not to remain within the territorial waters of the United States, and is given power to use the public armed force to carry the provisions of the act into effect, and to enforce the observance of the neutral duties required by law.1

It is worthy of remark that the neutrality laws of the United States, though passed nearly seventy years ago, are at the present time fully in accordance with the standard of neutral obligation as determined by international law.

The laws of both England and the United States are silent upon the question of the manufacture and sale of contraband of war, within their territorial jurisdiction, except in the case of building, arming, or equipping ships, fitted for, or adapted to, war-like uses. Dealing in contraband is forbidden in England, by proclamation, at the outbreak of a foreign war. It has never been forbidden in the United States. The policy of both governments has been to leave this question to be regulated by belligerents, in the exercise of the powers placed in their hands for that purpose by the law of nations.

Neutrality Laws of Other States. The provisions of the French law on the subject of neutrality are those contained in Articles 84 and 85 of the Penal Code. The first of these imposes a penalty of banishment for any conduct of a subject which, without the approval of his government, exposes the state to a declaration of war. If war actually results, the punishment is increased to transportation. The second article punishes with banishment any acts of a subject calculated to expose Frenchmen to reprisals. The precise acts which are so punishable are left to judicial determination; and thus far but three cases have arisen in which the laws were regarded as applicable. The responsibility of making suitable regulation on the subject of neutrality rests, in France, upon the government, and is usually made the subject of proclamation, whenever the

1 Revised Statutes of the United States, §§ 5281-5291; II Halleck, Pp. 199-204.

outbreak of war makes it necessary for France to assume an attitude of neutrality. The task of the government in this respect is made easy of performance by the fact that the manufacture and sale of the most offensive forms of contraband of war, such as powder, fire-arms, ammunition, and projectiles, are made the subject of state regulation. It is, therefore, not difficult for the government, at the outbreak of war, to impose such additional restrictions upon the manufacture and sale of contraband articles as will effectually prevent violations of its neutrality. The absence of positive law on the subject enables France to adapt its neutrality regulations to the standard of international law at any particular epoch—an advantage which is shared by all of the highly centralized governments on the continent of Europe. The law and practice of Belgium, Brazil, Italy, Holland, Russia, Spain, and Portugal are similar to those of France. Austria and Prussia have no laws upon the subject, and seem to need none, as ample powers to prevent violations of neutrality are vested in the respective governments. The laws of Denmark and Sweden are quite elaborate, resembling in many respects those of England and the United States.1

The "Droit d'Angarie." Although this right has been somewhat less frequently exercised in recent times than was formerly the case, it is still recognized at international law as a lawful restraint upon neutral commerce. In its exercise it resembles, in some respects, the right of embargo, which has already been explained,' and authorizes a belligerent, in an emergency of war, to apply neutral property to a hostile use; the neutral owner being compensated, in every case, for the property thus involuntarily appropriated to the military use of a belligerent. The most frequent form of appropriation, in former times, consisted in the taking of neutral merchant ships, which "were compelled to transport soldiers, ammunition, or other instru

1 Report of English Neutrality Laws Commission of 1870, p. 40.

'Page 266 ante.

ments of war; in other words, to become parties against their will to carrying on direct hostilities against a power with whom they were at peace. During the FrancoPrussian War the right was exercised, in an extreme form, by the Prussian Government, which caused several British merchant vessels to be seized and sunk at the mouth of the Seine, with a view to prevent the egress of certain French gunboats from that river. This act gave rise to a demand for indemnity on the part of the British Government, which was promptly acceded to by Prussia."

Although the right, as formerly exercised, exhibits a tendency to become extinguished by non-user, its application to international telegraphs and telephones, to the rollingstock of railways and other neutral property, bids fair to come into especial prominence in the wars of the future. Indeed, the rules agreed to by the International Peace Conference at The Hague contain provisions regulating the use of railway material, telegraphs, and the like, by belligerents in the prosecution of their military operations.3

UNNEUTRAL SERVICES

Neutral Conveyance of Enemy's Troops and Despatches. It has been seen that the conveyance of contraband of war, by a neutral individual, is an offence against the law of nations, and a citizen or subject of a neutral state who carries contraband to either belligerent assists that belligerent to a greater or less extent, depending upon the character and quantity of the goods transported. A neu

1 III Phillimore, pp. 49-53; I Azuni, Maritime Law of Europe, PP. 238-242; III Calvo, § 1277; IV Ibid. 88 2242-2249; Heffter, § 150, note; II Ferguson, § 251; Lawrence, Int. Law, § 252; Dana's Wheaton, 293, note 152; Hall,

278; Woolsey, 118, note; IV Hautefeuille, p. 439; Lawrence's Wheaton, p. 511, note 169; I Massé, p. 280; Risley, p. 139; I

Guelle, pp. 62, 63. For discussions of the derivation of the term and the former extent of the right, see II Ferguson, § 251, note; Woolsey, 118, note.

'Hall, § 278; III Phillimore, PP. 49-53.

3 See, in Appendix E, pars. 53 and 54 of the Rules of War on Land adopted by the International Peace Conference on Oct. 18, 1907.

tral who goes a step further and engages in the transport service of a belligerent renders still more material aid to such belligerent than is afforded by the mere conveyance of contraband, and, by such conveyance of troops, ammunition, provisions, and war-like stores to a belligerent, for the supply of his fleets or the support of his armies in the field, divests himself of his neutral character and acquires that of an enemy, including the liability to capture and condemnation of both ship and cargo.' The conveyance of troops and despatches operates still more powerfully to impress the neutral carrier with the enemy character to the extent of causing the ship so engaged to be condemned as prize of war-this because, in point of directness and importance, the service rendered by the conveyance of either is much greater than that afforded by the conveyance of ordinary contraband. The assistance rendered to an enemy by a single cargo of munitions of war, though direct and material, is, at best, limited. The mischief that may result from the carriage of a single despatch, or general officer, may have a decisive effect upon the issue of a war. The penalty for engaging in contraband trade usually extends to a forfeiture of the contraband articles. The question as to the ship and non-contraband cargo is made to depend on the guilty knowledge

"An attempt has been made to distinguish this case from the ordinary cases of employment in the transport service of the enemy, upon the ground that the war of Great Britain against France was a war distinct from that against the United States, and that Swedish subjects had a perfect right to assist the British arms in respect to the former, though not to the latter. Whatever might be the right of the Swedish sovereign, acting under his own authority, we are of opinion that if a Swedish vessel be engaged in the actual service of Great Britain, or in carrying stores for the exclusive use of

the British armies, she must, to all intents and purposes, be deemed a British transport. It is perfectly immaterial in what particular enterprise those armies might, at the time, be engaged; for the same important benefits are conferred upon an enemy, who thereby acquires a greater disposable force to bring into action against us." a-Per J. Story. The Commercen, Wheaton, 382; the Carolina, 4 Rob. 256; the Friendship, 6 Rob. 420; the Orozembo, Ibid. 430.

bring

a Chief-Justice Marshall strongly dissented from the application of this prinçiple.

of their owners. If they are forfeited, it is because a presumption of such knowledge is created by the fact of ownership. When troops or despatches are carried to a hostile destination, however, the presumption of guilt created by such carriage is so strong as to be regarded as conclusive; and the ship is invariably condemned as the instrument with which the offence against international law has been committed.'

Definition of Terms Troops and Despatches. The term troops includes not only military persons, but all individuals. having an official character in the service of a belligerent, whose assistance is material in the prosecution of the war, or whose detention is calculated to impair his military efficiency.

Despatches are official communications between official persons, in the military or civil service of a state, upon matters connected with the public business. All other communications, of whatever character, are unofficial, and therefore not subject to classification as despatches.

The Destination Important. In the conveyance of troops and despatches the destination of the vessel is of importance as creating a presumption of guilt or innocence. If the destination is hostile, the guilt of the carrier is presumed; if such destination be neutral, the contrary is the case, and the burden of proof lies on the captor to estab

"The general rule that the neutral carrier of enemy's property is entitled to his freight is now too firmly established to admit of discussion; but to this rule there are many exceptions. If the neutral be guilty of fraudulent or unneutral conduct, or has interposed himself to assist the enemy in carrying on the war, he is justly deemed to have forfeited his title to freight. Hence the carrying of contraband goods to the enemy, the engaging in the coasting or colonial trade of the enemy, the spoliation of papers, and the fraudulent suppression of enemy's inter

ests have been held to affect the neutral with the forfeiture of freight; and in cases of a more flagrant character, such as carrying despatches or hostile military passengers, an engagement in the transport service of the enemy, or a breach of blockade, the penalty of confiscation of the vessel has also been inflicted."-The Commercen, Wheaton, 382; the Atalanta, 6 Robinson, Adm. Rep. p. 440; the Madison, Edwards, 224; V Calvo, §§ 2796-2826; Hall, §§ 249, 250; III Phillimore, §§ 271274; Dana's Wheaton, § 502, note

228,