« PreviousContinue »
proclamations of neutrality, and in special regulations issued under exceptional circumstances or by joint agreement of several states.
(a) While it is admitted that the belligerent troops may not use the land of a neutral, yet the neutral is under obligation to offer asylum to those seeking refuge to escape death or captivity. It is the duty of a neutral state, within whose territory commands, or individuals, have taken refuge, to intern them at points as far removed as possible from the theater of war. Interned troops may be guarded in camps, or fortified places.
The expenses occasioned by the internment are reimbursed to the neutral state by the belligerent state to whom the interned troops belong.1
(6) In general a belligerent vessel has the right of asylum in a neutral port. It may enter to escape the perils of the sea or to purchase provisions, and to make repairs indispensable to the continuance of the voyage. A vessel entering a neutral port after defeat by the enemy is not disarmed, as would be the case with land forces under similar conditions, though the neutral may prescribe the conditions of its sojourn and departure. 2
(c) Ordinary entry depends upon the will of the neutral, and is subject to conditions imposed upon all belligerents alike.3 These conditions usually allow a vessel to take on necessary provisions and supplies to enable her to reach the nearest home port. A regulation of the Netherlands as to the vessels of the SpanishAmerican War of 1898 prescribes that “Coal shall not be supplied them so long as they are in possession of prizes,” otherwise a supply sufficient to bring the vessel to a home port or to the port of an ally was allowed.
1 Appendix, pp. 357, 477.
2 Perels, “ Droit Maritime," $ 39, p. 244. The Netherlands Proclamation of Neutrality prescribed, in 1898, that “ If ships of war, pursued by the enemy, seek refuge within our territory, they shall liberate their prizes."
87 Attorney-generals' Opinions, 122.
(d) The time of sojourn is usually limited to twentyfour hours, unless a longer time is necessary for taking on supplies, completing necessary repairs, or from stress of weather. Regulations as to the time of departure of hostile vessels from a neutral port were quite fully outlined in President Grant's proclamations of Aug. 22 and of Oct. 8, 1870, during the Franco-Prussian War. He declared that no vessel of war of either belligerent should leave the “ waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from which a vessel of the other belligerent ... shall have previously departed, until after the expiration of at least twenty-four hours from the departure of such last-mentioned vessel beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. If any ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall, after the time this notification takes effect, enter any ... waters of the United States, such vessel shall be required ... to put to sea within twenty-four hours after her entrance into such ... waters, except in case of stress of weather or of her requiring provisions or things necessary for the subsistence of her crew, or for repairs; in either of which cases the authorities . . . shall require her to put to sea as soon as possible after the expiration of such period of twenty-four hours, without permitting her to take in supplies beyond what may be necessary for her immediate use; and no such vessel ... shall continue within such ... waters . . . for a longer period than twenty-four hours
1 As to the British Neutrality Regulations, see 2 Ferguson, Appendix F, p. 77 ; 2 Lorimer, 446.
after her necessary repairs shall have been completed, unless within such twenty-four hours a vessel ... of the other belligerent, shall have departed therefrom, in which case the time limited for the departure . . . shall be extended so far as may be necessary to secure an interval not less than twenty-four hours between such departure and that of any ... ship of the other belligerent which may have previously quit the same ... waters. No ship of war ... of either belligerent shall be detained in any ... waters of the United States more than twenty-four hours, by reason of the successive departures from such . . . waters of more than one vessel of the other belligerent. But if there be several vessels of each or either of the two belligerents in the same ... waters, the order of their departure therefrom shall be so arranged as to afford the opportunity of leaving alternately to the vessels of the respective belligerents, and to cause the least detention consistent with the objects of this proclamation. No ship of war ... of either belligerent shall be permitted, while in any ... waters within the jurisdiction of the United States, to take in any supplies except provisions and such other things as may be requisite for the subsistence of her crew, and except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel, if without sail power, to the nearest European port of her own country; or in case the vessel is rigged to go under sail, and may also be propelled by steam power, then with half the quantity of coal which she would be entitled to receive if dependent upon steam alone; and no coal shall be again supplied to any such ship of war ... in the same or in any other ... waters of the United States, without special permission, until after the expiration of three months from the time when such coal may have been last supplied to her within the waters of the United States, unless such ship of war ... shall, since last supplied, have entered a European port of the government to which she belongs.” 1
The tendency at the present time is to make regulations which shall guard most effectively against any possible use of neutral maritime jurisdiction for hostile purposes. In the Spanish-American War of 1898, Brazil provided that in case of two belligerent vessels :“ If the vessel leaving, as well as that left behind, be a steamer, or both be sailing vessels, there shall remain the interval of twenty-four hours between the sailing of one and the other. If the one leaving be a sailing vessel and that remaining a steamer, the latter may only leave seventy-two hours thereafter."1 Many states have adopted the practice of absolutely refusing entrance within their waters to belligerent vessels with prizes, except in case of distress. Some states prescribe that, in such cases, the prizes should be liberated. There are examples of this refusal in the neutrality proclamations of 1898. All forms of sale or disposal of prize in neutral jurisdiction is of course generally forbidden.
The neutral state may not furnish to a belligerent any assistance in military forces, supplies of war, loans of money, or in any similar manner.
(a) Formerly military assistance was often furnished to one of the belligerents by a state claiming to be neutral on the ground that such action was justified by a treaty obligation entered into before the war could be foreseen. This position was supported by
1 Proc. and Decrees of the war with Spain, Brazil, XVI, p. 15.
some of the ablest of the authorities of the nineteenth century, but is denied by the latest writers.
(6) It is generally held that a neutral state may not furnish to one or both of the belligerents supplies of war. As Hall says, “ The general principle that a mercantile act is not a violation of a state of neutrality, is pressed too far when it is made to cover the sale of munitions or vessels of war by a state.”2
A case that aroused discussion was occasioned by the action of the authorities of the United States conformably to a joint resolution of Congress of July 20, 1868, by which the Secretary of War was to cause “ to be sold, after offer at public sale on thirty days' notice, ... the old cannon, arms, and other ordnance stores . . . damaged or otherwise unsuitable for the United States military service, etc.”'3 Complaint was made that sales made under this act during the time of the Franco-German War were in violation of neutrality. A committee appointed by the United States Senate to investigate these charges reported that sales “ were not made under such circumstances as to violate the obligations of our government as a neutral power; and this, to recapitulate, for three reasons : (1) The Remingtons [the alleged purchasing agents of the French government] were not, in fact, agents of France during the time when sales were made to them; (2) if they were such agents, such fact was neither known nor suspected by our government at the time the sales were made ; and (3) if they had been such
i Wheat., D., $ 425; Dana, contra, note 203; 1 Kent Com., pp. 49, 116; Bluntschli, $ 759; Woolsey, $ 165. ? Hall, $ 217, p. 621.
8 15 U. S. Sts. at Large, 259.