In 1862 the Alabama, which had been fitted out in England, left Liverpool, ready to receive warlike equipment, but not equipped. The Alabama received her equipment and crew for the most part outside of British jurisdiction. The case of the Florida, Georgia, and Shenandoah were similar. The spoliations upon commerce led the United States to claim that, in permitting these vessels to fit out in and depart from British jurisdiction, Great Britain had been remiss in the performance of neutral duties. The claims were at length under the Treaty of Washington submitted to an arbitration tribunal, which met at Geneva, December 15, 1871. The tribunal awarded to the United States $15,500,000. It was held that Great Britain had not displayed "due diligence" in preventing the fitting out of these vessels, and that "due diligence" would be in "exact proportion to the risks to which either of the belligerents may be exposed from failure to fulfill the obligations of neutrality on their part." This interpretation has been regarded as putting a heavy burden upon neutrals, and it seems that "due diligence" should be determined from conditions as appearing to the neutral, rather than from risks to the belligerents, of which a neutral can scarcely be cognizant.18

measure with such an impotent neutral state as China." Int. Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, p. 444.

"The occurrence reflects no credit upon a power which up to that time had been careful to keep its conduct correct according to the standards of international law." Lawrence, War and Neutrality in the Far East (2d Ed.) p. 293.

"So far as the Ryeshitelni incident is a question between the belligerents, it is difficult, on any construction of the case of the General Armstrong, to defend the action of Japan, which was clearly the aggressor." Smith & Sibley, Int. Law during Russo-Japanese War, p. 122.

"The Japanese government refused to offer any apology, disavowal, or restitution for this gross violation of Chinese neutrality, and it must be admitted that her conduct in this matter, although altogether exceptional, constitutes a blot upon a record which was otherwise remarkably clean and spotless from the standpoint of international law." Hershey, Int. Law and Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War, p. 263.

13 Cushing, Treaty of Washington; Bernard, Neutrality of Great Britain during the American Civil War; 1 Moore, Int. Arbitrations, 315.

There is a point where it may be difficult to distinguish between a legitimate business transaction on the part of individuals and an undertaking which it is the duty of the neutral to prevent. The Hague Convention of 1907 holds the neutral under obligation to use "the means at its disposal" to prevent violations of its neutrality by its own nationals or by belligerents, which seems a reasonable basis for estimating neutral liability and is comparable with the standards of liability under municipal law.

A neutral state is not bound to prevent the export of or commerce in arms or war material in the ordinary course of trade.

A neutral is, however, under obligations to prevent within neutral jurisdiction the recruiting or enlistment of men for belligerent service, though it is not responsible in case where persons go separately to enlist in the belligerent service.

Formerly the passage of troops through belligerent territory hent u was generally allowed. Later it was allowed under treaty stipulations. In 1815 the allied armies passed through the territory of Switzerland; but Switzerland was practically under duress, and the same government refused a similar permission in 1870 to certain Alsatians. In the Franco-German war of 1870, the German government endeavored to induce the Belgian government to permit the passage through Belgian territory of wounded Prussians and French. This was referred to the French government, who replied that it would consider such act as a violation of neutrality. The permission was refused, and the Belgian government disarmed, and detained as prisoners, all soldiers of either army that were driven into their territory. By the Hague Convention of 1907, the "belligerents are forbidden to dispatch troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral power," and the neutrals are called upon to prevent such action.14

In general, a neutral is under obligation "to employ the means at its disposal" to prevent (a) the commission of hostilities within its jurisdiction; (b) the using of its territory as

14 Hague Convention, 1907, Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in case of War on Land, arts. II-V, Appendix, p. 546.

a base; (c) the fitting out of hostile expeditions within its jurisdiction; and (d) the equipping of vessels for such expeditions.

NEUTRAL OBLIGATION OF TOLERATION.

106. The neutral state is under obligation to tolerate in time of war interference which would not be allowed in time of peace.

Because of the mere existence of war, which is itself regarded as legitimate, a neutral state is under obligation to tolerate certain acts by the states engaged in war which in time of peace would not be allowed. The belligerent claims the right to put his opponent beyond the power of resistance, and in the prosecution of this end claims the right to prevent any action by neutrals which would hinder the attainment of his object, either by making it possible for his opponent to resist longer or more effectively. Such acts of interference as the neutral tolerates are commonly classed under the following heads:

Visit and Search of Neutral Private Vessels.

(a) The form of interference which is most common is that of visit and search of neutral private vessels on the high seas or within belligerent jurisdiction. In time of peace a private vessel upon the high seas would be under the jurisdiction of the state whose flag it is entitled to carry. In time of war the belligerents may investigate, in order to learn what the relation of the vessel may be to the war.

Contraband.

(b) Certain goods, which in time of peace are articles which a merchant vessel may carry freely, may from their usefulness in war be liable to seizure.

Blockade.

(c) Ports open to commerce in time of peace may for military ends be closed in time of war.

Unneutral Service.

(d) Acts which are allowed in time of peace may become liable to penalty if performed in time of war.

Exercise of Military Authority.

(e) The exercise of military authority over neutral persons and property may be in the belligerent's own territory, or in the time of military occupation in the territory of his opponent, or it may be upon the high seas.

NEUTRAL DUTY OF REGULATION.

107. A neutral state may during war regulate the conduct of persons subject to its jurisdiction and the conduct of belligerents within its jurisdiction.

Neutrality laws usually prescribe in detail the course of conduct which a neutral state proposes to require from those within its jurisdiction during war. These laws are municipal in character, but become obligatory in an international sense when made part of a public neutrality proclamation. Such laws are quite full, in the United States usually called the "Neutrality Act," 15 and in Great Britain usually called the "Foreign Enlistment Act." 16 Such laws usually prohibit

certain acts under penalty, to be inflicted by domestic authority, and withdraw protection in case force is used by the belligerent to prevent certain actions.17

15 Rev. St. §§ 5281-5291 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 3599-3602). 16 St. 33 & 34 Vict. c. 90.

17 "Every person, who, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, begins or sets on foot, or provides, or prepares the means for, any military expedition or enterprise, to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominions of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor and shall be fined not exceeding three thousand dollars and imprisoned not more than three years." Rev. St. § 5286 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3601).

The British Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870 was passed in pursuance of the report of a royal commission appointed for that purpose. Section 1 defines and punishes by fine and imprisonment illegal enlistment.

Section 2 refers to military or naval expeditions.

Section 3 prohibits the augmentation without license of the warlike force of any ship, etc.

Section 5: "Any person, who, within Her Majesty's dominions, and without the license of. Her Majesty, (1) builds, agrees to build or

Neutrality proclamations generally contain the regulations which the neutral state proposes to enforce during war. Sometimes these regard both the relations of those subject to the jurisdiction of the neutral state and belligerents, who would ordinarily be granted exemption from its jurisdiction. These proclamations usually prescribe the conditions under which vessels may enter, sojourn, coal, etc., within neutral jurisdiction, and regulate such other matters as the state may deem expedient.

The Hague Conventions of 1907 regard it as "desirable that the powers should issue detailed enactments to regulate the results of the attitude of neutrality when adopted by them," and consider that it is "for neutral powers an admitted duty to apply these rules impartially to the several belligerents." Regulations as to Internment of Belligerent Troops.

In general the troops of a belligerent may not enter the land area of a neutral.18

"Art. XI. A neutral power, which receives on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies, shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theater of war.

"It may keep them in camps, and even confine them in fortresses or in places set apart for this purpose.

causes to be built, (2) issues or delivers a commission to, (3) equips, or (4) dispatches, or causes or allows to be dispatched, any ship with intent or knowledge or having reasonable cause to believe that the same shall or will be employed in the military or naval service of any foreign state at war with any state with which Her Majesty is at peace, is declared thereby to offend against the law of Great Britain." (An exception is made in the case of a person who builds or equips a vessel in pursuance of a contract made before the outbreak of war provided he complies with certain conditions prescribed in the act.)

Section 23 empowers the Secretary of State to seize and search and detain a suspected ship until condemned or released by process of law. Section 24 makes it the duty of the local authority to detain a suspected ship, and communicate at once the fact of such detention to the proper authority.

For provisions of other states, vide Pitt-Cobbett, Cas. Int. Law (2d Ed.) pp. 288-291.

18 Hague Convention, 1907, Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, Art. II, Appendix, p. 546.