as possible; but, soften it as much as you can, it is still a right of force, though of a lawful force-something in the nature of civil process where force is employed, but a lawful force which can not be lawfully resisted. For it is a wild conceit that wherever force is used it may be lawfully resisted. The only case where it can be so in matters of this nature is in a state of war and conflict between two countries, where one party has a perfect right to attack by force and the other has an equally perfect right to repel by force. But in the relative situation of two countries at peace with each other no such conflicting rights can possibly coexist. Later in the same case he sets forth the penalty: The penalty for the violent contravention of this right is the confiscation of the property so withheld from visitation and search. For proof of this I need only refer to Vattel, one of the most correct and certainly not the least indulgent of modern professors of public law. In Book III, c. vii, sect. 114, he expresses himself thus: " On ne peut empecher le transport des effets de contrebande, si l'on ne visite pas les vaisseaux neutres que l'on recontre en mer. On est donc en droit de les visiter. Quelqes nations puissantes ont refusé en différents temps de se soummettre à cette visite; aujourd'hui un vaisseau neutre, qui refuseroit de souffrir la visite, se feroit condamner par cela seul, comme étant bonne prise." Vattel is here to be considered not as a lawyer merely delivering an opinion, but as a witness asserting the fact the fact that such is the existing practice of modern Europe. And to be sure, the only marvel in the case is that he should mention it as a law merely modern, when it is remembered that it is a principle not only of the civil law (on which great part of the law of nations is founded), but of the private jurisprudence of most countries in Europe, that a contumacious refusal to submit to fair inquiry infers all the penalties of convicted guilt. Conformably to this principle, we find in the celebrated French Ordinance of 1681, now in force, article 12, “That every vessel shall be good prize in case of resistance and combat;" and Valin in his smaller Commentary, p. 81, says expressly that although the expression is in the conjunctive, yet that the resistance alone is sufficient. He refers to the Spanish Ordinance, 1718, evidently copied from it, in which it is expressed in the disjunctive," in case of resistance or combat." And recent instances are at hand and within view in which it appears that Spain continues to act upon this principle. The first time in which it occurs to my notice on the inquiries I have been able to make in the institutes of our own country respecting matters of this nature, excepting what occurs in the Black Book of the Admiralty, is the order of council, 1664, article 12, which directs, OPINIONS OF TEXT-WRITERS. 65 66 'That when any ship met withal by the royal navy or other ship commissionated shall fight or make resistance, the said ship and goods shall be adjudged lawful prize," and, "deliberate and continued resistance to search on the part of a neutral vessel to a lawful cruiser is followed by the legal consequence of confiscation." (The Maria, 1 C. Robinson's Admiralty Reports, p. 340.) If the ship resisting or attempting to rescue itself is a neutral the cargo would be liable to confiscation. If an enemy ship persists or attempts to escape the act is one against which the captor is supposed to be on his guard. In the case of the Catherina Elizabeth, in 1804, it was held of the attempt of an enemy master to rescue his vessel that It could only be the hostile act of a hostile person who was prisoner of war, and who, unless under parole, had a perfect right to attempt to emancipate himself by seizing his own vessel. If a neutral master attempts a rescue he violates a duty which is imposed upon him by the law of nations, to submit to come in for inquiry as to the property of the ship or cargo, and if he violates the obligation by a recurrence to force the consequence will undoubtedly reach the property of his owner, and it would, I think, extend also to the confiscation of the whole cargo entrusted to his care and thus fraudulently attempted to be withdrawn from the rights of war. With an enemy master the case is very different. No duty is violated by such an act on his part, lupum auribus teneo, and if he can withdraw himself, he has a right to do so. (5 C. Robinson's Admiralty oReports, p. 232.) Opinions of text-writers.—Dupuis writes somewhat at length of resistance to visit and capture. He says: Les neutres sont dans l'obligation de souffrir la visite, quelque préjudiciable qu'elle leur puisse être; mais ils peuvent être grandement tentés de s'y soustraire à cause des désagréments qu'elle entraine, plus grandement encore lorsque leur conduite, n'étant pas irréprochable, les expose à la saisie. Le procédé le plus simple pour y échapper consiste à fuir, au lieu d'obtempérer à la sommation du belligérant. Le belligérant peut alors employer la force sans encourir aucune responsabilité à raison des dommages que son artillerie peut causer au fugitif. Mais ces dommages sont considérés comme une peine suffisante de l'essai manqué. Les doctrines anglaises s'accordent sur ce point avec les doctrines françaises. "Une simple tentative de fuite, dit le Manuel des prises britannique, n'est pas en soi une cause de saisie, bienque le commandant ne soit point responsable 25114-08-5 des dommages qu'il peut causer au navire ou à son équipage, en empechant par la force cette fuite." Semblable essai toutefois fournira toujours au belligérant des justes motifs de soupçon; la visite à laquelle il se livra n'en sera que plus minutieuse et telle circonstance qui, a elle seule ne l'aurait pas conduit à saisir, l'y décidera sans doute en devenant plus suspecte après une telle conduite. Tout autres sont les conséquences d'une résistance par la force. Cette résistance constitue un acte hostile; elle entraine ipso facto confiscation du navire et de toute la cargaison. La violation de neutralité commise par le capitaine compromet le chargement en même temps que le vaisseau; les propriétaires de marchandises neutres inoffensives sont ainsi punis d'avoir trop mal placé leur confiance. S'agit-il de navires neutres naviguant sous convoi, la resistance du navire convoyeur au droite de visite, prétendu par un vaisseau britannique dûment commissioné suffit, nous l'avons vu, à entraîner le capture de tout le convoi. Les Anglais regardent les convois avec une telle défiance et leur témoigent une telle hostilité que la seule découverte, au cours de la visite, d'instructions données à un des vaisseaux convoyés de s'opposer par la force à toute perquisition, suffirait à déterminer la saisie de ce vaisseau, bien qu'aucune résistance n'ait été faite. À plus forte raison, le navire neutre qui naviguerait sous convoi ennemi serait-il, pour ce seul fait, puni de confiscation, car la meilleur raison de sa présence en compagnie si compromettante ne pourrait être que la ferme intention de résister au droit de visite. La cargaison neutre, au contraire, n'encourt pas toujours confiscation à bord d'un navire ennemi, par cela seul que le navire a fait résistance. Les Anglais distinguent selon que le vaisseau était armé ou non: était-il armé, le propriétaire du chargement neutre ne l'a évidemment choisi que dans le but de soustraire ses biens à la visite, et cela justifie la confiscation; n'était-il pas armé, le neutre a pu lui confier ses biens sans prévoir aucun acte de force; on ne saurait lui reprocher d'avoir voulu s'opposer au droit de visite. Si le navire ennemi a néanmoins résisté comme c'était son droit de le faire dans son propre intérêt et dans l'intérêt de sa cargaison ennemie, cette attitude licite ne doit pas préjudicier aux biens neutres à son bord. (Le droit de la guerre maritime, Nos. 254, 255; p. 223.) Duboc gives his opinion as follows: Si le navire suspect refuse de s'arrêter et manifeste par sa manoeuvre l'intention d'échapper à la visite, le croiseur est autorisé à tirer à boulet, sur son avant, mais sans l'atteindre. Si, enfin, cette seconde sommation reste sans effet, le croiseur a le droit de donner la chasse et d'employer la force, sans qu'on puisse le rendre responsable des avaries qui peuvent arriver au navire poursuivi. Si le neutre refuse par la force et engage un combat OPINIONS OF TEXT-WRITERS. 67 à la suite duquel il est reduit, le navire est considéré comme de bonne prise. Nouse partageons à cet égard l'avis de Hautefeuille qui assimile la résistance à l'exercise de la visite au fait de porter de la contrebande de guerre et de violer la neutralité. On ne peut nier dans tous les cas qu'il s'agit là d'une violation flagrante de droit international; et nous ajouterons que celui qui se met sciemment dans un cas semblable le fait à ses risques et périls. Nous sommes, sur ce point, d'accord avec le jurisprudence anglaise, avec cette restriction que le navire doit être confisqué ainsi que la cargaison dans le seul cas où elle appartient au capitaine ou à l'armateur. Dans le cas contraire, la cargaison doit être rendue. Si le navire qui a tenté d'échapper à la visite est ennemi, chargé de marchandise neutre, celle-ci doit être également rendue. Nous ne saurions aller aussi loin que le juge de l'Amirauté William Scott (Lord Stowell) qui, dans le cas d'un navire neutre chargé par des neutres, confisque le tout. Il est évident que, seuls, le capitaine et l'armateur qu'il représente ont violé le droit, et que les chargeurs n'en sauraient rendus responsables. (Le droit de visite, p. 49.) Hall states that The right of capture on the ground of resistance to visit, and that of subsequent confiscation, flow necessarily from the lawfulness of visit, and give rise to no question. If the belligerent when visiting is within the rights possessed by a state in amity with the country to which the neutral ship belongs, the neutral master is guilty of an unprovoked aggression in using force to prevent the visit from being accomplished, and the belligerent may consequently treat him as an enemy and confiscate his ship. The only point arising out of this cause of seizure which requires to be noticed is the effect of resistance upon cargo when made by the master of the vessel, or upon vessel and cargo together when made by the officer commanding a convoy. The English and American courts, which alone seem to have had an opportunity of deciding in the matter, are agreed in looking upon the resistance of a neutral master as involving goods in the fate of the vessel in which they are loaded, and of an officer in charge as condemning the whole property placed under his protection. "I stand with confidence," said Lord Stowell, "upon all fair principles of reason, upon the distinct authority of Vattel, upon the institutes of other maritime countries, as well as those of our own country, when I venture to lay it down, that by the law of nations as now understood a deliberate and continued resistance to search, on the part of a neutral vessel to a lawful cruiser, is followed by the legal consequences of confiscation." But the rules accepted in the two countries differ with regard to property placed in charge of a belligerent. Lord Stowell, in administering the law as understood in England, held that the immunity of neutral goods on board a belligerent merchantman is not affected by the resistance of the master; for while on the one hand he has a full right to save from capture the belligerent property in his charge, on the other the neutral can not be assumed to have calculated or intended that visit should be resisted. The American courts carry their application of the principle that neutral goods in enemy's vessels are free to a further point, and hold that the right of neutrals to carry on their trade in such vessels is not impaired by the fact that the latter are armed. (Hall, International Law, 5th ed., p. 729.) Neutral property on enemy merchant vessel.—An enemy merchant vessel resisting search and endeavoring to escape, according to the opinion in the case of the Catharina Elizabeth and in other cases, is doing what it has a right to do. Of course there would be little question of the condemnation of all property belonging to the owner of the vessel which was on board the vessel resisting the search. The status of the neutral property would still be under the principles of the Declaration of Paris of 1856. By the Declaration of Paris, regarded as generally binding, and binding by formal accession on the part of most states The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under any flag. To the principles of this Declaration it may be safely said that the United States has adhered. Accordingly the neutral goods even on an enemy merchant vessel which had resisted search would not be liable to capture unless such goods were contraband. Ordinarily a war vessel would not wish "for immediate use " goods which would not be under the category of conditional contraband, but in order that goods of this kind be included in the list of conditional contraband they must have a belligerent destination. If the neutral goods on the enemy merchant vessel which resists search have a belligerent |