... after her necessary repairs shall have been completed, unless within such twenty-four hours a vessel . . . of an opposing belligerent shall have departed therefrom, in which case the time limited for the departure. . . shall be extended so far as may be necessary to secure an interval of not less than twenty-four hours between such departure and that of any . . . ship of an opposing belligerent which may have previously quit the same . . . waters. No ship of war of a belligerent shall be detained in any waters of the United States more than twenty-four hours, by reason of the successive departures from such . . . waters of more than one vessel of an opposing belligerent. But if there be several vessels of opposing belligerents in the same . . . waters, the order of their departure therefrom shall be so arranged as to afford the opportunity of leaving alternately to the vessels of the opposing belligerents, and to cause the least detention consistent with the objects of this proclamation. No ship of war . . . of a belligerent shall be permitted, while in any . . . waters within the jurisdiction of the United States, to take in any supplies except provisions and such other things as may be requisite for the subsistence of her crew, and except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel, if without a sail power, to the nearest port of her own country; or in case the vessel is rigged to go under sail, and may also be propelled by steam power, then with half the quantity of coal which she would be entitled to receive if dependent upon steam alone; and no coal shall be again supplied to any such ship of war . . . in the same or any other . . . waters of the United States, without special permission, until after the expiration of three months from the time when such coal may have been last supplied to her within the waters of the United States, unless such ship of war . . . shall, since last thus supplied, have entered a port of the government to which she belongs." 1 The tendency at the present time is to make regulations which shall guard most effectively against any possible use of neutral maritime jurisdiction for hostile purposes. In the Spanish-American War of 1898, Brazil provided that in case of 138 U. S. Stat. 1999. two belligerent vessels: "If the vessel leaving, as well as that left behind, be a steamer, or both be sailing vessels, there shall remain the interval of twenty-four hours between the sailing of one and the other. If the one leaving be a sailing vessel and that remaining a steamer, the latter may only leave seventytwo hours thereafter." Brazil adopted the same rule in August, 1914. 1 Many states had adopted the practice of absolutely refusing entrance within their waters to belligerent vessels with prizes, except in case of distress. Some states prescribed that, in such cases, the prizes should be liberated. Regulations in regard to vessels with prizes. The Hague Convention of 1907 respecting Neutral Powers in Naval War has the following: "ART. XXI. A prize may only be brought into a neutral port on account of unseaworthiness, stress of weather, or want of fuel or provisions. "It must leave as soon as the circumstances which justified its entry are at an end. If it does not, the neutral Power must order it to leave at once; should it fail to obey, the neutral Power must employ the means at its disposal to release it with its officers and crew and to intern the prize crew. "ART. XXII. A neutral Power must, similarly, release a prize brought into one of its ports under circumstances other than those referred to in Article XXI. "ART. XXIII. A neutral Power may allow prizes to enter its ports and roadsteads, whether or not under convoy, when they are brought there to be sequestrated pending the decision of a Prize Court. It may have the prize taken to another of its ports. "If the prize is convoyed by a war-ship, the prize crew may go on board the convoying ship. "If the prize is not under convoy, the prize crew are left at liberty." 2 1 Proc. and Decrees of the War with Spain, Brazil, XVI, p. 15; see also Int. Law Topics, Naval War College, 1916, p. 12. 2 Appendix, p. lxxxix. The United States and some other powers have not accepted Article XXIII permitting sequestration, and many neutral states during the war beginning in 1914 refused this privilege.1 (f) In recent years the treatment of aircraft in time of war has received much consideration.2 As aircraft move with greater speed and ease than troops or vessels, the difficulty of enforcing neutral regulations against the aircraft is correspondingly increased. Internment of belligerent aircraft alighting Internment of aircraft. in neutral jurisdiction was the common practice in the World War. The Swiss Neutrality Ordinance of August 4, 1914, is in accord with accepted principles: "(a) Balloons and aircraft not belonging to the Swiss army cannot rise and navigate in the aerial space situated above our territory unless the persons ascending in the apparatus are furnished with a special authorization, delivered in the territory occupied by the army, by the Commander of the army; in the rest of the country by the Federal military department. "(b) The passage of all balloons and aircraft coming from abroad into our aerial space is forbidden. It will be opposed, if necessary, by all available means and these aircraft will be controlled whenever that appears advantageous. "(c) In case of the landing of foreign balloons or aircraft, their passengers will be conducted to the nearest superior military commander, who will act according to his instructions. The apparatus and the articles which it contain ought, in any case, to be seized by the military authorities or the police. The Federal military department or the commander of the army will decide what ought to be done with the personnel and matériel of a balloon or aircraft coming into our territory through force majeure and when there appears to be no reprehensible intention or negligence." 134. No Direct Assistance by the Neutral Allowed The neutral state may not furnish to a belligerent any assistance in military forces, supplies of war, loans of money, or in any similar manner. 1 The Appam, 37 S. Ct. 337. 2 N.W.C. 1912, pp. 56 et seq. (a) Formerly military assistance was often furnished to one of the belligerents by a state claiming to be neutral on the Military assistance forbidden. ground that such action was justified by a treaty obligation entered into before the war could be foreseen. This position was supported by some of the ablest of the authorities of the nineteenth century,' but is no longer admitted. (b) It is generally held that a neutral state may not furnish to one or both of the belligerents supplies of war. As Hall says, "The general principle that a mercantile act is not a violation of a state of neutrality, is pressed too far when it is made to cover the sale Furnishing of supplies of war not allowable. of munitions or vessels of war by a state." 2 . ... A case that aroused discussion was occasioned by the action of the authorities of the United States conformably to a joint resolution of Congress of July 20, 1868, by which the Secretary of War was to cause "to be sold, after offer at public sale on thirty days' notice, . . . the old cannon, arms, and other ordnance stores damaged or otherwise unsuitable for the United States military service, etc." Complaint was made that sales made under this act during the time of the FrancoGerman War were in violation of neutrality. A committee appointed by the United States Senate to investigate these charges reported that sales "were not made under such circumstances as to violate the obligations of our government as a neutral power; and this, to recapitulate, for three reasons: (1) The Remingtons [the alleged purchasing agents of the French government] were not, in fact, agents of France during the time when sales were made to them; (2) if they were such agents, such fact was neither known nor suspected by our government at the time the sales were made; and (3) if they had been such agents, and that fact had been known to our govern 1 Wheat. D., § 425; Dana, contra, note 203; 1 Kent Com., pp. 49, 116; Bluntschli, § 759; Woolsey, § 165. 2 Hall, p. 636. 315 U. S. Sts. at Large, 259. ment, or if, instead of sending agents, Louis Napoleon or Frederick William had personally appeared at the War Department to purchase arms, it would have been lawful for us to sell to either of them, in pursuance of a national policy adopted by us prior to the commencement of hostilities." 1 This last statement does not accord with the best opinion and doubtless would not be maintained at the present time. The first and second claims might justify the sale, though it would be in better accord with strict neutrality for a state to refrain from all sale of supplies of war except to another neutral state, during the period of war between two states, toward which states it professes to maintain a neutral attitude. This, of course, does not affect the rights of commerce in arms on the part of the citizens of a neutral state not residing in belligerent territory.2 (c) The authorities are practically agreed that loans of money to a belligerent state may not be made or guaranteed Loans of money by a neutral state. This does not, however, forbidden. affect the commerce in money which may be carried on by the citizens of a neutral state not residing in belligerent territory.3 (d) A neutral may not permit the enlistment of troops for belligerent service within its jurisdiction. This applies to such action as might assume the proportions of recruiting. The citizens or subjects of a neutral state may enter the service of one of the bel Enlistment of troops not permitted. ligerents in a private manner.1 135. Positive Obligations of a Neutral State (a) Not only must a neutral state refrain from direct assistance of either belligerent, but it must also put forth positive efforts to prevent acts which would assist a belligerent. If a state has neutrality laws, it is under obligations to enforce 13 Whart., § 391. 3 Appendix, p. lxxiv. Appendix, p. lxxiv. 4 Appendix, p. lxxiii., Articles 4, 5. |