What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
admitted American Government argument Armed Neutrality asserted authority bâtiment Belgium belligerent Powers Berlin decree blockade blocus breach Britain Buenos Ayres capture conduct confiscation consequence contest contraband contraband of war cruiser decisions declared despatch destination doctrine droit duty Edinburgh Reviewer enemy England English Government entitled established Europe fact facto independence fait following passage force Foreign Enlistment Act France French Galiani Grande-Bretagne ground guerre Hautefeuille Hautefeuille's hostile insurgents international law intervention judgement jurisdiction jurist justice justify Lampredi law of nations letter Lord Stowell marchandises maritime ment navire neutral country neutral Government neutral nation neutral rights neutral Sovereign neutral territory neutral vessel neutres opinion Orders in Council Ortolan party peace practice of nations pretensions principles prize court prohibit proposition protection publicist puissance qu'elle qu'il question reason recognition right of search rule Russia seize seul Seward ship South sovereignty tion trade traité violation Wheaton wholly writer
Page 129 - But there is nothing in our laws, or in the law of nations, that forbids our citizens from sending armed vessels, as well as munitions of war, to foreign ports for sale. It is a commercial adventure which no nation is bound to prohibit, and which only exposes the persons engaged in it to the penalty of confiscation.
Page 132 - In pursuance of this policy, the laws of the United States do not forbid their, citizens to sell to either of the belligerent Powers articles contraband of war, or to take munitions of war or soldiers on board their private ships for transportation; and although, in so doing, the individual citizen exposes his property or person to some of the hazards of war, his acts do not involve any breach of national neutrality, nor of themselves implicate the Government.
Page 129 - It is a general understanding, -grounded on true principles, that the powers at war may seize and confiscate all contraband goods, without any complaint on the part of the neutral merchant, and without any imputation of a breach of neutrality in the neutral sovereign himself, (c) It was contended, on the part of the French nation, in 1796...
Page 116 - November in that year; the effect of a notification to any foreign government would clearly be to include all the individuals of that nation ; it would be the most nugatory thing in the world, if individuals were allowed to plead their ignorance of it; it is the duty of foreign governments to communicate the information to their subjects, whose interests they are bound to protect. I shall hold therefore that a neutral master can never be heard to aver against a notification of blockade, that he is...
Page 32 - King, having been informed that a treaty of amity and commerce had been signed between the Court of France and certain persons employed by his Majesty's revolted subjects in N"orth America...
Page 113 - Now, in order to justify a condemnation for breach of blockade three things must be proved: 1st, the existence of an actual blockade; 2dly, the knowledge of the party ; 3dly, some act of violation, either by going in or coming out with a cargo laden after the commencement of the blockade.
Page 154 - A capture made within neutral waters is, as between enemies, deemed, to all intents and purposes, rightful ; it is only by the neutral sovereign that its legal validity can be called in question ; and as to him and him only, is it to be considered void.
Page 191 - I trust that I have shown that the four persons who were taken from the Trent by Captain Wilkes, and their despatches, were contraband of war. The second inquiry is, whether Captain Wilkes had a right by the law of nations to detain and search the Trent. The Trent, though she carried mails, was a contract or merchant vessel — a common carrier for hire.
Page xii - American diplomatic statesmanship, at the close of the last and the beginning of the present century.