Time of sojourn of vessels. completing necessary repairs, or from stress of weather. Regulations as to the time of departure of hostile vessels from a neutral port were quite fully outlined in President Grant's proclamations of August 22 and of October 8, 1870, during the FrancoHe declared that no vessel of war of either belligerent should leave the Prussian War.1 proclamation. แ "waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from which a vessel of the other belligerent . . . shall have previously departed, until after the expiration of at Regulation by least twenty-four hours from the departure of such last-mentioned vessel beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. If any ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall, after the time this notification takes effect, enter any waters of the United States, such vessel shall be required to put to sea within twentyfour hours after her entrance into such . . . waters, except in case of stress of weather or of her requiring provisions or things necessary for the subsistence of her crew, or for repairs; in either of which cases the authorities . . . shall require her to put to sea as soon as possible after the expiration of such period of twenty-four hours, without permitting her to take in supplies beyond what may be necessary for her immediate use; and no such vessel . . . shall continue within such ... waters . . . for a longer period than twenty-four hours after her necessary repairs shall have been completed, unless within such twenty-four hours a vessel . . . of the other belligerent, shall have departed therefrom, in which case the time limited for the departure . . . shall be extended so far as may be necessary to secure an interval not less than twenty-four hours between such departure and that of any . . ship of the other belligerent which may have previously quit the same . . . waters. No ship of war . . . of either belligerent shall be detained in any . . . waters of the United States more than As to the British Neutrality Regulations, see 2 Ferguson, Appendix F, p. 77; 2 Lorimer, 446. ... twenty-four hours, by reason of the successive departures from such . . . waters of more than one vessel of the other belligerent. But if there be several vessels of each or either of the two belligerents in the same waters, the order of their departure therefrom shall be so arranged as to afford the opportunity of leaving alternately to the vessels of the respective belligerents, and to cause the least detention consistent with the objects of this proclamation. No ship of war . . . of either belligerent shall be permitted, while in any. waters within the jurisdiction of the United States, to take in any supplies except provisions and such other things as may be requisite for the subsistence of her crew, and except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel, if without sail power, to the nearest European port of her own country; or in case the vessel is rigged to go under sail, and may also be propelled by steam power, then with half the quantity of coal which she would be entitled to receive if dependent upon steam alone; and no coal shall be again supplied to any such ship of war. . . in the same or in any other .. waters of the United States, without special permission, until after the expiration of three months from the time when such coal may have been last supplied to her within the waters of the United States, unless such ship of war . . . shall, since last supplied, have entered a European port of the government to which she belongs." 1 Regulations in regard to vessels with prizes. The tendency at the present time is to make regulations which shall guard most effectively against any possible use of neutral maritime jurisdiction for hostile purposes. In the Spanish-American War of 1898, Brazil provided that in case of two belligerent vessels: "If the vessel leaving, as well as that left behind, be a steamer, or both be sailing vessels, there shall remain the interval of twenty-four hours between the sailing of one and the other. If the one leaving be a sailing vessel 18 Messages and Papers of Presidents, pp. 86 et seq. and that remaining a steamer, the latter may only leave seventy-two hours thereafter." Many states had adopted the practice of absolutely refusing entrance within their waters to belligerent vessels with prizes, except in case of distress. Some states prescribed that, in such cases, the prizes should be liberated. The Hague Convention of 1907 respecting Neutral Powers in Naval War has the following: "ART. XXI. A prize may only be brought into a neutral port on account of unseaworthiness, stress of weather, or want of fuel or provisions. "It must leave as soon as the circumstances which justified its entry are at an end. If it does not, the neutral Power must order it to leave at once; should it fail to obey, the neutral Power must employ the means at its disposal to release it with its officers and crew and to intern the prize crew. "ART. XXII. A neutral Power must, similarly, release a prize brought into one of its ports under circumstances other than those referred to in Article XXI. "ART. XXIII. A neutral Power may allow prizes to enter its ports and roadsteads, whether or not under convoy, when they are brought there to be sequestrated pending the decision of a Prize Court. It may have the prize taken to another of its ports. "If the prize is convoyed by a war-ship, the prize crew may go on board the convoying ship. "If the prize is not under convoy, the prize crew are left at liberty." 2 The United States and some other powers have not accepted Article XXIII permitting sequestration. 1 Proc. and Decrees of the war with Spain, Brazil, XVI, p. 15. 130. No Direct Assistance by the Neutral Allowed The neutral state may not furnish to a belligerent any assistance in military forces, supplies of war, loans of money, or in any similar manner. (a) Formerly military assistance was often furnished to one of the belligerents by a state claiming to be neutral on the ground that such action was justified by a treaty obligation entered into before the war could be Military assistance forbidden. foreseen. This position was supported by some of the ablest of the authorities of the nineteenth century,1 but is no longer admitted. (b) It is generally held that a neutral state may not furnish to one or both of the belligerents supplies of war. As Hall says, "The general principle that a mercantile act is not a violation of a state of neutrality, is pressed too far when it is made to cover the sale of munitions or vessels of war by a state." 2 Furnishing of supplies of war not allowable. A case that aroused discussion was occasioned by the action of the authorities of the United States conformably to a joint resolution of Congress of July 20, 1868, by which the Secretary of War was to cause "to be sold, after offer at public sale on thirty days' notice, . . . the old cannon, arms, and other ordnance stores . . . damaged or otherwise unsuitable for the United States military service, etc."3 Complaint was made that sales made under this act during the time of the FrancoGerman War were in violation of neutrality. A committee appointed by the United States Senate to investigate these charges reported that sales "were not made under such circumstances as to violate the obligations of our government as a neutral power; and this, to recapitulate, for three reasons: (1) The Remingtons [the alleged purchasing agents of the 1 Wheat. D., § 425; Dana, contra, note 203; 1 Kent Com., pp. 49, 116; Bluntschli, §759; Woolsey, § 165. 'Hall, p. 597. 15 U. S. Sts. at Large, 259. French government] were not, in fact, agents of France during the time when sales were made to them; (2) if they were such agents, such fact was neither known nor suspected by our government at the time the sales were made; and (3) if they had been such agents, and that fact had been known to our government, or if, instead of sending agents, Louis Napoleon or Frederick William had personally appeared at the War Department to purchase arms, it would have been lawful for us to sell to either of them, in pursuance of a national policy adopted by us prior to the commencement of hostilities." 1 This last statement does not accord with the best opinion and doubtless would not be maintained at the present time. The first and second claims might justify the sale, though it would be in better accord with a strict neutrality for a state to refrain from all sale of supplies of war during the period of war between two states, toward which states it professes to maintain a neutral attitude. This, of course, does not affect the rights of commerce in arms on the part of the citizens of a neutral state not residing in belligerent territory.2 (c) The authorities are practically agreed that loans of money to a belligerent state may not be made or guaranteed by a neutral state. This does not, however, Loans of money affect the commerce in money which may be carried on by the citizens of a neutral state not forbidden. residing in belligerent territory.3 (d) A neutral may not permit the enlistment of troops for belligerent service within its jurisdiction. This applies to such action as might assume the proportions of recruiting. The citizens or subjects of permitted. a neutral state may enter the service of one of the belligerents in a private manner.4 Enlistment of troops not 13 Whart., § 391. 'Appendix, p. 422. Appendix, p. 421, Articles IV, VI. |