rights are. A nation's sovereignty over its own ships and
citizens under its own flag on the high seas in time of peace is, of
course, unlimited, and that sovereignty suffers no diminution in time of
war, except in so far as the practice and consent of civilized nations
has limited it by the recognition of certain now clearly determined
rights which it is conceded may be exercised by nations which are at
war.

A belligerent nation has been conceded the right of visit and search,
and the right of capture and condemnation, if upon examination a neutral
vessel is found to be engaged in unneutral service or to be carrying
contraband of war intended for the enemy's Government or armed forces.

It has been conceded the right to establish and maintain a blockade of
an enemy's ports and coasts and to capture and condemn any vessel taken
in trying to break the blockade. It is even conceded the right to detain
and take to its own ports for judicial examination all vessels which it
suspects for substantial reasons to be engaged in unneutral or
contraband service and to condemn them if the suspicion is sustained.
But such rights, long clearly defined both in doctrine and practice,
have hitherto been held to be the only permissible exceptions to the
principle of universal equality of sovereignty on the high seas as
between belligerents and nations not engaged in war.

It is confidently assumed that his Majesty's Government will not deny
that it is a rule sanctioned by general practice that, even though a
blockade should exist and the doctrine of contraband as to unblockaded
territory be rigidly enforced, innocent shipments may be freely
transported to and from the United States through neutral countries to
belligerent territory, without being subject to the penalties of
contraband traffic or breach of blockade, much less to detention,
requisition, or confiscation.

Moreover, the rules of the Declaration of Paris of 1856--among them that
free ships make free goods--will hardly at this day be disputed by the
signatories of that solemn agreement.

His Majesty's Government, like the Government of the United States, have
often and explicitly held that these rights represent the best usage of
warfare in the dealings of belligerents with neutrals at sea. In this
connection I desire to direct attention to the opinion of the Chief
Justice of the United States in the case of the Peterhof, which arose
out of the civil war, and to the fact