A neutral vessel carrying hostile dispatches, when sailing as a dispatch vessel practically in the service of the enemy, is liable to seizure. Mail steamers under neutral flags carrying such dispatches in the regular and customary manner, either as a part of their mail in their mail bags, or separately as a matter of accommodation and without special arrangement or remuneration, are not liable to seizure and should not be detained, except upon clear grounds of suspicion of a violation of the laws of war with respect to contraband, blockade, or unneutral service, in which case the mail bags must be forwarded with seals unbroken.

U. S. Naval War Code, 1900, Article 20.

The following acts, forbidden to neutrals, are assimilated to contraband of war: The transport of the enemy's troops, of his despatches and correspondence, the supply of transports and war-ships to the enemy. Neutral vessels captured in the act of carrying contraband of this nature may, according to circumstances, be seized, and even confiscated.

Russian Rules, 1904, sec. 7.

Extension of rule.

A ship in regard to which there is good reason to believe that she is scouting or conveying information for the benefit of the hostile State, or that her conduct is clearly such as to assist the enemy in some other way, and that portion of her cargo which belongs to her owner, shall be condemned.

Japanese Regulations, 1904, Article 47.

48. A neutral ship renders the enemy unneutral service when she (a) carries out the voyage, departing from usual employment expressly for the purpose of conveying persons enrolled in the hostile forces, or for carrying information in the interest of the enemy.

(b) with knowledge of the owner, charterer, or master, has on board a complete subdivision of enemy troops, or one or more persons who will assist the enemy's operations during the voyage.

The captain is among other things empowered to assume this when a ship equipped with radio-telegraphic apparatus is clearly found to be engaged in the transmission of war information within the area of operations and does not comply with an express-prohibition.

49. Reservists, recruits, and war volunteers proceeding to their places of mustering in are not to be regarded as "persons enrolled in

the hostile forces.'

50. By transmission of information" is meant any communicating of information, whether written or oral, or by signal or radiotelegraphy.

51. So long as the circumstances named in 48 exist, the ship is liable to capture and confiscation.

Of the cargo, only the merchandise belonging to the owner of the ship is confiscable. Concerning the law for seizure without bringing in the ship, see 121.

52. The provisions of No. 51 do not apply if the ship when visited had no knowledge of the outbreak of hostilities, or when the master after acquiring such knowledge had not been able to disembark the persons carried.

Concerning the question whether such knowledge exists, see 45, (a) and (b)

German Prize Rules, 1909, Articles 48-52.

Treatment of passengers and crew of captured vessel.

101. If a neutral ship is captured

*

*

under 51, for unneu

tral service, the entire crew-including the Master and officers-will be released unconditionally.

102. The release will be accomplished by discharge from on board when the prize is delivered. The necessary witnesses are however to be held. The names of the conditionally released enemy and neutral persons are to be reported direct to the Chief of Admiral Staff, for communication to the hostile power.

103. Passengers on board captured ships are to be left free from restraint and with the exception of necessary witnesses are to be released as soon as practicable.

German Prize Rules, 1909, Articles 101-103.

Sections 55, 56, 57, and 58, French Naval Instructions, 1912, are substantially identical with Article 45, Declaration of London.

Article 45, Declaration of London, is substantially identical with section 25, Austro-Hungarian Manual, 1913.

On September 14, 1847, Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of State, instructed Mr. Bancroft, American minister at London, to bring to the notice of the British Government the action of Captain May, of the British mail steamer Teriot, who had brought from Havana to Vera Cruz General Paredes, the late President of Mexico, who was, said Mr. Buchanan, "the chief author of the existing war between that Republic and the United States," and "the avowed and embittered enemy" of the latter. Knowing, as Captain May must have known, that General Paredes would exert all his influence to prolong and exasperate the war, it was, declared Mr. Buchanan, truly astonishing that he "should have brought this hostile Mexican general, under an assumed name, on board of a British mail steamer, to Vera Cruz, and aided or permitted him to land clandestinely, for the purpose of rushing into the war against the United States." Mr. Buchanan said that the President had not yet determined on the course he would pursue in regard to British mail steamers, but he would be justified in withdrawing from them the privilege which had been granted of entering the port of Vera Cruz. He would not. however, immediately resort to that extreme measure, since he was convinced that the British Government would at once adopt efficient measures to prevent such a violation of their neutrality in the future. "British mail steamers," said Mr. Buchanan, "can not be suffered to bring to Vera Cruz either Mexican citizens or the subjects of any other nation, for the purpose of engaging in the existing war on the part of Mexico against the United States. A neutral vessel which carries a Mexican officer of high military rank to Mexico, for the purpose of taking part in hostilities against our country, is liable to confiscation, according to the opinion of Sir William Scott, in the case of the Orozembo (6 Robinson's Reports, 430), and this even although her captain and officers were ignorant that they had such

a person on board." In conclusion, Mr. Buchanan instructed Mr. Bancroft to acquaint Lord Palmerston with the circumstances of the case, and if it should turn out that Captain May or any of his officers were officers in the British service, to ask for their dismissal or for such other punishment as would clearly manifest their Government's disapproval of their conduct.

Mr. Bancroft brought the case to the attention of Lord Palmerston in the sense of his instructions on October 8, 1847.

On November 16, 1847, Lord Palmerston answered that, the lords commissioners of the admiralty having investigated the affair, her Majesty's Government had informed the directors of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, to which the Teriot belonged, "that the directors are bound to testify, in a marked manner, their disapproval of Captain May's conduct, in having thus abused the indulgence afforded to the company's vessels by the Government of the United States; and Lord Palmerston added that the directors of the company had accordingly stated that they would immediately suspend Captain May from his command and that they publicly and distinctly condemned any act on the part of their officers which might be regard as a breach of faith towards the Government of the United States, or as an infringement or invasion of the regulations established by the United States officers in those parts of Mexico which were occupied by the forces of the United States.

Moore's Digest, vol. vii, pp. 752-754; Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of State, to Mr. Bancroft, minister to England, September 14, 1847; Mr. Bancroft, minister to England, to Lord Palmerston, British foreign secretary, October 8, 1847; Lord Palmerston to Mr. Bancroft, November 16, 1847.

The voyage of the Haytian Republic was commenced on October 4 from the United States, with peaceful and lawful intent, and with no knowledge of Haytian disorders or desire to mingle in Haytian disputes.

"On her voyage from Port de Paix to Gonaïves, on October 15–16; from Gonaïves to Miragoâne, on October 16-17; and from the latter port to Aux Cayes, on October 17-18, it is true that she transported as passengers persons variously armed, and, as is supposed, in sympathy with those in possession of the districts in which the ports above named are situated. In such transportation she met with no interference or protest, and merely acted as a common carrier of passengers whom she found awaiting transportation in the ports at which she traded. Such action can not be regarded as constituting complicity in Haytian disorders; and, at the time that the vessel was seized by the Dessalines in the service of Provisional President Légitime, at Port au Prince, the persons whom she had thus carried had been left at their ports of destination and she was proceeding on her voyage.

Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, to Mr. Preston, Haytian minister, November 28, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, 1, 1001, 1005.

Exception.

The "Rapid," Edwards, 228.-This was the case of an American ship bound for a Dutch port and having on board a despatch to the Dutch Colonial Minister at The Hague, addressed under cover to a commercial house.

Held that the special circumstances of the concealed nature of the communication and the apparent genuine ignorance of the master

took the case out of the regular rule prohibiting neutral masters from carrying despatches of an enemy.

However, it was said that any neutral carrying despatches from a hostile port could not plead ignorance; and that any neutral carrying despatches to a hostile port must expect to lay himself open to grievous annoyance and vexation.

Consular despatches not necessarily noxious.

The "Madison," Edwards, 224.-The court said: "Now I am of opinion, that a communication from the Danish Government to its own consul in America, does not necessarily imply anything that is of a nature hostile or injurious to the interests of this country. It is not to be so presumed; such communications must be supposed to have reference to the business of the consul-general's office, which is to maintain the commercial relations of Denmark with America. If such communications were interdicted the functions of the official persons would cease altogether. *

Neutral vessels can not plead duress as a justification for unneutral service.

The "Carolina,” 4 C. Rob., 256.-This was the case of a Swedish vessel, captured by the British, and lost in the possession of the captors, before adjudication. The owners petitioned for redress.

The vessel had carried a detachment of French troops to Alexandria, but the master claimed that he acted under duress in so doing.

The petition was rejected and the court said: "If an act of force, exercised by one belligerent on a neutral ship or person, is to be deemed a sufficient justification for any act done by him contrary to the known duties of the neutral character there would be an end of any prohibition under the law of nations to carry contraband, or to engage in any other hostile act."

The " Atlanta," 6 C. Rob., 440.-This was the case of the capturing of a Bremen ship, while on a voyage from Batavia to Bremen, having touched last at the Isle of France, where the master and one of the supercargoes had taken on board a package containing despatches from the Government of the Isle of France to the Minister of Marine at Paris. This package was found concealed in the possession of the second supercargo.

Held that the vessel and cargo were subject to condemnation.

The "Friendship," 6 C. Rob., 421.-This was a case of an American vessel bound to Bordeaux, with a small amount of cargo and ninety passengers, being French mariners, the arrangements for whose shipping appeared to have been made by the French minister to the United States.

The court found that the case was "of a vessel letting herself out in a distinct manner, under a contract with the enemy's government. to convoy a number of persons, described as being in the service of the enemy, with their military character traveling with them, and to restore them to their own country in that character.

Therefore, the court pronounced the vessel and cargo subject to condemnation.

The "Atalanta." 6 C. Rob., 440.-This was the case of a neutral ship which carried, under circumstances held to be of a fraudulent

concealment, official despatches from enemy colonial authorities to enemy home authorities.

The vessel was condemned.

See also the similar cases of the Constantia, Susan, and Hope, 6 C. Rob., 440, note.

Despatches of a public minister privileged.

The "Caroline,” 6 C. Rob., 461.—In this case, an American ship was captured while carrying to France, then at war with Great Britain, despatches from the French Minister to the United States, which related to the relations between the United States government and France. The ship was not specially chartered for the purpose of carrying such despatches. The ship was restored and it appears to have been held that the despatches were privileged because of the immunity of ambassadors.

[In Dana's notes to Wheaton the following doctrines are deduced from the decisions of the British Prize Courts]:

(1) If a vessel is in the actual service of the enemy as a transport, she is to be condemned. In such case, it is immaterial whether the enemy has got her into his service by voluntary contract, or by force or fraud. It is also, in such case, immaterial what is the number of the persons carried, or the quantity or character of the cargo; and, as to despatches, the court need not speculate upon their immediate military importance. It is also unimportant whether the contract, if there be one, is a regular letting to hire, giving the possession and temporary ownership to the enemy, or a simple contract of affreightment. The truth is, if the vessel is herself under the control and management of the hostile government, so as to make that government the owner pro tempore, the true ground of condemnation should be as enemy's property. The interpretation of this technical phrase of prize law will cover all such cases; and it would have saved some mistaken deductions, if the Carolina. Friendship, and Orozembo had been condemned on that ground, in terms.

(2) If a vessel is not in the enemy's service, still, if the master knowingly takes for the enemy's government, or its agents, persons or papers of such a character and destination that the transporting of them under the neutral flag is an actual belligerent service to the State, it is an unneutral act, which forfeits the vessel. If he avers ignorance of the character of the persons or papers, all the circumstances are to be considered, for the purpose of determining, not only the truth of his averment, but whether his ignorance, though real, is excusable. He is bound to a high degree of diligence, in such cases: and, if the circumstances fairly put him on inquiry, which he does not properly pursue, he will not be excused. Among these circumstances are, the character of the despatch, as far as shown from itself. its source, its destination, the circumstances attending its delivery or custody, and the character of the ports of departure and destination of the vessel, as being neutral or hostile. In a case of a vessel not in the enemy's service, but doing such acts for his benefit, can she be said to be enemy's property pro hac vice? In the Tulip (Washington's Rep. iii. 181), an American vessel, during the war with England. carrying despatches from a British Minister to his own government from a neutral port under a safe-conduct, agreeing to put them on board some homeward-bound British vessel, was held to be, pro hac