intelligence of the purposes of the government of the United States; when it is seen that the British secretary of state for foreign affairs advises the representatives of the insurgents as to the course to be pursued to obtain the recognition of their independence, and at the same time refuses to await the arrival of the trusted representative of the United States before deciding to recognize them as belligerents; when he is found opening negotiations through Her Majesty's diplomatic representative at Washington with persons in rebellion against the United States; when various members of the British cabinet are seen to comment upon the efforts of the Government of the United States to suppress the rebellion in terms that indicate a strong desire that those efforts should not succeed, it is not unreasonable to suppose that, when called upon to do acts which might bring about results in conflict with their wishes and convictions, they would hesitate, discuss, delay, and refrain-in fact, that they would do exactly what in the subsequent pages of this paper it will appear that they did do."

Neutral Duties.

In the third chapter the Case of the United States discussed "the duties which Great Britain, as a neutral, should have observed toward the United States." Great Britain had herself acknowledged, by her foreign-enlistment act of 1819, as well as by other governmental acts, her obligation to discharge the duties of neutrality. The acts which, if committed within the territory of a neutral, were to be regarded as violations of its international duties were enumerated in sections 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of that statute, which, said the Case, recognized the following as acts that ought to be prevented in neutral territory in time of war:

"1. The recruitment of subjects or citzens of the neutral, to be employed in the military or naval service of a foreign government or of persons assuming to exercise the powers of government over any part of foreign territory; or the acceptance of a commission, warrant, or appointment for such service by such persons; or the enlisting or agreeing to enlist in such service; the act in each case being done without the leave or license of the sovereign.

"2. The receiving on board a vessel, for the purpose of transporting from a neutral port, persons who may have been so recruited or commissioned; or the transporting such persons from a neutral port. Authority is given to seize the vessels violating these provisions.

"3. The equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming a vessel,

with intent or in order that it may be employed in the service of such foreign government, or of persons assuming to exercise the powers of government over any part of a foreign country, as a transport or storeship, or to cruise or carry on war against a power with which the neutral is at peace; or the delivering a commission for such vessel, the act in each case being done without the leave or license of the sovereign.

"4. The augmenting the warlike force of such a vessel of war by adding to the number of guns, by changing those on board for other guns, or by the addition of any equipment of war, if such vessel at the time of its arrival in the dominions of the neutral was a vessel of war in the service of such foreign government, or of such persons, the act being done without the leave or license of the sovereign."1

Royal Commission of 1867.

This statute was, said the Case of the United States, by the construction of the English courts stripped of its effective power during the insurrection. The United States repeatedly, but in vain, invited Her Majesty's government to amend it. After the war, however, the appalling magnitude of the injury inflicted by

1 For purposes of comparison, the Case of the United States at this point reproduced in a footnote the enumeration made in President Grant's nentrality proclamation of October 8, 1870, in the Franco-German war, of the acts forbidden by the neutrality laws of the United States. This enumeration was as follows:

"1. Accepting and exercising a commission to serve either of the said belligerents by land or by sea against the other belligerent.

"2. Enlisting or entering into the service of either of the said belligerents as a soldier, or as a marine or seaman on board of any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer.

"3. Hiring or retaining another person to enlist or enter himself in the service of either of the said belligerents as a soldier, or as a marine or seaman on board of any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer.

"4. Hiring another person to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted as aforesaid.

"5. Hiring another person to go beyond the limits of the United States with the intent to be entered into service as aforesaid.

"6. Retaining another person to go beyond the limits of the United States with intent to be enlisted as aforesaid.

"7. Retaining another person to go beyond the limits of the United States with intent to be entered into service as aforesaid. (But the said act is not to be construed to extend to a citizen or subject of either belligerent who, being transiently within the United States, shall, on board of any vessel of war, which, at the time of its arrival within the United States, was fitted and equipped as such vessel of war, enlist, or enter himself, or hire, or retain another subject or citizen of the same belligerent, who is transiently within the United States, to enlist, or enter himself to serve

British-built and British-manned cruisers on the commerce of the United States seemed to have led the government to change its course; and in January 1867 a royal commission of British judges and lawyers was appointed which, after twenty-four sittings, reported that the act might be improved by the enactment of several provisions set forth in the report. Among these, the commission recommended that it be made a statutory offense to "fit out, arm, dispatch, or cause to be dispatched, any ship, with intent or knowledge that the same shall or will be employed in the military or naval service of any foreign power in any war then being waged by such power against the subjects or property of any foreign belligerent power with whom Her Majesty shall not then be at war." It was also proposed to make it a statutory offense to "build or equip any ship with the intent that the same shall, after being fitted out and armed, either within or beyond Her Majesty's dominions, be employed as aforesaid;" and it was proposed that the executive should be armed with summary powers similar to those conferred upon such belligerent on board such vessel of war, if the United States shall then be at peace with such belligerent.)

"8. Fitting out and arming, or attempting to fit out and arm, or procuring to be fitted out and armed, or knowingly being concerned in the furnishing, fitting out, or arming of any ship or vessel, with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of either of the said belligerents. "9. Issuing or delivering a commission within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States for any ship or vessel to the intent that she may be employed as aforesaid.

"10. Increasing or augmenting, or procuring to be increased or augmented, or knowingly being concerned in increasing or augmenting the force of any ship of war, cruiser, or other armed vessel, which at the time of her arrival within the United States was a ship of war, cruiser, or armed vessel in the service of either of the said belligerents, or belonging to the subjects or citizens of either, by adding to the number of guns of such vessels, or by changing those on board of her for guns of a larger caliber, or by the addition thereto of any equipment solely applicable to war.

"11. Beginning or setting on foot or providing or preparing the means for any military expedition or enterprise to be carried on from the territory or jurisdiction of the United States against the territories or dominions of either of the said belligerents."

After reproducing this enumeration the Case of the United States said: "The Tribunal of Arbitration will also observe that the most important part of the American act is omitted in the British act, namely, the power conferred by the eighth section on the Executive to take possession of and detain a ship without judicial process, and to use the military and naval forces of the Government for that purpose, if necessary."

the President of the United States by the eighth section of the neutrality act of 1818.1 These recommendations were, said the Case of the United States, made with a view to give the laws of the kingdom increased efficiency, and, in the language of the commission, to bring them into full conformity with the international obligations of England. The report of the commissioners was made in 1868. On the 9th of August 1870 Parliament passed an act to give it effect. Soon afterwards a vessel called the International was proceeded against for an alleged violation of its provisions, before Sir Robert Phillimore, one of the commissioners who signed the report in 1868, who declared that the statute was passed for the purpose of enabling the government "to fulfill more easily than heretofore that particular class of obligations" arising out of a state of neutrality.

Recognitions of Neutral Duty.

The Case of the United States also referred to the proclamation of neutrality of May 13, 1861, as also showing to some extent the British Government's sense of its duties toward the United States. The proclamation appeared to concede that it was the duty of

Section 8 of the act of 1818 (3 Stats. at L. 449), now incorporated in the Revised Statutes of the United States, reads as follows: "That in every case in which a vessel shall be fitted out and armed, or attempted to be fitted out and armed, or in which the force of any vessel of war, cruiser, or other armed vessel, shall be increased or augmented, or in which any military expedition or enterprise shall be begun or set on foot, contrary to the provisions and prohibitions of this act; and in every case of the capture of a ship or vessel within the jurisdiction or protection of the United States as before defined, and in every case in which any process issuing out of any court of the United States shall be disobeyed or resisted by any person or persons having the custody of any vessel of war, cruiser, or other armed vessel of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, or of any subjects or citizens of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, in every such case it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, or such other person as he shall have empowered for that purpose, to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia thereof, for the purpose of taking possession of and detaining any such ship or vessel, with her prize or prizes, if any, in order to the execution of the prohibitions and penalties of this act, and to the restoring of the prize or prizes in the cases in which restoration shall have been adjudged, and also for the purpose of preventing the carrying on of any such expedition or enterprise from the territories or jurisdiction of the United States against the territories or dominions of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace.”

a neutral to observe a strict neutrality as to both belligerents during hostilities. It also recognized the principle that the duties of a neutral in time of war do not grow out of and are not dependent upon municipal laws. Other acts of the British Government, indicating its sense of its duties as a neutral toward the United States, were the several instructions issued during the contest for the regulation of the official conduct of British naval officers and colonial authorities toward the belligerents. These various instructions recognized, said the American Case, the following principles and rules:

"1. A belligerent may not use the harbors, ports, coasts, and waters of a neutral in aid of its warlike purposes, or as a station or place of resort for any warlike purpose, or for the purpose of obtaining any facilities of warlike equipment.

"2. Vessels of war of the belligerents may be required to depart from a neutral port within twenty-four hours after entrance, except in case of stress of weather, or requiring provisions or things for the crew, or repairs; in which case they should go to sea as soon as possible after the expiration of the twenty-four hours.

"3. The furnishing of supplies to a belligerent vessel of war in a neutral port may be prohibited, except such as may be necessary for the subsistence of a crew, and for their immediate

use.

"4. A belligerent steam vessel of war ought not to receive in a neutral port more coal than is necessary to take it to the nearest port of its own country, or to some nearer destination, and should not receive two supplies of coal from ports of the same neutral within less than three months of each other.”

The Case of the United States also referred to the course of the British Government in 1793, in calling upon the United States to perform their duties as a neutral during the war between England and France, and to the instructions which were given by the United States on that occasion, and the President's proclamation of neutrality then issued. The United States not only recognized the obligations of a neutral, but ultimately made compensation for the violation of those obligations. This occurred before the United States had any statute on the subject, and when the general rules of international law afforded the only definition of its duties. In 1794, however, the Congress of the United States, on the application of Great Britain, enacted a statute to prohibit unneutral acts under heavy penalties. In 1818 a comprehensive act was passed, at the request of the Portuguese Government. In 1838, on the