were suspended on the part of the English fleet. Mr. Wyse and Baron Gros, the French mediator, came to an agreement upon all points at issue save one; namely, a demand of indemnity by Pacifico for the loss of papers which, he alleged, were evidences of a valid claim by him against the Portuguese government for twenty-one thousand pounds. Mr. Wyse proposed that the Greek government should put into his hands a sum of money as security for the payment of this claim, if, after investigation, it should appear to be well-founded. Baron Gros objected to this, because he not only considered the claim to be worthless, but he contended, further, that this demand was too humiliating for Greece. Failing to agree upon this point, Baron Gros withdrew from the negotiations; thereupon, Mr. Wyse sent a new ultimatum to the Greek government, and this time it was accepted, and the indemnity demanded immediately paid.

The total amount of this indemnity was 6,4037, 10s, with the addition of a deposit of about 5,0007 as security for the Portuguese claim. The indemnity awarded included the following items: For personal injury, 5007; for loss of household effects, jewelry, etc., 4,2677, 8s. As to his Portuguese claim, a commission, having investigated the case reported in 1851, that it could not be substantiated; but in view of the expense he had incurred, and a small amount due him, he was awarded 150.

Don Pacifico has usually been represented as an adventurer who had little claim upon the sympathy of his fellow-men; and England

has generally been severely criticised for supporting his claim. Yet if he was a British subject, he had a right to be protected as such. He was born in British territory, Gibraltar, and his father was born in London. His letters relating to this affair are dignified, and show much ability. His chief crime would seem to have been that of being a Jew. The argument that Pacifico ought to have resorted to the ordinary courts of Greece to obtain his indemnity is quite untenable. What chance of success would he have had in a suit against a mob of several hundred persons, to him unknown, and with public opinion against him? Indeed he brought the matter to the notice of the judiciary department of the government; and it was then the duty of the government to take further proceedings. The fact would seem to be that the whole trouble lay in the weak and vacillating policy of the Greek government, which could easily have avoided all trouble by simply doing justice to M. Pacifico and the other claimants. Whether the British government was justified in resorting to such extreme measures may be questioned; but that some action was called for there can be little doubt.1

1 Other cases of Reprisal. The bombardment of Greytown, 1854.-" Greytown was a port on the Mosquito coast, in which some United States citizens resided. These citizens, and others interested with them in business, were subjected to gross indignities and injuries by the local authorities, who were British, but who professed to act under authority from the king or chief of the Mosquito Islands. The parties injured accordingly appealed to the commander of the United States sloop-of-war Cyane, then lying near that port, for protection. To punish the authorities for their action, he bombarded the town. For this act he was denounced by the British residents, who claimed that the British government had a protectorate over that region. His action was sustained by the government of the United States, the ground being the necessity of punishing in this way a great wrong to citizens of the United States, and preventing its continuance." (1 Wharton's Digest, p. 229, and II., p. 595.)

A favorite form of reprisal in coercing weaker states has been by what are called "pacific blockades;" thus, in 1827 "the coasts of Greece were blockaded by the English, French and Russian squadrons, while the three powers professed to be at peace with Turkey."

"The Togus was blockaded by France in 1831, New Granada by England in 1861, Mexico by France in 1838, and La Plata from 1838 to 1840 by France, and from 1845 to 1848 by France and England." (Hall's International Law, Ed. 1890, p. 369.)

In like manner, without a declaration of war, France blockaded the Island of Formosa, and in 1893, the coast of Siam. In 1886 Greece was blockaded by the fleets of nearly all the great European powers.

SECTION 27.-HOSTILE EMBARGO.

THE "BOEDUS LUST."

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, 1803.

(5 C. Robinson, 245.)

This was the case of a Dutch ship on a voyage from Demerara to Batavia, embargoed at the Cape of Good Hope by an English squadron before the actual declaration of war against Holland in 1803, and afterwards condemned as enemy's property.

Sir W. Scort, J.-Extract:-"This was the state of the first seizure. It was at first equivocal; and if the matter in dispute had terminated in reconciliation, the seizure would have been converted into a mere civil embargo. That would have been the retroactive effect of that course of circumstances. On the contrary, if the transactions end in hostility, the retroactive effect is directly the other way. It impresses the direct hostile character upon the original seizure. It is declared to be no embargo, it is no longer an equivocal act, subject to two interpretations; there is a declaration of the animus, by which it was done, that it was done hostili animo and is to be considered as an hostile measure ab initio. The property taken is liable to be used as the property of persons, trespassers ab initio, and guilty of injuries, which they have refused to redeem by any amicable alteration of their measures. This is the necessary course, if no particular compact intervenes for the restitution of such property taken before a formal declaration of hostilities. No such convention is set up on either side, and the state, by directing proceedings against this property for condemnation, has signified a contrary intention. Accordingly the general mass of Dutch property has been condemned on this retroactive effect; and this property stands upon the same footing.1

1 The object of a hostile embargo may be by way of reprisal to obtain satisfaction for an alleged injury; or, it may be, in the expectation of the outbreak of war, to get possession of property which will presumably be hostile, for the purpose of confiscating it later-after the actual outbreak of war. Although the government might restore such property at the breaking out of war, it has not been the practice to do so; and hence, as Dana says, embargo "refers itself directly to the

SECTION 28.-DECLARATION OF WAR.

THE "TEUTONIA."

PRIVY COUNCIL, 1870.

(4 Privy Council Reports, 171.)

War may exist de facto without a declaration, but in that case there must be actual commencement of hostilities.

Held, that a state of war did not exist between France and Prussia, in 1870, prior to the 19th of July, when a formal declaration on the part of France was communicated to the Prussian Government.

The Lord Chief Justice MELLISH :-"This is an appeal in a cause instituted under the 6th section of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861,

question of the right, on breaking out of war, to seize ships and cargoes found in port." (Dana's Wheaton, p. 372, note.)

In the case of Lindo v. Rodney, Douglas, 615, Lord Mansfield said, "Ships not knowing of hostilities come in by mistake; upon the declaration of war, or hostilities, all the ships of the enemy are detained in our ports, to be confiscated as the property of the enemy, if no reciprocal agreement is made."

The earlier writers upon international law do not mention embargo, at least in the sense of hostile embargo. Until towards the end of the last century, there was really no distinction made between property found on land, and that found afloat. In both cases it was liable to capture. At the time of Bynkershoek and of Vattel, private property of the enemy was confiscated, though some treaties had exempted it from seizure at the commencement of war. (Bynkershoek, I., chapter II.) Bynkershoek mentions many cases, too, where it was seized before the declaration of war. It was left to the English admiralty courts to formulate the practice into legal maxims by their decisions. As to the retroactive effect of a declaration of war as applied by the courts, it is apparently a necessary invention of Sir William Scott to legalize a practice already in vogue.

Dr. Lushington said in 1854 (Spinks, 14), “With regard to an enemy's property coming to any part of the kingdom, or being found there, being seizable, I confess I am astonished that doubt should exist on the subject. I apprehend the law has been this, that it is competent for any person to take possession of such property, unless it had any protection by license, or by some declaration emanating by the authority of the crown, and to assist the crown to proceed against it to adjudication."

At the breaking out of the Crimean War in 1854, merchant vessels of the enemy were allowed by the belligerents six weeks for loading their cargoes and departing. And further, vessels of the same character sailing from foreign ports prior to the promulgation of these orders, were allowed to enter the ports of the enemy and