civil population, has been recognized by nearly all publicists from Gentilis to the present." As is well known, the blockade of the Southern States during the Civil War brought widespread want and suffering to the civil population, 36 but the legitimacy of the blockade as a war measure was not denied even in the South. There are indeed some publicists who maintain that blockades are entitled to special favor, inasmuch as they afford an effective means of carrying on war without an effusion of blood.37 Thus Cauchy remarks that they are a means of forcing the enemy to surrender without destroying him. 38

On the other hand, there are not lacking authors who, while not contesting the legitimacy of blockade as a war measure, believe it should be abandoned. Thus Westlake argues that commercial blockades ought to be abolished from motives both of justice and policy and belligerents restricted to the right of stopping only contraband trade with the enemy. A belligerent, he asserts, has no right to interfere with a neutral unless he has in some way identified himself with the enemy, as by actually mixing in the hostilities. To ship goods to a country with which the shipper is at peace, when the goods are neither contraband nor destined for the supply of a besieged place, is neither an actual mixing in the hostilities nor in any way an identification of the shipper with the enemy, and therefore blockade, except in the case of siege, is unjustifiable.39 Fiore 40 goes even further and asserts that blockade is odious and contrary to the natural independence of neutral nations, because it prevents not only commerce in contraband goods but commerce of every kind whatsoever. Azuni 41 likewise criticizes commercial blockade when ap

35 For the views of a well-known German publicist, see Perels, Manuel de Droit Maritime Int., tr. by Arendt, pp. 270, 280.

36 Compare Rhodes, History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850, Vol. V, pp. 396-410.

37 Compare Atherly-Jones, Commerce in War, p. 92. This author says, "The purpose of a blockade is primarily, by depriving the inhabitants of the hostile state of all commercial intercourse by sea, with the rest of the world and thus subjecting it to privation, to coerce it to seek peace on terms acceptable to the other belligerent." To the same effect, see Calvo, Vol. V, sec. 2827.

35 Droit Maritime International, Vol. II, p. 196. Compare, also, Gessner, Le Droit des Neutres sur Mer, p. 168.

39 Collected Papers on Public International Law, pp. 314, 342.

40 Droit International Public, Vol. II, p. 449..

41 Le Droit Maritime de l'Europe, Vol. II, sec. 29.

plied to a country entire with a view to reducing the enemy by starvation, as "barbarous and immoral." Among American publicists, Secretary Cass was a vigorous opponent of commercial blockades. "Commercial blockades," he said, "without regard to ultimate military operations and with the real design of carrying on war against the trade of peaceful and friendly Powers, instead of war against armed men, is a proceeding which is difficult to reconcile with reason or with the opinions of modern times." 42 The English statesman, Cobden, took a similar view.43 Other publicists, who admit the legality of commercial blockades, nevertheless dwell upon the fact that they work great hardships upon neutrals-sometimes unnecessarily so-and cannot always be justified upon grounds of military necessity. 44

JAMES W. GARNER.

42 Dispatch to Mr. Mason, June 27, 1859. Moore's Digest, Vol. VII, p. 781. 43 Lawrence's Wheaton, p. 822.

44 See, for example, the views of Bonfils, Droit Int. Public, sec. 1607; Bentwich, War and Private Property, p. 122; and Lawrence, Principles of International Law, p. 681.

THE NICARAGUAN MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION

The recent adjournment of the Nicaraguan Mixed Claims Commission marks the accomplishment of one of the measures suggested by the American Government for the financial rehabilitation of Nicaragua, and the conclusion of the most comprehensive examination yet made in Central America of claims against a government.

After the fall of the governments of Zelaya and Madriz in Nicaragua, the new government which came into power in September, 1910, found, among the many problems awaiting it, a heavy internal debt and an enormous number of claims pending against a bankrupt treasury. The claims were principally war claims arising in the various civil commotions to which Nicaragua had been a prey, and especially in the revolution that had just ended. Further, during the Zelaya regime, the country had been plastered with concessions, which were regarded as unconstitutional, illegal and burdensome monopolies, and of which many were held by foreigners. The liquidation of the claims and the cancellation of illegal concessions were necessary incidents in the task of ameliorating the unfortunate economic condition of the country.

Mindful of the advantages derived by the Dominican Republic and Cuba from American assistance and suggestions, the new Nicaraguan. Government applied to the United States for advice as to the most efficient method of securing a stable government for Nicaragua, and reconstructing the country's finances. After a study of the situation, it was determined that Nicaragua should contract a loan for the purpose of funding her debt and otherwise promoting the progress of the country. It was also determined that claims of all kinds, including those arising out of the cancellation of concessions, should be passed on by a mixed commission appointed by the Nicaraguan Government in accord with the American Government.

In order to give citizens and foreigners full guarantees, it was provided that the commission be composed of a president designated by the Department of State of the United States; a Nicaraguan citizen ap

pointed by the Nicaraguan Government; and another member appointed by the Nicaraguan Government on the recommendation of the American Government. The Nicaraguan commissioner appointed by the Nicaraguan Government was Dr. Carlos Cuadra Pasos, a scholarly member of the Nicaraguan bar, who had held judicial positions in his country. On the recommendation of the American Government, the Government of Nicaragua further appointed as commissioner, Mr. Arthur R. Thompson, a member of the bar of Washington, D. C., who had been Assistant United States Attorney before the Spanish Treaty Claims Commission. As president of the Commission, the State Department designated Judge Otto Schoenrich, of the District Court of Mayaguez, Porto Rico, who had had experience in several Latin-American countries.

The status of the Commission was thus peculiar: while it was technically a Nicaraguan court, it was, at the same time, a quasi-international tribunal. The rules of procedure which it adopted were similar to those followed by other international mixed commissions, and in rendering decisions it constantly applied the rules of international law.

The Commission was provided for by decree of March 29, 1911, and two of the appointments were made shortly after, but some time elapsed before the third appointment was made, and the regular sessions did not begin until the early part of the year 1912. The Commissioners were seriously hampered in the performance of their duties by the impossibility of obtaining a competent clerical force, and by the constant financial troubles of the Nicaraguan Government. Their work was temporarily interrupted by the insurrection which broke out in July, 1912. During the bombardment of Managua, August 11 to 14, 1912, shells fell around the offices of the Commission and induced the Commissioners to agree upon a recess until the end of the war, several months later.

The war of 1912 added a new batch of claims, but they were all disposed of by the end of the year 1914. On January 31, 1915, the Nicaraguan Mixed Claims Commission officially passed out of existence. A lengthy report of its work was filed with the Nicaraguan Government and a copy of the report with the State Department in Washington.

The total number of cases filed with the Commission was 7,911. Of these cases, three were suits entered by the Government of Nicaragua against concessionaries who had failed to comply with their contracts,

and the other 7,908 cases were claims presented against the Government of Nicaragua.

In the three suits filed by the Government, the annulment of certain concessions was requested for non-compliance with conditions, and judgment was given by the Commission in favor of the plaintiff. In the 7,908 claims, the total amount claimed was C$13,808,161.00, and the Commission awarded a total of C$1,840,432.31. The figures are given in cordobas, the new money of Nicaragua. A cordoba (C$1.00) is equivalent to an American dollar.

The following table shows the number of claims filed with the Commission, classified according to the amount claimed:

CLAIMS FILED WITH THE NICARAGUAN MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO AMOUNT CLAIMED

The great majority of claimants were Nicaraguans, but the sums claimed by American citizens amounted to more than the claims of all other persons together. Details with reference to the nationality of the claimants are shown in the table on following page.

The claims above listed as Nicaraguan claims include one of over C$1,235,000, as well as several other large claims, which were presented by Nicaraguan corporations, the stock of which was owned entirely by foreigners; such claims should therefore rather be regarded as foreign claims. From the preceding table, it will be seen that American claimants received a much smaller sum in proportion to the amount claimed than other foreigners or Nicaraguans. The reason for the difference consisted in the fact that almost all the important American claims were based on the cancellation of illegal concessions, and included large items