11. What is the doctrine of the United States, as to the inviolability of neutral territory ?—118.

That no use of neutral territory for the purposes of war, can be permitted.

12. What if a belligerent cruiser inoffensively passes over a por tion of water lying within neutral jurisdiction?-119.

That fact is not usually considered such a violation of the territory as to affect and invalidate an ulterior capture made beyond it. To vitiate a subsequent capture, the passage must at least have been expressly refused, or the permission to pass obtained under false pretenses.

13. Upon what depends the right of a refusal of a pass, over neutral territory, to the troops of a belligerent power ?—119.

It depends more upon the inconvenience falling on the neutral state, than on any injustice committed upon the third party, who is to be affected by the permission or refusal.

14. What if the intermediate neutral state grants a passage to belligerent troops ?-119.

It is no ground of complaint against the neutral state, though inconvenience may thereby ensue to the adverse belligerent. It is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the neutral power, who may grant or withhold the permission without any breach of neutrality.

15. May a belligerent power claim the right of passage through neutral territory ?-119.

It can not, unless founded upon a previous treaty, and it can not be granted by a neutral, where there is no antecedent treaty, unless an equality of privilege be allowed to both bellig

erents.

16. When only has a neutral the right to inquire into the validity of a capture?-121.

In cases only, in which the rights of neutral jurisdiction are violated.

17. In such cases, will the neutral restore the property ?—121.

He will restore it, if found in the hands of the offender, and

within its jurisdiction, regardless of any sentence of condemnation by a court of a belligerent captor.

18. Who may raise the objection to a capture and title founded on the violation of neutral rights?—121.

It belongs solely to the neutral government to raise the objection. The adverse belligerent has no right to complain, when the prize is duly libeled before a competent court.

19. In the case of prizes brought within a neutral port, how far does the neutral sovereign exercise jurisdiction ?—121, 122.

So far as to restore the property of its own subjects, illegally captured.

20. What were the rules of neutrality declared by Congress in 1793, to be observed by the belligerent powers.in their intercourse with this country ?-122.

These rules were, that the original arming or equipping of vessels in our ports, by any of the powers at war, for military service was unlawful; and no such vessel was entitled to an asylum in our ports. The equipment by them of government vessels of war, in matters which, if done to other vessels, would be applicable equally to commerce or war, was lawful. The equipment by them of vessels fitted for merchandise and war, and applicable to either, was lawful; but if it were of a nature solely applicable to war, it was unlawful. And if the armed vessel of one nation should depart from our jurisdiction, no armed vessel, being within the same, and belonging to an adverse belligerent power, should depart until twenty-four hours after the former, without being deemed to have violated the law of nations.

21. Have Congress made other provisions on the subject of neutrality ?-123.

Congress have repeatedly, by statute, made suitable provision for the support and due observance of similar rules of neutrality, and given sanction to the principle of them, as being founded on the universal law of nations. It is declared to be a misdemeanor for any citizen of the United States, within the territory or ju

risdiction thereof, to accept and exercise a commission to serve a foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, in war, by land or by sea, against any prince, state, colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace; or for any person, except a subject or citizen of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, transiently within the United States, on board of any foreign armed vessel, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, to enlist, or enter himself, or hire, or retain another person to enlist, or enter himself; or to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United States, with intent to be enlisted, or entered in the service of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, as a soldier, or mariner, or seaman; or to fit out and arm, or to increase or augment the force of any armed vessel, with intent that such vessel be employed in the service of any foreign power at war with another power, with whom we are at peace; or to begin, or set on foot, or provide, or prepare the means for any military expedition or enterprise, to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominions of any foreign prince, or state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom we are at peace; or to hire or enlist troops, or seamen for foreign military, or naval service; or to be concerned in fitting out any vessel, to cruise or commit hostilities in foreign service, against a nation at peace with us; and the vessel, in the latter case, is made subject to forfeiture.

22. What has been decided by the Supreme Court, as to captures made by a vessel so illegally fitted out to cruise or commit hostilities, in foreign service, against a nation at peace with us?-123.

That such captures, whether made by a public or private armed ship, were torts, and that the original owner was entitled to restitution, if the property was brought within our jurisdiction, but that an illegal outfit did not affect a capture made after a cruise to which the outfit had been applied, had terminated. The offense was deposited with the voyage, and the delictum ended with the termination of the cruise.*

23. May a belligerent vessel bring her prize into a neutral port, and sell it ?-123.

She may, consistently with a state of neutrality, until prohibited by the neutral power.

24. Is the neutral power at liberty to refuse this privilege ?-123,

124.

She is, provided the refusal be made, as the privilege ought to be granted, to both parties, or to neither.

25. Do neutral ships afford protection to enemy's property ?-124. They do not, and it may be seized if found on board of a neutral vessel, beyond the limits of the neutral jurisdiction. This is now a clear and well-settled principle of the law of nations.

26. How is enemy's property, in such case, seized and condemned?

-125.

It is said to be seized and condemned, not ex delicto, but only ex re. The capture of it by the enemy is a delivery to the person who, by the rights of war, was substituted for the

owner.

27. Are the effects of neutrals found on board of enemy's vessels, free?-128, 129.

They are, and the property of the neutral is to be restored without any compensation for detention, and the other necessary inconveniences incident to the capture. The belligerent flag communicates no hostile character to neutral property. The character of the property depends upon the fact of ownership, and not upon the character of the vehicle in which it is found.

28. Upon what rests the rule of public law, that the property of an enemy is liable to capture in the vessel of a friend?-130.

It is declared, on the part of our government, to have no foundation in natural rights; and, that the usage rests entirely on force.

29. Is the captor of the enemy's vessel entitled to freight from the owner of neutral goods found on board and restored?—131.

This has been a matter of discussion. Under certain circumstances, the captor has been considered to be entitled to freight, even though the goods were carried to the claimant's own country and restored; and he clearly is entitled to freight, if he performs the voyage, and carries the goods to the port of origi nal destination.

30. Does the principle of immunity extend to neutral property on board an armed belligerent vessel ?-132.

In this country, the Supreme Court has decided that it does, and that the goods do not lose their neutral character even if resistance be made by the armed vessel, provided the neutral had not aided in such armament or resistance, notwithstanding he had chartered the whole vessel, and was on board at the time of the resistance. In England, the High Court of Admiralty made a cotemporary decision of an opposite character.

LECTURE VII.

OF RESTRICTIONS UPON NEUTRAL TRADE.

1. What is the principal restriction imposed, by the law of nations, on the trade of neutrals ?-135.

The prohibition to furnish the belligerent parties with warlike stores, and other articles which are directly auxiliary to warlike purposes. Such goods are denominated contraband of war.

2. What goods are contraband of war ?—135.

In the attempt to define them the authorities vary, or are deficient in precision, and the subject has long been a fruitful source of dispute between neutral and belligerent nations.

3. What does Grotius define contraband of war?-135.

He distinguish between things which are useful only in war, as arms and ammunition, and things which serve merely for pleasure, and things which are of a mixed nature, and useful both in peace and war. He agrees with other writers in prohibiting neutrals from carrying articles of the first kind to the enemy, as well as in permitting the second kind to be carried. As to articles of the third class, which are of indiscriminate use in peace and war, as money, provisions, ships, and naval stores, he says, that they are sometimes lawful articles of neutral com