vessels; and leave may be granted or refused to belligerents to sell their prizes in the neutral ports. Some there are who hold, and the modern tendency seems to be in support of this view, that the granting of this privilege is inconsistent with the conditions of strict neutrality; but it can hardly be doubted that a bona fide possessor of property may traffic with it in every country where the sovereign does not choose to establish a different rule (h). In the American Civil War, Great Britain issued injunctions prohibiting the armed vessels of either belligerent from carrying their prizes into British ports, and similar instructions were issued by France and Spain. It was, moreover, subsequently declared that the British prohibition applied not only to captured vessels but also to prize cargoes transhipped to armed vessels. And no warship was to be supplied with coal more than once in three months, and any coal supplied was to be only sufficient to carry the ship to the nearest port of her own country. Any vessel putting in for supplies or repairs was to be required to depart within twenty-four hours, or so soon as her wants had been supplied ().

Belligerents have the right to convert their prizes into warships after condemnation, and any vessels so converted would be entitled to share the privileges extended to warships generally. If converted without condemnation, it is an open question how such vessels should be regarded by neutrals (j).

In 1854 both Spain and Portugal published stringent decrees against affording facilities to the belligerents (/), on the part of the national subjects; and on the outbreak of hostilities between France and Germany in 1870, H. M.

(h) Kent's Internat. Law, p. 313.

(i) London Gazette, 15 Dec. 1863. On this subject generally, ride Wheat. Int. Law, 2 Eng. ed. 505-6.

(j) Vide Wheat. Int. Law, 2 Eng. ed. 506.

() 44 State Papers, 12 April, 1854.

Government issued a circular letter declaring that belligerents would not be allowed to bring their prizes into British waters except under pressure of necessity. Belligerent vessels disregarding this notice were to be immediately ordered to quit, and, if necessary, compelled to do so by force (1).

If the capture of a prize shall have been effected in violation of, or after illegal augmentation (m) of the crew of the capturing vessel within, the neutral territory, the neutral power should, in the event of the vessel being brought within the neutral territory, require its restoration to the original owner, regardless of any decree of condemnation passed upon it by a prize court of the captors, and notwithstanding, as it is asserted, that the prize may have been previously taken infra præsidia of the captors' country (n). If the neutral power, on being applied to, should improperly decline to exercise its right to restore a vessel captured in violation of neutral rights, the government of the injured belligerent is entitled to demand compensation from the neutral (o). In other cases of prize carried into neutral ports, the neutral power has no right to inquire into the propriety of the capture (p).

A summary of a Declaration on the part of the United States Government, of the American views, so far as they relate to the privilege of asylum within neutral waters, is to be found in Twiss's Law of Nations in Times of War, pp. 453, 454.

(1) State Papers, vol. 61, 1093. Declarations of neutrality were also issued by the United States, Peru, &c., that of the latter power prohibiting the sale of contraband of war, and placing restrictions on the sale of coal. Vide State Papers, vol. 61, pp. 656, 665, &c.

66

(m) Vide p. 62, supra.

(n) Wheat. Int. Law, 2nd Eng. ed. 504. For the Belligerent Obligation Respect of Neutral Territory," vide p. 311, supra.

(0) The General Armstrong, Ortolan, Diplom. de la Mer, 2, p. 300.

(p) Vide pp. 62, 317, supra, for remarks relative to the sale of prizes within neutral territory.

The Twenty-four Hours Rule.-It is an established rule of the law of nations that when warships belonging to adverse belligerents shall be in a neutral port together, on one of such vessels putting to sea, that of the adverse belligerent shall not be permitted to leave for twenty-four hours following. Thus, in 1759, when a British fleet had entered Cadiz where a French warship was, at the time, lying at anchor, the governor of Cadiz sent a requisition to the English admiral to permit the French vessel-Great Britain being then at war with France -to sail at least twenty-four hours before the departure of the British fleet; and the admiral at once acceded to this request. During the American Civil War this rule was on one occasion evaded by the Northern States in the following manner:The Confederate cruiser Nashville having put in to Southampton, the Federal corvette Tuscarora stationed herself off the port, but within the neutral limits. So soon as the Nashville got ready to sail, the agents of the Tuscarora notified the latter vessel, which thereupon put to sea. This prevented the departure of the Nashville for twenty-four hours, and before that time had elapsed the Tuscarora would have again returned to her moorings. By repeating this manœuvre whenever the Nashville was reported to be getting ready for sea, the latter was prevented from leaving port at all. To guard against similar devices in other cases, it was provided by a British Order in Council that any belligerent vessel entering a British port during hostilities should, in the absence of valid reason to the contrary, be required to depart within twenty-four hours after entrance (9).

A neutral power has also the right to prohibit belligerent vessels from lying in wait for the enemy's vessels at the mouths of the neutral rivers or harbours (r); or from sending

(2) Pitt Cobbett's Leading Cases, p. 199; 55 State Papers, 816.
() The Anna, p. 312, supra.

out boats from the neutral port to attack an enemy's vessels lying outside the neutral jurisdiction (s).

Augmentation of Forces of Belligerent Vessels.-According to the law of nations, as it would seem, a neutral state may, without any breach of her neutrality, permit belligerent vessels to be equipped or to augment their forces within the neutral territory; but belligerents have no right to assume this permission. That is to say, if a belligerent thus augments his force without express permission he is guilty of a violation of neutral rights. This was clearly laid down in the United States by several decisions on the American Act of 1794 (t). This principle, however, is apparently not to be carried so far that belligerent vessels shall not equip themselves to the same extent as would be permissible to merchant vessels; but that they must not go beyond this limit. If, notwithstanding, a belligerent vessel should be illegally equipped or fortified, and should thereafter-that is, during the succeeding cruise-effect captures, the neutral power has the right, or rather is under the obligation, to seize and restore any of such prizes which may be brought within the neutral jurisdiction; and the offenders, moreover, may be subject to penalties. But so far as the owners of the vessel thus captured and restored are concerned, there the matter ends. The restitution is made in justification of neutral rights, and not as rectifying a wrong done to the belligerent nation to which the prize belonged: so that no damages will be awarded against the captors (u). In 1828 when conflicting claims arose to the throne of Portugal, England prohibited any equipment of vessels in her ports on

(8) The Twee Gebroeders, p. 313, supra.

(t) E. g., Brig Alerta v. Blas Moran, 9 Cranch, 365. And ride p. 354, supra. (u) La Amistad de Rues, 5 Wheat. 385.

the part of either belligerent; and an armament having notwithstanding been smuggled out of Plymouth in the interests of one of the claimants, a naval force was sent in pursuit of it, and prevented the squadron from engaging in hostilities at the island of Terceira, as had been contemplated. But, as appears above, the Foreign Enlistment Acts, both of this country and of the United States, definitely prohibit, on the part of the neutral subjects, any abetting of such augmentation of forces (~), and provide for the restitution of prizes as already mentioned.

Neutrals are entitled to insist that their territory shall be respected by belligerents, and the latter are under the obligation to observe this requirement (y). It has been held in the United States that a foreign vessel guilty of a breach of municipal laws may be pursued on the high seas, and brought back for adjudication; but such a right could scarcely be maintained. So recently as 1857, the Neapolitan Government seized and condemned a Sardinian merchant vesselThe Cagliari-whose officers were alleged to have taken part in excesses on Neapolitan territory, and imprisoned her crew, amongst whom were two Englishmen. It was found on the facts that, as no war existed at the time, the seizure of the vessel was altogether illegal; and an indemnity of 3,000l. was ultimately paid to the British Government on behalf of the two Englishmen wrongfully detained and imprisoned (*).

Assistance to Belligerents.-If the subjects of a neutral state render assistance to a belligerent, the fact, it is to be

(x) See §§ 10 and 14 of the British Act, p. 373, supra. For cases deciding what constitutes illegal equipment, see Wheaton's Internat. Law, 2 Eng. ed. pp. 512-519.

(y) Vide p. 311.

(2) For remarks on this (Cagliari) case, and on The Virginius (1873), and Huascar (1877), see Wheaton's Internat. Law, 2 Eng. ed. pp. 169–173; also p. 435, infra.