Declaration of the through which he hoped to attain to that object. Upon this supposition the policy of the President of the United States on the recent occasion of the Declaration of Maritime Law made at the Congress of Paris in 1856, involves no departure from the policy of the United States in 178515. § 207. The Declaration of the Congress of Paris Congress of of 16 April 1856 was, that "Privateering is and Paris. remains abolished 16" Mr. Lawrence in his last edi tion of Wheaton's Elements has very justly remarked that this Declaration is only binding upon the Parties to it, and does not constitute Privateering an offence against the Law of Nations. "The Declaration," he says, " is only a pledge on the part of the States adhering to it, not to issue Commissions for that purpose, and does not of itself create any new offence against the Law of Nations; while the admission of the Congress, made at the suggestion of the Russian plenipotentiary, that it would not be obligatory on the signers of the Declaration to maintain the principle of the abolition of Privateering against those, which did not accede to it, received a practical construction in the course adopted by England and France, and other countries, in their Declarations, with respect to the pending contest in America 18." As Reciprocity is an implied condition of all Rights and Obligations under the Common Law of Nations, and as the Right of issuing Commissions and Letters of Marque to the Com 15 The second annotated edition of Wheaton's Elements of International Law, p. 628, published in 1863, deserves to be consulted on this subject. It has been enriched with various notes by its able editor, Mr. William Peach Lawrence. 16 La course est et demeure abolie. Martens, N. R. Gén. XV. p. 792. 17 Protocol No. 23. Séance des 14 Avril 1856. Martens, N. R. Gén. XV. p. 768. 18 Lawrence's Wheaton. London, 1863, p. 255. manders of private ships of war is a Common Law Right, it would seem that the more complete view of the operation of the Declaration of Paris on the Rights and Obligations of the respective Parties to it, would be that it has in no way affected the Common Law Rights and Obligations of any of those Parties towards those Nations, which have not acceded to the Declaration. Accordingly, if Austria were to become involved in war with the United States of America, the Common Law of Nations would regulate the Rights and Obligations of either Power in regard to the use of Privateers, with this difference however, that whilst the United States of America would be at liberty to instruct its privateers to visit, and if there was probable cause, to capture all neutral vessels equally with enemy-vessels, Austria being a party to the Declaration of Paris would be bound to instruct her privateers to refrain from molesting in any way vessels belonging to Subjects of any of the Powers, which have acceded to the Declaration of Paris, inasmuch as the use of privateers as regards the Parties to that Declaration is abolished. CHAPTER XI. ON THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS. Views of Grotius as tions be Views of Grotius as to the relations between Belligerents and Neutrals-Increased importance of the subject in the Eighteenth Century Bynkershoek's views-Views of Wolff and VattelViews of Martens-Perfect liberty of commerce within the territory of a Neutral Power-Distinction between trade on the High Seas and trade within the territory of a Neutral Power-Exceptional Status of the merchant on the High Seas-The Political duty of Neutral Nations towards Belligerents-Inviolability of the territory of a Neutral Nation-The Passage of Belligerents through Neutral territory-Hospitality to Belligerent ships discretional on the part of Neutral Powers-Neutral Rights of Police over Belligerent vessels of war in Neutral waters-Right of a Neutral Power to exclude privateers and all prizes of war from its ports-Belligerent privilege of Asylum in Neutral waters-Right of a Neutral Power to allow Belligerent Powers to recruit troops within its territoryViews of the United States Government as to a Belligerent enlisting troops in Neutral territory-Right of a Neutral Power to prohibit the enlistment of troops within its territory. § 208. GROTIUS in treating of Neutrals in War to the rela- (qui in bello medii sunt) observes, that it may aptween Bel- pear superfluous to treat of those, who are not parties ligerents to a war, since it is manifest that there are no Rights of war against them. But as upon occasion of war many things are accustomed to be done to Neutrals, especially when they are neighbours, under pretext and Neutrals. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS. 425 of necessity, it may be proper here briefly to repeat what has been said already, (L. III. c. 2. § 10.) that the necessity ought to be extreme, in order to give to a party a right over another's property. That it is further requisite, that the owner of the property should not be under an equal necessity; that if the necessity is evident, more ought not to be taken than is strictly required; that if the bare custody of the thing is sufficient, it is not to be destroyed; and if it be requisite to destroy it, full compensation for it should be made. Having illustrated the application of the above principles by examples of the conduct of Belligerents towards Neutrals, drawn from the records of Greek and Roman history, Grotius proceeds to discuss the duties of Neutrals towards Belligerents." On the other hand," he says, "it is the duty of those who abstain from war, to do nothing whereby the party who maintains a bad cause may be strengthened, or whereby the operations of the party who wages a just war may be impeded, and in a dubious cause to show themselves impartial by allowing to either party free transit, by supplying their troops with provisions in their march, by not relieving the besieged'." Such is the substance of a brief chapter on the subject of Neutrals in time of War, which was in all probability fully commensurate with the limited importance, which attached to the subject in the early part of the seventeenth century importance 209. To the Publicists however of the eighteenth Increased century the Rights and Duties of Neutral Nations of the subwas a subject of greater interest. The Wars of ject in the Religion in the seventeenth century had brought century. 1 In re vero dubia æquos se præbere utrisque, in permittendo transitu, in commeatu præbendo legionibus, in obsessis non suble- eighteenth Bynker shoek's views. . almost all the Maritime Powers of Europe into the battle-field, and in proportion as the area of Maritime Warfare became enlarged, there was a greater tendency on the part of Belligerents to invoke unduly the pretext of necessity, as supplying a warrant of Right on their part to interfere with the commerce of Neutrals on the High Seas. Again, the sanctity of Neutral waters was a question, which involved many considerations of Right in regard to the innocent use of them, which did not have any application to Neutral soil; so that Publicists writing at the time, when the works of Bynkershoek (A. D. 1737) and of Wolff (A. D. 1749) appeared, might be expected to devote to the subject of Neutral Rights and Duties far more attention than they had received at the hands of the philosopher of Delft (A. D. 1625). Vattel, the pupil of Wolff, has devoted still further attention to this subject, and subsequent writers have not failed to enlarge upon it. It has however been reserved for the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, during the early part of the nineteenth century, to give the fullest and clearest exposition of the Rights of Neutral Nations, as the attitude of Neutrality which the United States maintained during the greater portion of the time, when Europe was arrayed in arms against the military genius of the First Napoleon, required that her Judges should expound the Rights and Duties of Neutrals on numerous occasions, when her Courts were called upon to vindicate the Sovereign Rights of the United States, as a Neutral Nation, against the cruisers of the Belligerent Powers. § 210. Grotius, in the passage already cited, has made a distinction in the duties of a neutral Nation towards two or more belligerent Nations, according |