Encyclopaedia Britannica Volume 4, Slice 1 Part 24

W.H. Churchman of Pennsylvania, who was instrumental in establis.h.i.+ng the schools for the blind in Tennessee, Indiana and Wisconsin.

H.L. Hall, founder of the workshops and home for the blind in Philadelphia; by his energetic management he raised the standard of work for the adult blind throughout America.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--See also W.H. Levy, _Blindness and the Blind_ (1872); J. Wilson, _Biography of the Blind_ (1838); Dr T.R. Armitage, Education and Employment of the Blind (2nd ed., 1882); R.H. Blair, _Education of the Blind_ (1868); M. Anagnos, _Education of the Blind_ (1882); H.J. Wilson, _Inst.i.tutions, Societies and Cla.s.ses for the Blind in England and Wales_ (1907); Guillie, _Instruction and Amus.e.m.e.nts of the Blind_ (1819); Dr W. Moon, _Light for the Blind_ (1875); R. Meldrum, _Light on Dark Paths_ (2nd ed., 1891); Dr H. Roth, _Prevention of Blindness_ (1885), and his _Physical Education of the Blind_ (1885); _Report of Royal Commission_ (1889); Gavin Douglas, _Remarkable Blind Persons_ (1829); John Bird, _Social Pathology_ (1862); M. de la Sizeranne, _The Blind in Useful Avocations_ (Paris, 1881), _True Mission of Smaller Schools_ (Paris, 1884), _The Blind in France_ (Paris, 1885), _Two Years' Study and Work for the Blind_ (Paris, 1890), and _The Blind as seen by a Blind Man_ [translated by Dr Park Lewis] (Paris, 1893); Dr emile Javal, _The Blind Man's World_ [translated by Ernest Thomson] (Paris, 1904); Prof. A. Mell, _Encyklopadisches Handbuch des Blindenwesens_ (Vienna, 1899).

(F. J. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] There are no late returns for Iceland, but the last available statistics gave 3400 per million. A paper written in 1903 on blindness in Egypt stated that 1 in every 50 of the population was blind.

[2] Previous returns from Finland have shown a much larger number of blind persons, but these statistics were supplied by the British consul in St Petersburg from the last census.

[3] Its princ.i.p.al (responsible, with Dr Armitage, the duke of Westminster and others, for its foundation) was Sir F.J. Campbell, LL.D., F.R.G.S., F.S.A., himself a blind man, who, born in Tennessee, U.S.A., in 1832, and educated at the Nashville school, and afterwards in music at Leipzig and Berlin, had from 1858 to 1869 been a.s.sociated with Dr Howe at the Perkins Inst.i.tution, Boston. He was knighted in 1909.

BLISS, CORNELIUS NEWTON (1833- ), American merchant and politician, was born at Fall River, Ma.s.sachusetts, on the 26th of January 1833. He was educated in his native city and in New Orleans, where he early entered his step-father's counting-house. Returning to Ma.s.sachusetts in 1849, he became a clerk and subsequently a junior partner in a prominent Boston commercial house. Later he removed to New York City to establish a branch of the firm. In 1881 he organized and became president of Bliss, Fabyan & Company, one of the largest wholesale dry-goods houses in the country. A consistent advocate of the protective tariff, he was one of the organizers, and for many years president, of the American Protective Tariff League. In politics an active Republican, he was chairman of the Republican state committee in 1887 and 1888, and contributed much to the success of the Harrison ticket in New York in the latter year. He was treasurer of the Republican national committee from 1892 to 1904, and was secretary of the interior in President McKinley's cabinet from 1897 to 1899.

BLISTER (a word found in many forms in Teutonic languages, cf. Ger.

_Blase_; it is ultimately connected with the same root as in "blow," cf.

"bladder"), a small vesicle filled with serous fluid raised on the skin by a burn, by rubbing on a hard surface, as on the hand in rowing, or by other injury; the term is also used of a similar condition of the skin caused artificially, as a counter-irritant in cases of inflammation, by the application of mustard, of various kinds of fly (see CANTHARIDES) and of other vesicatories. Similar small swellings, filled with fluid or air, on plants and on the surface of steel or paint, &c., are also called "blisters."

BLIZZARD (origin probably onomatopoeic, cf. "blast," "bl.u.s.ter"), a furious wind driving fine particles of choking, blinding snow whirling in icy clouds. The conditions to which the name was originally given occur with the northerly winds in rear of the cyclones crossing the eastern states of America during winter.

BLOCK, MARK ELIEZER (c. 1723-1799), German naturalist, was born at Ansbach, of poor Jewish parents, about 1723. After taking his degree as doctor at Frankfort-on-Oder he established himself as a physician at Berlin. His first scientific work of importance was an essay on intestinal worms, which gained a prize from the Academy of Copenhagen, but he is best known by his important work on fishes (see ICHTHYOLOGY).

Bloch was fifty-six when he began to write on ichthyological subjects.

To begin at his time of life a work in which he intended not only to give full descriptions of the species known to him from specimens or drawings, but also to ill.u.s.trate each species in a style truly magnificent for his time, was an undertaking the execution of which most men would have despaired of. Yet he accomplished not only this task, but even more than he at first contemplated. He died at Carlsbad on the 6th of August 1799.

BLOCK, MAURICE (1816-1901), French statistician, was born in Berlin of Jewish parents on the 18th of February 1816. He studied at Bonn and Giessen, but settled in Paris, becoming naturalized there. In 1844 he entered the French ministry of agriculture, becoming in 1852 one of the heads of the statistical department. He retired in 1862, and thenceforth devoted himself entirely to statistical studies, which have gained for him a wide reputation. He was elected a member of the Academie des Sciences Morales et Politiques in 1880. He died in Paris on the 9th of January 1901. His princ.i.p.al works are: _Dictionnaire de l'administration francaise_ (1856); _Statistique de la France_ (1860); _Dictionnaire general de la politique_ (1862); _L'Europe polilique et sociale_ (1869); _Traite theorique et pratique de statistique_ (1878); Les Progres de l'economie politique depuis Adam Smith_ (1890); he also edited from 1856 _L'Annuaire de l'economie politique et de la statistique_, and wrote in German _Die Bevolkerung des franzosischen Kaiserreichs_ (1861); Die Bevolkerung Spaniens und Portugals_ (1861); and _Die Machtstellung der europaischen Staaten_ (1862).

BLOCK (from the Fr. _bloc_, and possibly connected with an Old Ger.

_Block_, obstruction, cf. "baulk"), a piece of wood. The word is used in various senses, e.g. the block upon which people were beheaded, the block or mould upon which a hat is shaped, a pulley-block, a printing-block, &c. From the sense of a solid ma.s.s comes the expression, a "block" of houses, i.e. a rectangular s.p.a.ce covered with houses and bounded by four streets. From the sense of "obstruction" comes a "block"

in traffic, a block in any proceedings, and the block system of signalling on railways.

BLOCKADE (Fr. _blocus_, Ger. _Blokade_), a term used in maritime warfare. Originally a blockade by sea was probably nothing more than the equivalent in maritime warfare of a blockade or siege on land in which the army investing the blockaded or besieged place is in actual physical possession of a zone through which it can prevent and forbid ingress and egress. An attempt to cross such a zone without the consent of the investing army would be an act of hostility against the besiegers. A maritime blockade, when it formed part of a siege, would obviously also be a close blockade, being part of the military cordon drawn round the besieged place. Even from the first, however, differences would begin to grow up in the conditions arising out of the operations on land and on sea. Thus whereas conveying merchandise across military lines would be a deliberate act of hostility against the investing force, a neutral s.h.i.+p which had sailed in ignorance of the blockade for the blockaded place might in good faith cross the blockade line without committing a hostile act against the investing force. With the development of recognition of neutral rights the involuntary character of the breach would be taken into account, and notice to neutral states and to approaching vessels would come into use. With the employment in warfare of larger vessels in the place of the more numerous small ones of an earlier age, notice, moreover, would tend to take the place of _de facto_ investment, and at a time when communication between governments was still slow and precarious, such notice would sometimes be given as a possible measure of belligerent tactics before the blockade could be actually carried out. Out of these circ.u.mstances grew up the abuse of "paper blockades."

The climax was reached in the "Continental Blockade" decreed by Napoleon in 1806, which continued till it was abolished by international agreement in 1812. This blockade forbade all countries under French dominion or allied with France to have any communication with Great Britain. Great Britain replied in 1807 by a similar measure. The first nation to protest against these fict.i.tious blockades was the United States. Already in 1800 John Marshall, secretary of state, wrote to the American minister in Great Britain pointing out objections which have since been universally admitted. In the following interesting pa.s.sage he said:--

"Ports not effectually blockaded by a force capable of completely investing them have yet been declared in a state of blockade.... If the effectiveness of the blockade be dispensed with, then every port of the belligerent powers may at all times be declared in that state, and the commerce of neutrals be thereby subjected to universal capture. But if this principle be strictly adhered to, the capacity to blockade will be limited by the naval force of the belligerent and, in consequence, the mischief to neutral commerce cannot be very extensive. It is, therefore, of the last importance to neutrals that this principle be maintained unimpaired. I observe that you have pressed this reasoning on the British minister, who replies that an occasional absence of a fleet from a blockaded port ought not to change the state of the place. Whatever force this observation may be ent.i.tled to, where that occasional absence has been produced by an accident, as a storm, which for a moment blows off a fleet and forces it from its station, which station it immediately resumes, I am persuaded that where a part of the fleet is applied, though only for a time, to other objects or comes into port, the very principle requiring an effective blockade, which is that the mischief can only be coextensive with the naval force of the belligerent, requires that during such temporary absence the commerce to the neutrals to the place should be free."[1]

Again in 1803 James Madison wrote to the then American minister in London:--

"The law of nations requires to const.i.tute a blockade that there should be the presence and position of a force rendering access to the prohibited place manifestly difficult and dangerous."[2]

In 1826 and 1827 Great Britain as well as the United States a.s.serted that blockades in order to be binding must be effective. This became gradually the recognized view, and when in 1856 the powers represented at the congress of Paris inserted in the declaration there adopted that "blockades in order to be binding must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of an enemy," they were merely enunciating a rule which neutral states had already become too powerful to allow belligerents to disregard.

Blockade is universally admitted to be a belligerent right to which under international law neutrals are obliged to submit. It is now also universally admitted that the above-quoted rule of the Declaration of Paris forms part of international law, independently of the declaration.

Being, however, exclusively a belligerent right, it cannot be exercised except by a belligerent force. Even a _de facto_ belligerent has the right to inst.i.tute a blockade binding on neutrals if it has the means of making it effective, though the force opposed to it may treat the _de facto_ belligerent as rebels.

It is also admitted that, being exclusively a belligerent right, it cannot be exercised in time of peace, but there has been some inconsistency in practice (see PACIFIC BLOCKADE) which will probably lead governments, in order to avoid protests of neutral powers against belligerent rights being exercised in mere coercive proceedings, to exercise all the rights of belligerents and carry on _de facto_ war to ent.i.tle them to use violence against neutral infringers. This was done in the case of the blockade of Venezuela by Great Britain, Germany and Italy in 1902-1903.

The points upon which controversy still arises are as to what const.i.tutes an "effective" blockade and what a sufficient notice of blockade to warrant the penalties of violation, viz. confiscation of the s.h.i.+p and of the cargo unless the evidence demonstrates the innocence of the cargo owners. A blockade to be effective must be maintained by a sufficient force to prevent the entrance of neutral vessels into the blockaded port or ports, and it must be duly proclaimed. Subject to these principles being complied with, "the question of the legitimacy and effectiveness of a blockade is one of fact to be determined in each case upon the evidence presented" (Thomas F. Bayard, American secretary of state, to Messrs Kamer & Co., 19th of February 1889). The British manual of naval prize law sums up the cases in which a blockade, validly inst.i.tuted, ceases to be effectively maintained, as follows:--(1) If the blockading force abandons its position, unless the abandonment be merely temporary or caused by stress of weather, or (2) if it be driven away by the enemy, or (3) if it be negligent in its duties, or (4) if it be partial in the execution of its duties towards one s.h.i.+p rather than another, or towards the s.h.i.+ps of one nation rather than those of another. These cases, however, are based on decisions of the British admiralty court and cannot be relied on absolutely as a statement of international law.

As regards notice the following American instructions vere given to blockading officers in June 1898:--

"Neutral vessels are ent.i.tled to notification of a blockade before they can be made prize for its attempted violation. The character of this notification is not material. It may be actual, as by a vessel of the blockading force, or _constructive, as by a proclamation of the government maintaining the blockade, or by common notoriety_. If a neutral vessel can be shown to have had notice of the blockade in any way, she is good prize, and should be sent in for adjudication; but should formal notice not have been given, _the rule of constructive knowledge arising from notoriety_ should be construed in a manner liberal to the neutral.

"Vessels appearing before a blockaded port, having sailed without notification, are ent.i.tled to actual notice by a blockading vessel.

They should be boarded by an officer, who should enter in the s.h.i.+p's log the fact of such notice, such entry to include the name of the blockading vessel giving notice, the extent of the blockade, the date and place, verified by his official signature. The vessel is then to be set free; and should she again attempt to enter the same or any other blockaded port as to which she has had notice, she is good prize. Should it appear from a vessel's clearance that she sailed after notice of blockade had been communicated to the country of her port of departure, or _after the fact of blockade had, by a fair presumption, become commonly known_ at that port, she should be sent in as a prize."

The pa.s.sages in italics are not in accordance with the views held by other states, which do not recognize the binding character of a diplomatic notification or of constructive notice from notoriety.

The subject was brought up at the second Hague Conference (1907). The Italian and Mexican delegations submitted projects, but after a declaration by the British delegate in charge of the subject (Sir E.

Satow) that blockade not having been included in the Russian programme, his government had given him no instructions upon it, the subject, at his suggestion, was dropped. A _Voeu_, however, was adopted in favour of formulating rules on all branches of the laws and customs of naval war, and a convention was agreed to for the establishment of an international Prize Court (see PRIZE). Under Art. 7 of the latter convention the Court was to apply the "rules of international law," and in their absence the "general principles of justice and equity." As soon as possible after the close of the second Hague Conference the British government took steps to call a special conference of the maritime powers, which sat from December 4, 1908 to February 26, 1909. Among the subjects dealt with was Blockade, the rules relating to which are as follow:--

Art. 1. A blockade must not extend beyond the ports and coasts belonging to or occupied by the enemy.

Art. 2. In accordance with the Declaration of Paris of 1856, a blockade, in order to be binding, must be effective--that is to say, it must be maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the enemy coastline.

Art. 3. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

Art. 4. A blockade is not regarded as raised if the blockading force is temporarily withdrawn on account of stress of weather.

Art. 5. A blockade must be applied impartially to the s.h.i.+ps of all nations.

Art. 6. The commander of a blockading force may give permission to a wars.h.i.+p to enter, and subsequently to leave, a blockaded port.

Art. 7. In circ.u.mstances of distress, acknowledged by an officer of the blockading force, a neutral vessel may enter a place under blockade and subsequently leave it, provided that she has neither discharged nor s.h.i.+pped any cargo there.