those contained in what is known as the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870. They extend to all the dominions of her Majesty, including the adjacent territorial waters. The act forbids British subjects to accept, or agree to accept, a commission in the military or naval service of a state at war with any state with which her Majesty is at peace; to leave the realm with intent to engage in such service, or to induce another person to embark under false representations as to such service; and imposes a penalty upon any master of a ship who knowingly takes such persons on board ship, with intent to carry them to such state. It is also forbidden under severe penalties of fine and imprisonment—

(a.) "To build, or agree to build, or to cause to be built, 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 friendly state."

(b.) "To issue or deliver any commission for 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 friendly state."

(c.) "To equip 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 friendly state."

(d.) "To despatch, or cause or allow to be despatched, 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 a friendly state."

When a ship is built by the order of a foreign state at war with a friendly state, the presumption is that it is intended for the naval service of the former state.

It is also forbidden to increase the armament, equipment, or force of such ships, or to aid in their construction or equipment, and it is also forbidden to fit out, or aid or assist in fit

ting out, any expedition against the dominions of a friendly state. The ships engaged in such acts are to be forfeited, and penalties of fine and imprisonment are to be imposed upon all persons violating any of the provisions of the act.'

The provisions of this act are of the most stringent character, and, if rigidly enforced, are calculated to prevent any act, on the part of any person within the jurisdiction of Great Britain, which can, in the remotest degree, compromise the neutrality of the British Government.

Neutrality Laws of the United States. The neutrality laws of the United States are chiefly contained in the acts of June 5, 1794, and April 20, 1818. By these acts it is declared a misdemeanor for any citizen of the United States to accept or exercise a commission to serve a foreign state in war against any friendly state; or to enlist, or enter himself, or hire or retain another person to enlist, or to go beyond the jurisdiction of the United States to enlist, or with intent to be enlisted, into such foreign service; or to fit out or arm, or to increase or augment the force of any armed vessel, with the intent that such vessel shall be employed in the service of a power at war with a friendly state; or to begin, set on foot, or provide or prepare the means for, any military expedition or enterprise against the territory of any foreign state with whom the United States is at peace.

The President is authorized to compel any foreign vessel to depart which, by the law of nations or by treaty, ought 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."

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.

33 and 34 Vict. chap. xc.; III

Phillimore, pp. 236-242.

2 Revised Statutes of the United

States. § 5281-5291; II Halleck, pp. 199–204.

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, warlike 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 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.'

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 instruments 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

1 Report of English Neutrality Laws Commission of 1870, p. 40. 2 Page 266 ante.

III Phillimore, pp. 49-53; I Azuni, Maritime Law of Europe, pp. 238-242; III Calvo, § 1277; IV Ibid. §§ 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.

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 rolling-stock 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.2

References. For the old view of neutrality the student is referred to Vattel, liv. iii. chap. vii. §§ 103-111; Azuni, “Maritime Law," vol. ii. chaps. i. - v. For the views now generally accepted, see Hall, pt. iv. chaps. ii.-iv.; Boyd's Wheaton, §§ 405-501; II Halleck, chaps. xxiv. xxviii.; Creasy, pp. 570-683; Lawrence, "International Law," §§ 243268; IV Calvo, §§ 2491-2707; II Lorimer, pp. 121-129; II Twiss, §§ 208240; Walker, "Science of International Law," pp. 374-526; II Ortolan, pp. 77-83; Manning, bk. v. chaps. i.-vi. viii.-xii.; III Phillimore, pp. 225-386; Woolsey, §§ 163-192; Bernard, “The Neutrality of England"; Nys, "La Guerre Maritime," chaps. i. ii. vi.; Glass, Marine International Law," pp. 573-603; II G. F. De Martens, §§ 305-314, 323-326; Klüber, §§ 279-287, 299-316; Heffter, pp. 269-286; Kusserow, “Les Devoirs d'un Gouvernement Neutre"; and I Hautefeuille, pp. 195-407; vol. ii. pp. 1-69, 289-462; vol. iii. pp. 214-276, 432-449. For a discussion of the Alabama Case and the Geneva Arbitration, see Bernard, "Neutrality of England"; Cushing, "Treaty of Washington"; "The Alabama Question," by Professor Bluntschli, vol. ii. “Revue de Droit International," pp. 452-485; see, also, vol. i. Ibid. pp. 153, 449; vol. ii. Ibid. p. 142; vol. iii. Ibid. p. 115; vol. iv. Ibid. p. 127; vol. vi. Ibid. pp. 453--581; vol. vii. Ibid. pp, 70, 127; "The Geneva Arbitration," vols. i.-iv.; "Foreign Relations of the United States," 1872; IV Calvo, §§ 2558-2591; III Phillimore, pp. 250-273; Hall, §§ 222-229; Gessner, "Sur la Réforme du Droit Maritime de la Guerre," in vol. viii. of "Revue de Droit International";

1 Hall, § 278; III Phillimore, pp. 49-53.

2

See, in Appendix E, pars. 53

and 54 of the Rules of War on Land adopted by the International Peace Conference on July 29, 1899.