violated by enlisting men, or by adding to the physical efficiency of the vessel, in a respect which is not purely nautical and such as a merchant vessel would not require. We have not found it necessary to restrict the stay of belligerent cruisers or their prizes in our waters to less than the terms of asylum usually allowed to public vessels in time of peace. As to the preparing of vessels within our jurisdiction for subsequent hostile operations, the test we have applied has not been the extent and character of the operations; but the intent with which the particular acts are done. If any person does any act or attempts to do any act towards such preparation, with the intent that the vessel shall be employed in hostile operations, he is guilty without reference to the completion of the preparations or the extent to which they may have gone, and although his attempt may have resulted in no definite progress towards the completion of his preparations. The procuring of materials to be used, knowingly and with the intent, etc., is an offense. Accordingly, it is not necessary to show that the vessel was armed, or was in any way or at any time, before or after the act charged, in a condition to commit acts of hostility.""

The difficulty with the rulings just quoted from Dana, which may be said to still largely represent our position, is the question of intention, i. e., whether it is possible to prove the intention sufficiently to make the rule a workable one.

Hall suggests as an alternative precept, which possibly may be used additionally, that the test be made in the character of the vessel. He would lay stress upon the duty of the neutral to prevent the departure from its ports of vessels built primarily for warlike use, if destined for the use of either belligerent—while he would not molest vessels primarily fitted for commercial purposes. This would meet probably

* Dana's Wheaton, Note 215, pp. 562, 563.

the case of the greater powers, but the weaker ones, and especially the budding naval belligerents of Latin-America, would find sufficient material for their use in the merchant vessels of the present day.

Besides, the modern man-of-war of any size is so costly and complicated in its character, and so long in process of construction, that it is not an article likely to be built for a market or begun at the outbreak of hostilities. Torpedo vessels and vessels under construction before the outbreak of war would, however, come within Mr. Hall's category, which could be used to supplement, not to supplant, the position given by Dana.

275.Loans of money to belligerents. First, as to the act of a state: A loan of money on the part of a neutral state to one of the belligerent states is manifestly a violation of the rules of neutrality and impartiality. Few things represent so much in war as money; it is contraband of war, and contributes directly and most effectively to the carrying on of the war in many senses.

A guarantee of a war loan made either by individuals, corporations or by other states on the part of a neutral state in war time, is also a violation of neutrality.

But loans of money regularly made by individuals of neutral states to a belligerent government as a matter of investment or speculation is a business transaction which the neutral government has no right or obligation to prevent, and for which the belligerent cannot complain or punish the neutral individual.

During the Chino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese Wars the Governments of China, Russia and Japan were tendered loans of money from individuals and syndicates of European investors.

There is also a difference between voluntary subscription and commercial loans to a belligerent government. The law

officers of the British Government, in 1823, gave an opinion that voluntary subscriptions were inconsistent with neutrality, but loans, according to the opinions of writers on international law and the prevailing practice, would not be a violation of neutrality. Even though voluntary gifts and subscriptions are held to be in violation of neutrality, the neutral government whose citizens commit such acts is not considered as having committed a hostile act towards the other belligerent. 276.Money to relieve suffering.-Subscriptions and donations of money and material by citizens of a neutral state to relieve suffering and famine in a belligerent state are not inconsistent with neutrality. During the Franco-German War large sums of money were sent from both Germans and French in the United States for the relief of the sick and wounded in the hospitals of their respective countries.

An opportunity presented to belligerents by a neutral state to buy discarded or surplus arms, munitions of war or ships, is an improper one. The existence or probable outbreak of war makes such a sale of arms improper, and the good faith of the government concerned becomes involved.

During the Franco-German War both belligerents went to England for the "sinews of war," and both the French loans and one for the Germans were issued in England.

CHAPTER XII.

BLOCKADE IN TIME OF WAR.-CONTRABAND OF WAR.

277. Blockade.-Blockades may be either military or commercial, sea or land.

278. Military blockades.-As military blockades they may consist of land blockades or investments of an inland town or land investments accompanied by sea blockades of a port, or by a masking and containing of an enemy's fleet by another fleet off a military port, naval arsenal or an anchorage where commerce does not exist.

279.Commercial blockades.-A commercial blockade may be of one or more sea-ports or of an entire coast or island in all cases belonging to or occupied by the enemy. It may be also of the entire sea frontier of an enemy with a view to cut off external supplies and foodstuffs as well as vital imports. Notwithstanding occasional efforts to abolish blockades they remain major operations, and are likely to be used whenever the circumstances require it, and when the belligerent desiring it has that naval superiority which alone permits its establishment and continuance.

The circumstances of a land blockade are so different from that of a sea blockade as to take it out of consideration of the class of blockades about to be treated. A land blockade is carried on upon territory which is for the time being under the jurisdiction of the blockading force, and hence matters purely of an international character do not appear; but a maritime blockade exists not only before a commercial port or

1 Art. 1, Decln. of London, see Appendix.

ports which are open to international trade, but extends over marginal waters through which innocent passage of neutral vessels is allowed, and by which it reaches the high seas, the common territory and highway of all nations. This fact makes the question of sea blockade one closely connected with the trade and shipping of neutral nations; in fact, as a rule, those who are generally engaged in the evasion of blockade in vessels of any size are apt to be neutral subjects; and the questions concerning sea blockade are hence questions largely international in law and scope.

280.Effect of blockades.-It has been claimed that the effect of the cessation of trade caused by blockades will cause more harm to the neutrals than good to the belligerents. That depends, of course, upon the situation of the war and the circumstances of the case. When the land frontiers of a country touch those of civilized and neutral states with connecting railway systems the injury to the belligerent blockaded is not so great; but if the sea-ports are the principal means of communication with the outside world, and the neighboring neutral state or states are poor and undeveloped, the effect of a general blockade, as was the case with our Southern States, is powerful and wide-reaching, and may become the determining war factor.

281.Blockade must be between belligerents.-A blockade being an act or operation of war, it can be established only by a state or belligerent, but is not conventionally accorded to a state of insurgency alone. The United States refused, for instance, to recognize the establishment of a blockade by the Brazilian insurgents of the port of Rio, notwithstanding their control of the waters of that vicinity.

Besides sea-ports and roadsteads, rivers can, of course, be blockaded at their mouths, but if a river is bounded partly by neutral territory or leads to internal neutral ports or countries it cannot be blockaded. The Federal Government, for