See, to the same effect, Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to the "Ministers of France and Great Britain and the President of the United Nether lands," April 23, 1793, 5 MS. Dom. Let. 92.

You have most perfectly seized the original idea of the proclamation. When first proposed as a declaration of neutrality, it was opposed, first, because the Executive had no power to declare neutrality. Second, as such, a declaration would be premature, and would lose us the benefit for which it might be bartered. It was urged that there was a strong impression in the minds of many, that they were free to join in the hostilities on the side of France. Others were unapprised of the danger they would be exposed to in carrying contraband goods, etc. It was, therefore, agreed that a proclamation should issue, declaring that we were in a state of peace, admonishing the people to do nothing contravening it, and putting them on their guard as to contraband. On this ground, it was accepted or acquiesced in by all, and E. R., who drew it, brought it to me, the draft, to let me see there was no such word as neutrality in it. Circumstances forbid other verbal criticisms. The public, however, soon took it up as a declaration of neutrality, and it came to be considered at length as such. . . . With respect to our citizens who had joined in hostilities against a nation with whom we are at peace the subject was thus viewed. Treaties are law. By the treaty with England, we are in a state of peace with her. He who breaks that peace, if within our jurisdiction, breaks the laws, and is punishable by them. And if he is punishable, he ought to be punished, because no citizen should be free to commit his country to war." (Mr. Jef ferson to Mr. Monroe, July 14, 1793, 2 Randall's Life of Jefferson, 167.)

See, also, Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morris, min. to France, Aug 16, 1793, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 167; Jefferson to Madison. June 23, 1793, 3 Rives's Madison, 325.

The issuance of the proclamation gave rise to animated discussions both as to the nature of the act and as to the President's constitutional powers. Hamilton, under the name of Pacificus, argued that all treaty-making and war powers belong to the Executive, except so far as limited by the Constitution, while Madison, under the name of Helvidius, contended that such powers should be exercised by means of laws, which should be enacted by the legislature and enforced by the Executive. (1 Madison's Writings, 614 et seq.) As to this discussion, see 3 Rives's Madison, 354, 355; 4 Hildreth's Hist. of the United States, 429.

"Of the great trading nations, America is almost the only one that has shown consistency of principle. The firmness and thorough understanding of the laws of nations, which during this war [growing out of the French Revolution] she has displayed, must for ever rank her high in the scale of enlightened communities." (Ward's Rights and Duties of Neutrals, cited in Bemis's American Neutrality, 28.)

A collection of the laws, decrees, and circulars of various governments in relation to neutrality may be found in the papers submitted by the United States to the Geneva tribunal. By a circular of the Department of State of June 21, 1898, the diplomatic representatives of the United States were directed to obtain and report

any later laws or regulations of the governments to which they were accredited on the subject of neutrality, as well as any cases that had arisen under such laws and regulations, and particularly any action. taken in regard to the sale or delivery of arms and munitions of war and other contraband, and the sale or delivery of ships, to belligerents. The proclamations and decrees issued by neutral governments as well as by the belligerents during the war between the United States and Spain were collected and published by the Bureau of Foreign Commerce of the Department of State in a pamphlet entitled "Proclamations and Decrees during the War with Spain: Washington, Government Printing Office, 1899." A portion of this pamphlet is printed in the Foreign Relations of the United States for 1898, pages 841-904.

For responses to the circular of June 21, 1898, see the following manuscript dispatches:

Mr. Buchanan, min. to the Argentine Republic, No. 584, Dec. 1, 1898, enclosing a report prepared by Mr. François S. Jones, sec. of legation. This report stated that there were no Argentine neutrality laws; that the question of enacting such laws had been agitated in the congress, but that none had been adopted. An investigation of the diplomatic relations of the country since 1870 showed few cases involving questions of neutrality, and such as were discovered were embraced in the report.

Mr. Storer, min. to Belgium, No. 140, Sept. 14, 1898. The Belgian foreign office stated that no law had been enacted by that country since 1870. It is the practice of the Belgian Government, when foreign powers are at war, to publish in the official journal a notice of the fact, calling attention to article 123 of the penal code.

Mr. Wilson, min. to Chile, to Mr. Day, Sec. of State, Sept. 8, 1898, enclosing copy of a note from the Chilean minister of foreign relations of Aug. 20, 1898, saying that that Government has never taken any steps regarding neutrality, nor has any question arisen regarding this subject" since 1870.

Mr. Allen, min. to Corea, to Mr. Day, No. 129, July 29, 1898, reporting that Corea had enacted no laws or regulations affecting neutrality, except perhaps the instructions that were given to the port authorities during the war between the United States and Spain.

Mr. Sampson, min. to Ecuador, No. 53, Aug. 6, 1898, reporting that nothing could be found in Ecuador on the subject of neutrality since 1870. Mr. Rockhill, min. to Greece, No. 5, Aug. 24, 1898, conveying a similar report with regard to that country.

Mr. Hunter, min. to Guatemala, No. 81, Aug. 4, 1898, enclosing a translation of a note of the Guatemalan minister of foreign affairs of July 27, 1898, stating that Guatemala had no special law on the subject of neutrality, but was governed in such matters by the principles of international law.

Mr. Buck, min. to Japan, July 26, 1898, saying that he had found no laws or regulations in that country since 1870, and that no questions appeared to have arisen as to the sale or delivery of contraband or of ships.

Mr. Clayton, min. to Mexico, No. 517, July 13, 1898, reporting that articles 1090 and 1091 of the Mexican penal code embraced all the legislation of Mexico on the subject of neutrality, and that no cases had arisen growing out of the violations of those articles. By article 1090, "any Mexican who, by acts not authorized nor approved by the Government, provokes a foreign war, or gives cause for declaring such war, or exposes Mexicans thereby to suffer oppressions or reprisals, shall be punished by four years' imprisonment." By article 1091, "any official who, in discharge of public functions, compromises the faith or dignity of the Republic shall suffer four years' imprisonment; but if the crime be committed in the exercise of diplomatic or consular functions the punishment shall be doubled."

Mr. Newel, min. to the Netherlands, Oct. 11, 1898, enclosing circulars issued by the Dutch Government in 1877, 1894, and 1897, together with an extract from the penal code. By this extract it appears that any person who, during a war in which the Netherlands are not concerned," intentionally commits any act by which the neutrality of the State is endangered, or intentionally infringes any special order issued by the Government with a view to the maintenance of its neutrality, is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years. Mr. Finch, minister to Paraguay, Sept. 22, 1898, reporting that the only special measure ever adopted by that Government with regard to neutrality was the decree of Dec. 21, 1865, prohibiting the sale in Paraguayan ports of prizes that might be taken by the Chilean or Spanish forces, which were then at war.

Mr. Dudley, min. to Peru, July 21, 1898, enclosing copies of decrees issued by the Peruvian Government on October 24 and 31, 1870, during the Franco-German war.

Mr. Townsend, min. to Portugal, Sept. 20, 1898, reporting that no laws or
declarations of neutrality had been issued by Portugal since 1870,
except the declaration issued in 1898 with reference to the war
between the United States and Spain, and that the only case which
had arisen under the Portuguese regulations governing neutrality
was that of the Prussian man-of-war Arcona, which made a long
stay in the waters of the Azores in 1870 on the ground of asylum.
Mr. Townsend's dispatch encloses a copy of the entire correspondence
made from the archives of the Portuguese foreign office, together
with a translation. The case involved disputed questions of fact as
well as of law.

Mr. Rockhill, min. to Servia, No. 15, Aug. 11, 1898, reporting that since
1877, when Roumania formally declared its independence, no special
laws or regulations on the subject of neutrality had been made.
Mr. King, min. to Siam, Aug. 19, 1898, reporting that there were no special
laws or regulations on the subject of neutrality in that country.
Mr. Thomas, min. to Sweden and Norway, June 13, 1899, enclosing copies
of Swedish ordinances of April 8, 1854, September 13, 1855, June 21,
1856, and July 29, 1870; and a Norwegian ordinance of March 7, 1864.
Mr. Leishman, min. to Switzerland, July 7, 1898, transmitted a note of the
Swiss Government of July 6, 1898, stating that there were no new
laws or regulations in that country concerning neutrality since 1870.

As to the neutrality proclamations issued by various powers on the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese war, see For. Rel. 14.

"Whereas a state of war unhappily exists between France, on the one side, and the North German Confederation and its allies, on the other side; and whereas the United States are on terms of friendship and amity with all the contending powers, and with the persons inhabiting their several dominions; and whereas great numbers of the citizens of the United States reside within the territories or dominions of each of the said belligerents, and carry on commerce, trade, or other business or pursuits therein, protected by the faith of treaties; and whereas great numbers of the subjects or citizens of each of the said belligerents reside within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, and carry on commerce, trade, or other business or pursuits therein; and whereas the laws of the United States, without interfering with the free expression of opinion and sympathy, or with the open manufacture or sale of arms or munitions of war, nevertheless impose upon all persons who may be within their territory and jurisdiction the duty of an impartial neutrality during the existence of the contest:

Now, therefore, I, Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States, in order to preserve the neutrality of the United States and of their citizens and of persons within their territory and jurisdiction, and to enforce their laws, and in order that all persons, being warned of the general tenor of the laws and treaties of the United States in this behalf, and of the law of nations, may thus be prevented from an unintentional violation of the same, do hereby declare and proclaim that by the act passed on the 20th day of April, A. D. 1818, commonly known as the neutrality law,' the following acts are forbidden to be done, under severe penalties, within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, to wit:

"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.

66

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 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 armored 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.

6

"And I do further declare and proclaim that by the nineteenth article of the treaty of amity and commerce which was concluded between His Majesty the King of Prussia and the United States of America, on the 11th day of July, A. D. 1799, which article was revived by the treaty of May 1, A. D. 1828, between the same parties, and is still in force, it was agreed that the vessels of war, public and private, of both parties, shall carry freely, wheresoever they please, the vessels and effects taken from their enemies, without being obliged to pay any duties, charges, or fees to officers of admiralty, of the customs, or any others; nor shall such prizes be arrested, searched, or put under any legal process, when they come to and enter the ports of the other party, but may freely be carried out again at any time by their captors to the places expressed in their commissions, which the commanding officer of such vessel shall be obliged to show.'