discovered. The obligation of the state is in no sense dependent on the state of belligerency." Though the statutes of the United States have been passed under the caption of "neutrality acts," they are interpreted to extend to all warlike expeditions from this country whether intended to aid one belligerent against another, or directed against a friendly power at peace with all countries. The word neutrality forms no part of the statute itself, and the statute conforms to that law of nations which interdicts warlike aggressions at any time and under all conditions against friendly countries. The general duty with which our discussion deals may be phrased as one of non-interference and neutrality. This is intended to signify not only the exclusion of offensive and injurious conduct, but also the impartiality required by the law of neutrality. As between states in time of peace, the one must not be found at fault when the other has been offended or injured, nor when the rights of its citizens have been invaded. As between states when one is a belligerent, the other a neutral, the latter shall not even inadvertently prejudice the cause of the former. In fulfillment of these obligations it is required, first, that the state shall abstain from all action on its own part in derogation of the sovereignty or the peace and safety of another state. With this phase of the duty we are here not directly concerned. The organization of expeditions is clearly beyond the scope of this rule; for the organization of expeditions by the government is war itself, and destroys the relation of peace which the law presumes. The things from which the state must abstain are such as the intervention in the internal affairs of another state, or the violation of its territory by trespass or by the exercise of jurisdiction therein. Likewise the state must admit a direct responsibility when, being in the position of a neutral, the government or its agents render armed assistance or afford pecuniary aid to a belligerent. These are 7 U. S. v. O'Sullivan, 9 N. Y. Legal Obs. 257 (Fed. Cas. 15974). "The phrase 'neutrality act' is a distinctive name applied for convenience sake merely. . . . The scope and purpose of the act are not thereby declared or restricted. The act itself is so comprehensive that the same provisions which prevent our soil from being made the base of operations by one foreign belligerent against another likewise prevent the perpetration within our territory of hostile acts against a friendly people by those who may not be legitimate belligerents, but outlaws in the light of the jurisprudence of nations." For. Rel. 1885, 776. See also U. S. v. O'Sullivan, Fed. Cas. 15974, and same, Fed. Cas. 15975. Also 21 Op. At. Gen. 267, 270. infractions of neutrality. But when the state goes so far as to provide organized armies it has destroyed the status of neutrality. The second phase of the obligation requires a state to take reasonable measures to prevent action by private persons within its jurisdiction, directed against the peace and safety of friendly states or their citizens. Some of these offenses require to be punished as a matter of general public policy, and for the welfare and security of the state punishing them. That is the case with offenses against resident aliens, and with counterfeiting. These are crimes in the view of the ordinary municipal law. But of more obvious international consequence are the strictly political offenses. It is in this class that we find hostile expeditions. In time of war the scope of this second rule is greatly increased. It is then necessary to restrain belligerents as well as individuals. Overt hostile acts within the neutral jurisdiction are to be prevented, and there are numerous proximate acts of hostility which both the belligerents and the neutral nationals may undertake that are included in the general prohibition. The third rule goes to the enforcement of the prohibition by the state liable to injury. It requires acquiescence in such action on the part of the offended state as may be necessary for its self-defense, or such as may be justified by the failures of the sovereign within whose jurisdiction the objectionable action is begun. We are familiar with such action by belligerents for the enforcement of blockades and of the law of contraband. Nations are accustomed to tolerate interference with their trade and with the liberties of their citizens for these purposes. They are also subject to such risks and damages arising out of the state of war. So in time of peace a hostile expedition may give cause for similar measures to which no valid objection may be raised.9 9 9 The following outline is illustrative of the classification here adopted: Duty of Non-interference and Neutrality The broadest and most important division of the subject so classified, is that dealing with proximate acts of hostility. It is so by reason of the number of the offenses included there and because of the extensive practice of which it has been the subject. Nevertheless it is here that considerable looseness, and even confusion, of terms has occurred. The greater number of the specific offenses under this heading are grouped by one author under the "use of the territory of a neutral as a base of operations." 10 Another employs the same phrase to apply only to use of the territory by a belligerent. 11 A third makes continued use the crucial test of a base of operations.12 Likewise, in a broad sense, any act in aid of a belligerent is an "augmentation" of his fighting strength; but the term 'augmentation of forces" is applied commonly to an increase of equipment within neutral jurisdiction. Sometimes, therefore, hostile expedi 66 1. Measures of self- III. Acquiescence in 2. Punishment of citizens 55. imate acts a. Fitting out of hostile expeditions b. Recruiting c. Fitting out of ships of war and cruisers d. Service to enemy fleet of hos- e. Establishment of bases of ii. Inter- a. Enforcement of blockade 10 See Holland, Thos. E., Neutral Duties in Maritime War, Proc. Brit. Acad., II, 11 See Moore's Digest, Chap. XXVIII, III, 6. 12 See Hall, W. E., International Law, p. 605. infractions of neutrality. But when the state goes so far as to provide organized armies it has destroyed the status of neutrality. The second phase of the obligation requires a state to take reasonable measures to prevent action by private persons within its jurisdiction, directed against the peace and safety of friendly states or their citizens. Some of these offenses require to be punished as a matter of general public policy, and for the welfare and security of the state punishing them. That is the case with offenses against resident aliens, and with counterfeiting. These are crimes in the view of the ordinary municipal law. But of more obvious international consequence are the strictly political offenses. It is in this class that we find hostile expeditions. In time of war the scope of this second rule is greatly increased. It is then necessary to restrain belligerents as well as individuals. Overt hostile acts within the neutral jurisdiction are to be prevented, and there are numerous proximate acts of hostility which both the belligerents and the neutral nationals may undertake that are included in the general prohibition. The third rule goes to the enforcement of the prohibition by the state liable to injury. It requires acquiescence in such action on the part of the offended state as may be necessary for its self-defense, or such as may be justified by the failures of the sovereign within whose jurisdiction the objectionable action is begun. We are familiar with such action by belligerents for the enforcement of blockades and of the law of contraband. Nations are accustomed to tolerate interference with their trade and with the liberties of their citizens for these purposes. They are also subject to such risks and damages arising out of the state of war. So in time of peace a hostile expedition may give cause for similar measures to which no valid objection may be raised." The following outline is illustrative of the classification here adopted: and Neutrality The broadest and most important division of the subject so classified, is that dealing with proximate acts of hostility. It is so by reason of the number of the offenses included there and because of the extensive practice of which it has been the subject. Nevertheless it is here that considerable looseness, and even confusion, of terms has occurred. The greater number of the specific offenses under this heading are grouped by one author under the "use of the territory of a neutral as a base of operations." "10 Another employs the same phrase to apply only to use of the territory by a belligerent. 11 A third makes continued use the crucial test of a base of operations. 12 Likewise, in a broad sense, any act in aid of a belligerent is an "augmentation" of his fighting strength; but the term "augmentation of forces" is applied commonly to an increase of equipment within neutral jurisdiction. Sometimes, therefore, hostile expedi 1. Measures of self- III. Acquiescence in 2. Punishment of citizens 55. imate acts a. Fitting out of hostile expeditions b. Recruiting c. Fitting out of ships of war and cruisers d. Service to enemy fleet of hose. Establishment of bases of ii. Inter- a. Enforcement of blockade 10 See Holland, Thos. E., Neutral Duties in Maritime War, Proc. Brit. Acad., II, 11 See Moore's Digest, Chap. XXVIII, III, 6. 12 See Hall, W. E., International Law, p. 605. |