Enlistment. United States on the subject, and as the well-known Ala- Foreign bama claims resulted in an arrangement whereby this country assented to refer the matter to arbitration, the Liability subject deserves a somewhat extended notice. The correspondence between Lord Russell and Mr Adams was for the time closed by Lord Russell's successor at the Foreign Office, Lord Clarendon, who objected to continue a discussion that in his opinion was exhausted, and that might, if prolonged, trouble the harmony up to that time existing between the two countries. But inasmuch as that correspondence and the case it gave rise to shewed blots in our then existing Foreign Enlistment Act, and a danger in the future of similar complications, a special commission was appointed to examine and report upon the Act. This commission having met, and after mature deliberation recommended several important alterations and additions to it, their report was taken into consideration, and a new Statute was passed through both Houses and received the Royal Assent in August 1870, known by the title "Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870" (33 and 34 Vict. c. 90). It repealed the Act of 1819, and made provisions on the subject of Illegal Enlistment, Illegal Shipbuilding, and Illegal Expeditions and Illegal Prize. It also laid down rules of procedure in respect of offences under it. It is unnecessary here to do more than advert to its leading features, because the reader will find it set out at length in the Appendix. All that need be said is that whilst it far surpasses its predecessor in the strictness with which it insists upon the observance of neutral bona fides on the part of British subjects, it is not inferior to the American Act of Congress in the remedies againt illegal acts and illegal intentions'. The Alabama controversy, however, was not ended yet. Mr Reverdy Johnson, who had succeeded Mr Adams as Minister from the United States to the Court of St James, undertook the task of bringing about an amicable settlement. 1 The following cases are among the most recent decisions respecting the Foreign Enlistment Acts of 1819 and 1870. Burton v. Pinkerton, 36 L. J. Exch. 137. R. v. Carlin, The Salvador, 39 L. J. Adm. 33 and L. R. 3 P. C. 218. R. v. Corbett, 4 Foster and Finlason 555. R. v. Elliott, The Gauntlet, 41 L. J. Adm. 65. The International, 40 L. J. Adm. 1, and L. R. 3 Adm. and Ecc. 321. to make compen sation for breach. Foreign Enlistment. Liability to make compen sation for breach. The correspondence was renewed, and after long discussion Lord Stanley (now Lord Derby), who was then head of the Foreign Office, accepted the proposal to refer all contentious questions arising out of the American claims to a mixed commission, save and except the question whether Great Britain was right or wrong in according the quality of belligerent at the commencement of the Civil War to the Southern States. Upon this basis a protocol was signed on the 14th January, 1869, by Lord Clarendon, then Foreign Secretary to Great Britain, and Mr Johnson, the United States Ambassador. That protocol was laid before the Senate by President Grant, and rejected by 54 votes to 1, for divers reasons which it is unnecessary to repeat here. Nothing more was done till the year 1871, when in the month of January the English Cabinet took the initiative in an endeavour to procure an amicable settlement of the difference between the two countries. The overtures thus commenced were met in a friendly spirit by the authorities at Washington, and the result was the Treaty of Washington (8th May, 1871), by which all the claims growing out of acts committed by the Alabama and other vessels escaping from British ports and preying upon American commerce were referred to a tribunal composed of five Arbitrators nominated by the United States, by her Britannic Majesty, by the King of Italy, by the President of the Swiss Confederation, and by the Emperor of Brazil, to meet at Geneva. The Conference commenced its sittings in the month of June, 1872, and terminated them in September. With the exception of Sir Alexander Cockburn, the arbitrators, who were, it should be noticed, entirely agreed as to the inadmissibility of the indirect claims advanced on behalf of the United States, signed an award which will be found in one of the Appendices of the present work, together with an extract from the separate and independent decision of Sir A. Cockburn1. 1 For some valuable remarks on the arguments of the agents of the United States Government and on a portion of Sir A. Cockburn's decision, see Mr Amos's recent edition of Manning's Law of Nations, p. 241; and for the views of a foreign writer on the subject of the indirect claims, together with a critique on the whole affair, the reader is referred to Calvo, Le Droit Intern. T. 11. Liv. i. §§ 1037, 1038, pp. 372-377. Mr Caleb Cushing has published a collection of the documents relating to the Alabama claims in one small volume. This work is of use in respect of its containing the papers on the subject, but it is disfigured by harsh and unjust criticisms and personal remarks on some of the principal actors in the scene, as well as by partial national prejudices of a very strong nature. The Treaty of Washington, by Caleb Cushing, New York, 1873. CHAPTER VIII. ON THE GENERAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL THE rights and duties which belong to a state of neutrality form a very interesting title in the code of international law. In the United States they ought beyond all doubt to be objects of particular study, because whilst it is the true policy of that country to cherish a spirit of peace, so it has ever been the avowed aim of its government to keep itself free from those political connexions which would tend to draw it into the vortex of European contests. [Nor should they be less regarded with attention and respect in Europe, where, if on the one hand, owing to the complications arising out of family compacts, political confederations or alliances for mutual aid and defence, many of the powers find no little difficulty in keeping out of hostilities when war breaks out; on the other, in case they do succeed in standing aloof therefrom and maintaining a neutral attitude, they experience a fact which war soon makes patent, that their neutrality is by the belligerents considered as a stumblingblock in their paths, and that these watch with the most jealous suspicion the conduct of all who profess neutrality, contest with energy the rights they claim, and insist upon the strictest attention 1 On the general principles connected with neutrality and neutrals see Heffter, Liv. II. ch. iii. §§ 144-154, where most of the leading continental authorities are cited. Ortolan, Règles Internationales et Diss. de la Mer, Liv. 1. ch. iv. Wheaton, Vol. II. Part Iv. ch. iii. §§ 1-5. Halleck On International Law, ch. xxvi. §§ 1-4. Phillimore, Vol. III. Twiss, On the Law of Nations, Vol. 11. ch. xi. 2 Heffter, Liv. II. ch. iii. § 145. of neu to the obligations by which as neutrals they are bound'. Rights A correct appreciation therefore of the rights and duties and duties attaching to a state of neutrality is a matter of primary trals. importance, in the upholding of which both neutrals and belligerents are equally concerned.] For whilst every nation that maintains a firm and scrupulously impartial neutrality, and commands the respect of all other nations by its prudence, justice, and good faith, has the best chance to preserve unimpaired the blessings of its commerce, the freedom of its institutions, and the prosperity of its resources; so belligerents are interested in the support of the just rights of neutrals, for the intercourse which is kept up by means of their commerce contributes greatly to mitigate the evils of war. The public law of Europe has established the principle, that, in time of war, countries not parties to the war, nor interposing in it, shall not be materially affected by its action; but shall be permitted to carry on their accustomed trade, under the few necessary restrictions which we shall hereafter consider. [There is one restriction upon the inviolability of neutral property when found in an enemy's country that must be noticed here, because there is no better place for its insertion. It is a peculiar claim set up by belligerents to seize the vessels of neutrals in the ports or waters of one of the hostile parties, and to employ them for warlike operations on condition of paying an indemnity for their use or for injury to them. It is known by the name of Droit d'angarie, Jus angaria, and by some writers is classed with the right of embargo, of which something has already been said. This claim, which Azuni looks upon as a prerogative founded upon the supreme power enjoyed by nations in their own territory, is allowed only in cases 1 In support of this statement English writers and Englishmen generally may appeal to the attitude of the government of the United States during the late civil war in that country, the constant reclamations and sometimes the harsh charges of want of faith and breach of neutrality then made, and the extravagant demands at one point of the Alabama negotiations pressed against us, shew how hard is the position of a neutral, and how difficult it is to avoid causes of offence to one or other of the belligerents. 2 Vattel, Bk. III. ch. vii. § 104. Wheaton's Elements, Vol. II. Pt. IV. ch. iii. § 1. De Cussy, Droit Maritime, Liv. 1. tit. iii. § 9, and Opinions of Attorneys-General (American), Vol. 11. p. 87. |