troops Foreign Power, which is at war with another Foreign ment of Power, from enlisting men within its Territory to within its serve in its army or navy, but that the Neutral Territory. State has the right, if it thinks fit, to prohibit all such raising of men for warlike purposes within its Territory, inasmuch as it has a paramount right to require the services of all persons within its Territory for the purposes of its own defence, if war should arise. It is accordingly the privilege of a Neutral State at all times, and not the privilege of a Belligerent Power arising out of a state of War, to determine whether it is fit that the Subjects of the Neutral State should be prohibited from quitting its Territory to take service under the standard of a Foreign Power. “As the right of levying soldiers,” says Vattel 50, " belongs solely to the Nation or the Sovereign, no person must attempt to enlist soldiers in a foreign country without the permission of the Sovereign." Hence it is competent for the Government of a Neutral Nation, if it sees fit, to forbid by proclamation or other public notice the agents of any Foreign Power, in time of war equally as in time of peace, from recruiting men for its army or navy within its territory. Wolff has correctly pointed out that it is an offence against the Supreme Majesty of a State for any individual to levy soldiers within its territory without its consent, and that if a stranger so acts, he will be amenable to punishment under the Territorial Law of the State. Quoniam nemini in alieno territorio militem conscribere licet invito superiore, si quis legere audet, jus Gentis violat, ac ideo injuriam eidem facit, cumque injuria hæc crimen sit a peregrino commissum, peregrini autem in territorio alieno delinquentes juxta leges loci puniendi 66 50 Droit des Gens, L. III. c. 11. § 15. 51 Jus Gentium, § 754 458 RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS. sint, si peregrinus in territorio alieno invito superiore militem legere audet, deprehensus puniri potest." To a similar effect the Supreme Court of the United States of America has held 52 that a Neutral Nation, may, if so disposed, without any breach of her Neutral character, grant permission to both Belligerents to equip their vessels of war within her territory. But without such permission the Subjects of such Belligerent Powers have no right to equip vessels of war, or to increase or augment their force, either with arms or with men, within the territory of such Neutral Nation. Such unauthorised acts violate her Sovereignty and her Rights as a Neutral. All captures made by means of such equipments are illegal in relation to such Nation, and it is competent to her Courts to punish the offenders, and in case the prizes taken by them are brought infra præsidia, to order them to be restored. 52 Brig Alerta v. Blas Moran, 9 Cranch, p. 365. CHAPTER XII. ON THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS, CONTINUED. Trade within the Territory of a Neutral State-Purchase and sale of Ships by the Subjects of Neutral Powers-Sale of Ships of War by a Neutral Power-Modified Neutrality under Treaty-Engagements Non-interference with trade consistent with the Neutrality of a State-The Policy of the United States of America, as a Neutral Power, to interdict certain branches of trade-Trade, unless interdicted, not a violation of the Sovereignty of a Neutral StateJurisdiction over Captures in Neutral waters exercised by the Neutral Power-Ancient jurisdiction exercised by Neutral Powers in matters of Prize--Neutral Courts do not entertain the question of Damages-A Neutral Power may claim a vessel, captured in violation of its Territory, before a Belligerent Prize Court-Neutral Powers do not interpose their jurisdiction in cases of Rescue-Conflict of jurisdiction between a Neutral Admiralty Court and a Belligerent Prize Court-Duties of a Neutral Power in cases of Civil War-Belligerent Right of Capture reconcilable with the Independence of Neutral Powers. Territory of State. § 226. Merchants, who are the subjects of Foreign Trade Powers, when they seek to exercise commerce within within the the Territory of an Independent State, are subject to a Neutral the absolute Sovereignty of that State, unless their commerce should be carried on under Treaty-engagements of a special character between the Sovereign to whom they owe Natural allegiance, and the Sovereign in whose ports they seek to exercise commerce. Every Independent State is accordingly entitled to make laws for the regulation of the trade of foreign merchants in its ports, and it is competent for it to allow or to forbid to foreign merchants all trade in certain articles within its Territory. This absolute right of every Independent State to regulate the commerce of foreign merchants, who frequent its ports, is not affected by the circumstance that other Nations are at war with one another, further than that, if it wishes to observe a state of Neutrality between the Belligerent Nations, it must allow or forbid equally the Subjects of either Belligerent Nation to trade within its Territory; and that if it does allow the subjects of either Belligerent Power to trade in its ports, it is essential to the maintenance of its character, as a friendly State, to protect them in their trade. It is immaterial for the purposes of Rightful commerce within the Territory of a Neutral State, what may be the nature of the articles in which merchants seek to trade, provided they are not prohibited as objects of commerce by its Laws. Whether they are weapons which are suitable for the purposes of the chase or for the purposes of war; whether they are ships which are suited to carry cargo or to carry guns, is perfectly immaterial, if commerce in such articles is part of the customary trade within the ports of a Neutral State. Vattel considers the commerce of arms and ships to be no exception to the general commerce which every Power may permit to be carried on within its Territory', consistently with a State of Neutrality. “If a Nation," by which Vattel means the domiciled Subjects of a Nation, "trades in arms, timber for shipbuilding, ships, and warlike stores, I cannot take it 1 L. III. c. 7. § 110. amiss, that it sells such things to my enemy, provided it does not refuse to sell them to me also at a reasonable price. It carries on its trade without any design to injure me, and by continuing it in the same manner, as if I were not engaged in war, it gives me no just cause of complaint. In what I have said above, it is supposed that my enemy goes himself to the Neutral country to make his purchases. Let us discuss another case, that of Neutral Nations resorting to my enemy's country for commercial purposes. It is certain that as they have no part in my quarrel, they are under no obligation to renounce their commerce for the sake of avoiding to supply my enemy with the means of carrying on the war against me. Should they affect to refuse selling me a single article, while at the same time they take pains to convey an abundant supply to my enemy, with an evident intention to favour him, such partial conduct would exclude them from the Neutrality which they enjoyed. But if they only continue their customary trade, they do not thereby declare themselves against my interest; they only exercise a right which they are under no obligation of sacrificing to me?" Accordingly a Neutral Power does nothing incompatible with Neutrality in allowing its Subjects to carry any articles whatsoever of commerce to markets within the Territory of a belligerent Power, nor is it required by the Common Law of Nations to exercise its Right of Sovereignty over strangers who frequent its markets, in order to prevent the exportation of any articles which they may have purchased in its markets. On the contrary, although it may be competent for an Independent State to deny to all Na 2 Cf. Tastet v. Taylor, 4 Taunton, 238. Bell v. Reid, 1 Maule and Selwyn, p. 727. |