the individual claimant, in such a case, only when on the application of the neutral government whose territory has been thus violated. This rule is founded on the principle that the neutral state alone has been injured by the capture, and that the hostile claimant has no right to appear for the purpose of suggesting the invalidity of the capture." 1

This subject is illustrated by the following cases:

Case of the "Chesapeake." The Chesapeake was one of a line of passenger steamers plying between the ports of New York and Portland, Maine. In 1863, while on her way between those points, she was forcibly seized by a number of her passengers, who claimed to be in the naval service of the Confederate States. In effecting the seizure several of the crew were killed and wounded, and the rest were set on shore. The vessel was navigated for a short time by its captors, but was finally abandoned by them, in an unfrequented bay on the coast of Nova Scotia. She was afterwards found and seized, in British territorial waters, by a public armed vessel of the United States. The act was complained of by the British Government as a violation of its neutrality, and a demand was made that the vessel be surrendered and the prisoners restored to British soil. The demand was acceded to by the United States, who disclaimed any intention of exercising any authority within the territorial jurisdiction of Great Britain. The government of the United States, in complying with the demand for the surrender of the property and persons, proposed that those who had been concerned in the forcible seizure of the vessel should be surrendered, with a view to their prosecution for the crime of piracy.

1 Boyd's Wheaton, § 430; the Anne, 3 Wheaton, p. 435; Manning, pp. 465-467; Hall, § 227; II Twiss, pp. 442, 443; Snow, pp. 110-123; Risley, pp. 172, 173; Walker, Manual, p. 133; II Halleck, pp. 204, 205; the Anne, 5 C.

Rob. Rep. 373; Snow's Cases, Int. Law, p. 393; Heffter, §§ 146-150; the General Armstrong, Snow's Cases, p. 396; the Perle, I Pistoye et Duverdy, 100; Snow's Cases, p. 398. See, also, Appendix F, Convention No. 13.

The British Government declined to consider this proposition until the captured persons had been returned to its territorial jurisdiction. The ship was afterwards restored to its owners.1

Case of the "Florida." In 1864 the Confederate warsteamer Florida entered the port of Bahia, Brazil, for the purpose of obtaining coal and provisions, and of effecting some necessary repairs. While thus engaged, the Wachusett, a public armed vessel of the United States, entered the same port. The Brazilian Government, fearing a conflict, took such precautions as it deemed proper to prevent its occurrence, and, in accordance with its port regulations, assigned an anchoring-ground to each of the belligerent vessels. The commander of the Wachusett, taking advantage of the absence, at night, of a number of the officers and crew of the Florida, sent a boat's crew to attach a cable to the Confederate steamer, towed her out of the harbor, and conveyed her as a prize to the United States. This flagrant violation of neutral rights was at once complained of by the Brazilian Government, and the act was promptly disavowed by the United States. An apology was offered, and reparation made by saluting the Brazilian flag in the port of Bahia. The crew of the Florida were restored to Brazilian jurisdiction. The captured vessel foundered in Hampton Roads, under circumstances which were satisfactorily explained to the Brazilian Government." "The restitution of the ship having thus become impossible, the President expressed his regret that the sovereignty of Brazil had been violated, dismissed the consul at Bahia, who had advised the offence, and sent the commander of the Wachusett before a court-martial."

I Dig. Int. Law, § 27; Dana's Wheaton, § 430, note 207; IV Calvo, § 2659.

2 Seward to Da Silva, December 26, 1864. III Dig. Int. Law, §§ 27, 399; Boyd's Wheaton, p. 499; Hall, p. 624; Dana's Wheaton, p.

526, note 209. See, also, Secretary Seward's letter of explanation, Foreign Relations of the U. S. 1863, 1864.

3 Bernard, Neutrality of Great Britain, etc. p. 433.

IMMUNITY OF NEUTRAL TERRITORY

Neutral Territory. As hostilities in time of war can lawfully take place only in the territory of either belligerent or on the high seas, it follows that neutral territory, as such, is entitled to an entire immunity from acts of hostility; it cannot be entered by armed bodies of belligerents, because such an entry would constitute an invasion of the territory, and therefore of the sovereignty, of the neutral; nor, for the same reason, can a public armed vessel of either belligerent enter the territorial waters of a neutral with intent to do an act of hostility. The territory and territorial waters of a neutral state are, therefore, sacred from belligerent intrusion, save with the consent of the neutral government.' Such consent may be granted, or denied, to both belligerents; but, according to the present rule, cannot be granted to either to the exclusion of the other.

Asylum to Troops. Troops fleeing from an enemy may seek an asylum in neutral territory. They must release their prisoners, however, give up all booty and captured property, and surrender their arms during the period of their sojourn upon neutral soil. The enemy must cease his pursuit at the neutral boundary. Should he continue it farther, his act is one of invasion, and would be properly regarded as an act of hostility by the neutral state whose sovereignty is offended. Should either belligerent undertake to perform acts, within the territory of a friendly state, which are inconsistent with the neutrality of that state, the neutral may not only cause such acts to be immediately desisted from, but may punish the agents of the belligerent, if their acts are in violation of its municipal laws, or may forcibly eject them from its territory."

1 III Phillimore, p. 285; II Halleck, p. 177; Dana's Wheaton, § 426; Risley, pp. 172, 173; Hall, §§ 227, 228; II Twiss, § 217; IV Cal

vo, §§ 2654-2667; Heffter, § 149; Klüber, § 285; Bluntschli, §§ 784786.

2 II Halleck, p. 177; II Twiss,

The rules of The Hague Convention of October 18, 1907, in respect to hostilities in neutral territory are extremely clear and comprehensive, and provide that—

I. "The territory of neutral powers is inviolable.

II. "Belligerents are forbidden to move troops, or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral power.

III. "Belligerents are likewise forbidden:

(a.) To erect on the territory of a neutral power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;

(b.) To use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages. V. "It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.

VI. "The responsibility of a neutral power is not engaged by the fact that persons separately cross its frontier to offer their services to one of the belligerents.

VIII. "A neutral power is not called upon to forbid or restrict the use on behalf of the belligerents of telegraph or telephone cables or of wireless telegraphy apparatus belonging to it, or to companies or private individuals.

IX. "Every measure of restriction or prohibition taken by a neutral power in regard to the matters referred to in Articles VII. and VIII. must be impartially applied by it to both belligerents.

"A neutral power must see to the same obligation being observed by companies or private individuals owning telegraph or telephone cables or wireless telegraphy apparatus. X. "The fact of a neutral power resisting, even by force,

PP. 440-444; III Phillimore, p. 285; Hautefeuille, tit. iv. chap. i.; Risley, pp. 172, 173; Walker, Man

ual, $ 59, 60; Dana's Wheaton, §§ 426, 427; Snow, pp. 119-121; IV Calvo, §§ 2644-2652.

attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act."1

Entrance of War-ships to Neutral Ports. The right of a public armed vessel of a belligerent to enter a neutral port, when not in distress, is usually conceded, and is presumed, unless notice to the contrary is formally given by the neutral government. They may be forbidden to enter certain ports, or to enter neutral territory at all except in distress, but the rule must bear equally upon both belligerents. Privateers may be denied entrance to neutral ports, especially if the neutral government is a party to the Declaration of Paris. The bringing-in of prizes is still authorized by existing treaties, though the present tendency is to restrict the right within the narrowest limits, if not to deny it altogether. The condemnation or sale of such prizes by a neutral prize-court, or by a belligerent prize-court sitting in neutral territory, is no longer permitted.

A belligerent war-ship which has been permitted to enter a neutral port may procure there such supplies, not contraband of war, as may be permitted by the neutral government. The supply of coal is now made the subject of special regulation, and only a limited amount is allowed to be taken in."

The present tendency of the rules of international law is

1 Treaty of October 18, 1907; for text, see Appendix F, Convention No. 5.

2II Halleck, p. 183; Dana's Wheaton, § 434; VII Opin. Att.Gen. p. 122; Hall, §§ 230, 231; the Exchange, 7 Cranch, 116.

II Twiss, § 201; I Hautefeuille, 380; VII Opin. Att.-Gen. p. 122; IV Calvo, §§ 2676-2683.

Hall, pp. 607, 608; II Halleck, p. 181; Martens, Précis du Droit de Gens, $312. During the American Civil War, the British Government (on January 31, 1862) adopted the rule that a belligerent armed vessel was to be permitted to receive, at any British port, a supply of

coal sufficient to enable her to reach a port of her own country, or a nearer destination. A second supply was not to be given within three months save with the express permission of the government.Earl Russell to Admiralty Commissioners, January 31, 1862, State Papers, 1871, lxxi. p. 167. Similar instructions were issued by the United States Government during the Franco-Prussian War.-President's Proclamation of October 8, 1870, 16 Stats. at Large, 1135. See, also, II Ortolan, p. 286; Bluntschli, $773; IV Calvo, §§ 2676-2684; Heffter, § 149. See also Appendix F, Convention No. 13, par. xix.