war, sailed from Plymouth, ostensibly for Brazil. The English ministry, suspecting their design to be to effect a landing at Terceira, ordered a squadron to the Azores with a view to prevent their landing on Portuguese territory. The vessels were intercepted off Porto Praya, their passengers were not permitted to land, and they were forcibly escorted back to the vicinity of the British Channel, where they were released and took refuge in a port of France. In this case, although it violated the sovereignty of Portugal by the use of force in Portuguese waters, Great Britain fully performed its duty as a neutral under the rules of international law.1

Case of the "Horsa." The Horsa was a Danish steamer, sailing under the Danish flag and papers, and her captain and officers, who were indicted for a violation of the neutrality laws of the United States, were Danish subjects. The Horsa was engaged in the fruit trade, and, on November 9, 1895, cleared from Philadelphia for Port Antonio, Jamaica, with orders to proceed to a point on the high seas off the port of Barnegat, New Jersey, and there await orders. At the point thus agreed upon, she was joined, the same night, by a steam-lighter, having on board several cases of merchandise and between thirty and forty passengers; these were transferred to the Horsa, which proceeded on her way. During the voyage the packages were opened and the arms and ammunition which they contained were distributed among the passengers, who were drilled and instructed in their use; at the same time the

1 Hall, § 222; Dana's Wheaton, $439, note 215, p. 566; Risley, pp. 194, 195; III Phillimore, pp. 287296. In 1870, during the FrancoPrussian War, 1200 Frenchmen left New York for France upon two steamers carrying the French flag and which carried as cargo a large quantity of arms and ammunition. The passengers were French subjects returning to their allegiance at the outbreak of war; they were not officered, they were without organization, and made

no use of the arms and ammunition which were contained in the cargoes of the vessels which transported them. The United States government, which had permitted their departure, justified it on the ground that they did not constitute a hostile expedition, and that for that reason their departure from its territorial jurisdiction did not constitute a violation of its neutral obligation."-Risley, pp. 195-197.

remaining contents of the packages, which included a Maxim gun, were prepared for landing. About six miles off the coast of Cuba, upon which island there was at the time an insurrection in progress against Spain, the passengers were disembarked, taking with them the arms and munitions of war which they had brought on board the Horsa. The officers of the ship were indicted for a violation of the neutrality laws of the United States, and were convicted in the court of first instance. The case was carried to the Supreme Court by writ of error, where it was decided that the acts above set forth constituted a hostile expedition, and therefore a violation of the neutral duty of the United States. The judgment of the court below was affirmed as to the captain, but reversed as to the officers of the ship, who were granted a new trial.1

Case of the "Itata." In January, 1891, the steamer Itata was captured in the harbor of Valparaiso, Chili, by a party of insurgents against the existing government of the republic. She was officered and manned by the insurgents and used by them, from time to time, for transport purposes, for the conveyance of provisions and munitions of war, and as a hospital ship. In April, 1891, one Trumbull, representing the insurgent party, came to the United States and purchased, in New York, a large quantity of arms and ammunition, with the intention of sending them to Chili for the use of the insurrectionary forces. The Itata was ordered to California for that purpose, and was escorted as far as Cape San Lucas by the Esmeralda, an insurgent cruiser. During her voyage to California the Itata had on board four small brass cannon, with ammunition therefor, and took on board, at a Chilian port, twelve soldiers, with their arms and uniforms, who were employed as stokers.

At Cape San Lucas the cannon and ammunition, together with the arms and uniforms of the soldiers, were packed in the hold of the vessel, leaving on deck one small cannon

Wiborg vs. U. S. 163 U. S. 632; U. S. vs. Ybanez, 53 Fed. Rep, 536; U. S. vs. Pena, 69 Fed. Rep. 983.

which had been used for saluting purposes. The arms and ammunition were loaded on a schooner at San Francisco, and transported to the island of Santa Catalina, where she expected to meet the Itata and transfer her cargo; but this was prevented by the seizure of the Itata in the port of San Diego, whither she had gone for coal and stores. The arms were subsequently transferred to the Itata near San Clemente Island, off the southern coast of California, and were immediately transported to Chili. On September 4, 1891, the belligerency of the insurrectionary party in Chili was recognized by the United States. The case was tried in the proper district court of the United States, where it was decided that the facts, as above set forth, did not constitute the fitting-out of a hostile expedition against a government with which the United States was at peace, and that the mere purchase and carriage of arms and war-like stores to a party of insurgents in a foreign country, such munitions. not constituting a part of the fittings or furnishings of the vessel, did not constitute a violation of the neutral duty of the United States or violate her neutrality laws.' The government of the United States acted with commendable promptness in the Itata case, which proved, upon inquiry, to be a mere commercial undertaking with none of the characteristic elements of a hostile expedition.

Case of the "Alabama." The most conspicuous illustration, in recent times, of the failure of a state to observe its neutral obligations is that afforded by the case of the Alabama. Among the most pressing needs of the Confederates was that of sea-going ships capable of being used for war. To enable the Confederates to overcome this disparity of force at sea a scheme was projected of procuring by purchase, in England, a number of warsteamers for the Confederate navy. This undertaking was quite different from those that had preceded it,

The Itata, 49 Fed. Rep. 646; Ibid. 56 Fed. Rep. 505; U. S. vs. Weed, 5 Wallace, 62; the Watchful, 6 Wallace, 91; U. S. vs.

Trumbull, 48 Fed. Rep. 99; For. Rel. U. S. 1891, pp. 122, 132, 316322; the Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1.

inasmuch as it was proposed that these vessels, so soon as they had been completed and equipped for war, whether in England or elsewhere, should, without being sent to any port within the jurisdiction of the Confederacy, at once engage in hostile operations against the United States. With this end in view, agents were despatched to England with instructions to arrange for the purchase or construction of a number of swift and powerful steamers for this purpose. These agents were to arrange all the details of armament and equipment, and were to transfer them, when completed and ready for service, to certain designated officers of the Confederate navy.

These instructions were carried out in all their essential details. The ships, three in number, which were afterwards known as the Florida, Alabama, and Shenandoah, were purchased or constructed in England. Their armament and equipment were obtained, and a portion of their crews enlisted, in British territory, without encountering any obstacles which do not seem to have been overcome without special difficulty. In every case the ships left England without guns or ammunition on board, and but partly manned; and in every case the articles needed to prepare the vessel for active service, and a part or the whole of the crew, were shipped from England by another vessel, the equipment being completed at a point previously agreed upon, usually in neutral waters, and never within British jurisdiction.

Later History of the Confederate Cruisers. Of the three cruisers whose origin has been alluded to, the career may be briefly told. The Florida, on August 11, 1862, completed her armament in neutral West Indian waters, and entered upon her duty of destroying merchant vessels. Her career was terminated in October, 1864, by her illegal capture in the port of Bahia, Brazil.

The Alabama, in spite of the urgent remonstrances of the American minister, effected her departure from English waters on the 29th of July, 1862. Her armament and crew were placed on board at Angra Bay, in the Azores Islands, near the end of the following month. After a most eventful career,

during which she succeeded in capturing or destroying fiftyeight merchant vessels, she was defeated and sunk in an engagement with the United States steamer Kearsarge, off the port of Havre, France, on June 19, 1864.

The Shenandoah, a steamer formerly engaged in the China trade, attracted the attention of the Confederate agents in London by her speed and superior sailing qualities, as well as by her adaptability to the purposes which they had in view. She was, therefore, purchased, and on October 8, 1864, cleared from the Thames, ostensibly for Bombay. Her real destination, however, was the island of Madeira, whither a tender had preceded her containing her armament and crew. The transfer was effected in neutral jurisdiction, as in the preceding cases, about October 21st of the same year. The evidence submitted in the case of this vessel satisfied the Geneva Board of Arbitration that no responsibility attached to the British Government for her conduct up to the date of her arrival at Melbourne, Australia. The circumstances attending her conduct there should have caused her detention, but did not, and for her acts, after the date of her departure from Melbourne, the British Government was held responsible. The career of this vessel is remarkable from the fact that she continued to make captures, in the North Pacific, after the termination of hostilities in the Civil War. Upon being notified of the peace in July, 1865, she was conveyed by her captain to Liverpool, and was there surrendered to the British Government.'

Result of their Operations. The result of the operations of these vessels and their tenders was, in effect, to destroy the merchant marine of the United States. Such of its ships as escaped capture or destruction were transferred to foreign flags, to secure an immunity from capture by acquiring the neutral character. The question continued an open one between the governments for a number of years, subjecting their relations to a constant strain, and at times taking such a turn

For Captain Waddell's letter surrendering this vessel, see Ber to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, nard, pp. 434-439.