enlisted for the French army, although they were without arms or uniforms; and Belgium refused to Prussia permission to transport the wounded by railway across her territory, on the ground that such permission would be of direct assistance to Prussia in the war by relieving from pressure her railway communications with the armies in France and enabling her to devote them to warlike uses exclusively.* The rule of exclusion of belligerent troops from the neutral territory does not apply to neutral waters. The constant practice of nations permits vessels of war of a belligerent, singly or in fleets, to traverse the territorial waters of a neutral; even when bound to attack an enemy it is not considered a violation of the neutral territory. The reason for this distinction is that nations do not usually guard the territorial waters in such manner as to at all times maintain complete control of them. The armed vessels of a belligerent are received into neutral ports, may seek asylum in them from threatened dangers, and may obtain in them needed assistance. The harmlessness of the passage across the territorial waters is complete; however numerous the fleet may be, it leaves no traces.† 5. The prize courts of the neutral must not be used to Prize courts determine the validity of belligerent captures, and the present usage forbids the sale of prizes in neutral ports. The neutrality proclamation of France, of May, 1861, contained the following clauses: "1. No vessel of war or privateer of either of the belligerent parties will be allowed to enter or stay with prizes in our ports or roadsteads longer than twenty-four hours, except in a case of compulsory delay. "2. No sale of goods belonging to prizes is allowed in our ports or roadsteads."‡ must not be used by belligerents. 6. A neutral must not during a war acquire by purchase or Acquisition of otherwise any conquest made by either of the belligerents.§ 7. The neutral State must prohibit the enlistment of its citizens or subjects for the service of a belligerent. "The practice of neutrals to furnish troops to belligerents, or to allow them to enlist troops on neutral ground, was formerly common and allowed. This custom has now a lingering exist *Hall, pp. 524-5. Lawrence's Wheaton, p. 699, n. † Hautefeuille, Vol. I, p. 314. territory by belligerents. Enlistments for belligerent service prohibited. Position of the ence; it is forbidden in some countries by law, and it is justly regarded as a violation of neutrality." "The principle that it is incumbent on the neutral sovereign to prohibit the levy of bodies of men within his dominions for the service of a belligerent, which was gradually growing authoritative during the eighteenth century, is now fully recognized as the foundation of a duty. And its application extends to isolated instances when the circumstances are such as to lead to serious harm being done to a friendly nation. "On the other hand, a State is not expected to take precautions against the commission of microscopic injuries. At the outbreak of the American Civil War it was thought possible that large numbers of English subjects might engage in it, and an express prohibition of such service was therefore inserted in the proclamation. In that issued at the beginning of the war between France and Germany the prohibition was omitted, it not being likely that any sufficient number to justify government action would be found in the ranks of either army. As a matter of fact, a few English served as officers in both the German and French armies, without the neutrality of Great Britain being in any way supposed to be compromised."+ In 1855 attempts were made by agents of the British government to enlist persons within the United States for the military service of that government in the Crimean War, under an Act of Parliament, "to permit foreigners to be enlisted and to serve as officers and soldiers of Her Majesty's forces." This being held as an attack on the sovereignty of the United States, as well as a violation of neutrality, the President demanded the recall of Mr. Crampton, the British Minister, and revoked the exequaturs of the British Consuls at New York, Philadelphia and Cincinnati for complicity in the attempts. The opinion of the Attorney-General, Mr. Cushing, laid down the following principles as governing such cases: No belligerent can rightfully make use of the territory of a neutral State for belligerent purposes without the consent of the neutral government. The undertaking of a belligerent to enlist troops, on land or sea, in a neutral State, without the consent of the latter, is a hostile attack on its national sovereignty. A neutral State may permit belligerents to enlist troops within its territory, but, in that case, it must concede the same privilege to all. The United States refuse such liberty to all belligerents with impartial justice, and make this refusal known by a permanent Act of Congress.* All persons engaged in raising troops in the United States. for a belligerent, whether citizens or foreigners, officers or individuals, except when protected by diplomatic privilege, may be indicted as malefactors under the statute. Foreign consuls are not exempted, either by treaty or the law of nations, from the penal effect of the statute. A foreign minister who engages in the enlistment of troops in the United States for his government is subject to be summarily expelled from the country, or after a demand for his recall, to be dismissed by the President. The Act of Congress prohibiting foreign enlistments is a matter of municipal right, as to which foreign governments have no right to inquire, the international offence being independent of the existence of a prohibitory Act of Congress. All which it concerns such government to know is, whether such enlistments are permitted. It has no business to inquire whether there are statutes on the subject or not. Least of all has it a right to take notice of such statutes to see how they may be evaded.† 8. A neutral government must not permit the vessels of war Arming belligof a belligerent to increase their armament or crews, or take on board arms or military stores in its ports, or make repairs to facilitate their cruising against an enemy. Under this rule coal is now refused to the vessels of war of a belligerent, except in such quantity as will enable them to reach one of the ports of their own country, or some nearer port. An order of the British government, issued in January, 1862, with reference to the War of Secession in the United States, prohibited all vessels of war and privateers of either belligerent from using any port or roadstead in the British dominions as a station or place of resort for any warlike purpose, or for the purpose of obtaining any facilities of warlike equipment. No supplies, except provisions necessary for the crews, were to be Comp. Sec. 3. + Opinions of Attorneys-General U. S., Vol. VII, p. 367. Mr. Cushing, Aug. 9, 1855. erent vessels. Sec. 3. Treaty of Washing furnished such vessels. Coal could be furnished only in such quantity as would enable a vessel to reach the nearest port of her own country, or a nearer destination; and no coal could again be supplied to the same vessel in any British port within three months.* The United States adopted a similar regulation as to coal in 1870. A second supply of coal could not be furnished a vessel within three months, unless the vessel requesting it had in the meantime put into a European port. "It is not for a moment to be denied that the actual law of nations places no restriction whatever upon the purchase of provisions by a belligerent in neutral ports; and that the limitation sometimes imposed of late years upon their supply, and upon that of coal, only indicates the direction in which usage is likely to grow. That it will remain in its present state is improbable. When vessels were at the mercy of the winds it was not possible to measure with accuracy the supplies which might be furnished to them, and as blockades were seldom continuously effective, and the nations which carried on distant naval operations were all provided with colonies, questions could hardly spring from the use of foreign possessions as a base of operations. Under the altered conditions of warfare, it cannot be admitted that the old rule is consistent with the principles of neutrality."+ The claims of the United States against Great Britain, growing ton, 1871. out of the depredations on American commerce committed by the Alabama and other Confederate cruisers built in British ports, generally known as the "Alabama claims," were recognized by the treaty between those powers concluded in 1871, and they, with other matters in dispute, were submitted to arbitration at Geneva. It was agreed that the arbitrators appointed in accordance with the stipulations of the treaty should, in deciding all matters brought before them, be governed by certain rules defining the duties of a neutral government, and such principles of international law, not inconsistent with them, as the arbitrators should determine to be applicable to each case. The rules agreed upon are as follows: "A neutral government is bound *Lawrence's Wheaton, p. 717, n. ↑ Hall, p. 528. Comp. Sec. 6. Occasional Contraband, see "Contraband." served by "First, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, Rules to be obor equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has neutrals. reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. "Secondly, not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. "Thirdly, to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties."* The British government specially declared that the above. rules were not accepted as a statement of principles of international law in force at the time the Alabama claims arose, but agreed that, in deciding upon those claims, the arbitrators should assume that the government of Great Britain had undertaken to act in accordance with them. It was further agreed that the rules laid down by the treaty should be observed in future by the contracting parties, and that other powers should be invited to accede to them.† The arbitrators at Geneva, before proceeding to the discussion of the claims, laid down certain prefatory positions as in accordance with the three rules and recognized principles of international law, not inconsistent with them, as follows: neva arbitration. 1. "The 'due diligence' referred to in the first and third of Rules of the Gethe said rules ought to be exercised by neutral governments in exact proportion to the risks to which either of the belligerents may be exposed from a failure to fulfill the obligations of neutrality on their part. 3. "The effects of a violation of neutrality committed by means of the construction, equipment and armament of a vessel are not done away with by any commission which the government of the belligerent power benefited by the violation of neutrality may afterward have granted to that vessel; and the ultimate step by which the offence is completed cannot be ↑ Ibid. p. 416. *Treaties U. S., 1873, P. 415, “Great Britain." |