385 altogether. These rights must be exercised impartially, 、ation the same circumstances to the opposing belligerents alike.. Belligerent states on their part have the general rights to visit and search all neutral merchantmen and privately owned vessels upon the high seas or in belligerent waters. If found to be engaged in the carriage of contraband, evasion of blockade, or unneutral service, they have the right to capture and detain them and by legal process condemn them. In a general sense, belligerent states have the obligations to respect the war rights of neutrals, especially as to their territory and trade. 176. The Development of the Law of Neutrality. The first development of neutrality as a part of international law may be said to have begun in the sixteenth century so far as states are concerned. It is true that in the Consolato del Mare it was provided that neutral goods captured in vessels of the enemy must be restored, yet that was not a code of state law, and even that code provided for the confiscation of the goods of the enemy on board of neutral vessels in time of war. In the seventeenth century Grotius in his famous treatise gives but an imperfect idea of neutrality. "It is," he states, "the duty of neutrals to do nothing which may strengthen those who are prosecuting an unjust cause or which may impede the movements of him who is carrying on a just war. ... But if the cause is a doubtful one they must manifest an impartial attitude toward both sides, in permitting them to pass through the country, in supplying their troops with provisions, and in not relieving the besieged." 1 The practice of neutrality in this century was as imperfect as the theory. In time of peace with both states Henry IV permitted regiments of the French army to serve with the Netherlands; an expedition of Scotch soldiers, numbering six thousand men, served under the command of the Marquis of Hamilton during the Thirty Years' War under Gustavus 1 "De Jure Belli ac Pacis," vol. III, chap. XVII. "1. In the eighteenth century matters had, though slowly, progressed toward better neutrality. In 1759, when Admiral Boscawen chased a French squadron into the waters of Portugal and therein captured two vessels, the government of Portugal was obliged to demand reparation in order to avoid trouble with France. As the vessels were not required to be surrendered, France made this a ground for war with Portugal in 1762. The progress referred to was partly due to the textwriters of the day, such as Bynkershoek, Vattel, and Wolff. Public opinion which was maturing upon the subject was, however, almost entirely confined to the duty of states within their own jurisdiction and power with each other but not as to their subjects in relation to the belligerent states. The practice of the eighteenth century, hence, was still imperfect. Both Holland and Piedmont furnished troops for the war of the Austrian succession, and England in the war for the American independence drew large bodies of mercenaries from neutral German states under treaty with their sovereigns. After the successful issue of our Revolutionary War and the attainment of our independence we at once began our most creditable policy of strict neutrality. In fact, the early history of the progress of neutrality was largely our own. In 1785 the United States made a treaty with Prussia that neither one nor the other of the two states would let for hire, or lend, or give any part of its naval or military forces to the enemy of the other to help it or to enable it to act offensively or defensively against the belligerent party to the treaty. Shortly after this came the French Revolution, followed by the war between France and the European powers, and during 1 1 Hall, "International Law," 6th ed., p. 575. 1 which, in 1793, President Washington issued a proclamation of neutrality which was followed by a second and more stringent one in 1794. These proclamations were largely in consequence of the operations of the new French minister, M. Gênet, who upon landing at Charleston, S. C., began to grant commissions to Americans who fitted out privateers cruising against English merchantmen. Jefferson, then secretary of state, stated to M. Gênet that it was "the right of every nation to prohibit acts of sovereignty from being exercised by any other within its limits and the duty of a neutral nation to prohibit such as would injure one of the warring powers; that the granting military commissions within the United States by any other authority than their own is an infringement of their sovereignty ( and particularly so when granted to their own citizens to lead them to commit acts contrary to the duties they owe to their country."1 The government began at once active movements to prevent the further violation of the neutrality of the United States. Gideon Henfield, an American citizen serving on board a French privateer, was arrested to be tried for disturbing the peace of the United States and for violating the treaties of peace between the United States and the countries at war with France. The sale of prizes taken by the French privateers was interfered with, and rigorous instructions were issued by Hamilton, as secretary of the treasury, to the collectors of customs at the principal ports of the United States, transmitting rules which had been approved by the President, prohibiting the fitting out of privateers to cruise against friendly nations. In July, 1793, the previously mentioned Gideon Henfield being indicted for enlisting on board a French privateer, the judges ruled the act to be a crime, but popular sentiment ran so high in favor of France that the jury promptly acquitted him. Governor Shelby, on his part, in Kentucky, refused to 1 American State Papers, vol. I, p. 67. prosecute American citizens engaged in the formation of military expeditions against New Orleans, then in possession of Spain. Finally, Washington, realizing that additional legislation was necessary to fulfil the obligation of neutrality and to complete the measures taken by his administration, reviewed his policy in his annual address to Congress in December, 1793, and called upon that body to enact the necessary legislation to give sufficient authority to the executive and judicial departments of the government. As a result, the desired legislation was given in the act of June 5, 1794, embodying the rules issued by Hamilton to the collectors of customs and supplementing them by the recommendations contained in the President's message. This law was continued in force for a period equal to its original duration in 1797 and was made a permanent law on April 24, 1800. In regard to this act Doctor Fenwick, in his work upon the neutrality laws of the United States, says: "The scope of the act was not only more comprehensive than any of the previous temporary neutrality edicts issued by the nations of Europe earlier in the century, but it went considerably beyond what was considered the duty of a neutral nation. It was the first attempt ever made on the part of a neutral nation to pronounce definitely that certain acts would be considered by it a violation of neutrality and to incorporate those acts into its criminal code and enforce their observance in favor of any friendly prince or state without distinction. No higher tribute to the statesmanship of Washington and his advisers could be paid than that rendered by Mr. Canning in 1823, in a speech before the House of Commons against the repeal of the British foreign enlistment act of 1819. 'If I wished,' he said, 'for a guide in a system of neutrality, I should take that laid down by America in the days of the presidency of Washington and the secretaryship of Jefferson."" In continuing the development of the law of neutrality by 1 "Neutrality Laws of the United States," Fenwick, pp. 27, 28. the United States we come to the period of the wars resulting from the efforts of the Spanish-American colonies for the attainment of their independence. This opened a new period in the neutrality history of the United States. The sympathies of the United States and its citizens naturally leaned to the side of the Spanish-American colonists. The government of the United States, consistent with its previous policy, maintained its policy and abstained as a government from any aid to these American revolting colonies, but difficulty was found in preventing individuals from taking up their cause and coming to their assistance by various military expeditions. President Jefferson in 1806 and President Madison in 1815 issued proclamations of neutrality warning all persons against any infraction of the neutrality laws of the United States. In 1816 President Madison recommended to Congress the expediency of further legislative action against the formation and sailing of military expeditions against countries with whom we were at peace. The result was that after considerable opposition in Congress the act of March 3, 1817, was passed, principally covering the ground of insurgent colonies in addition to foreign states. This act with some amendments was later codified into a single act which is known as the act of April 20, 1818, and now represents the present law of the United States upon the matter of neutrality and is contained in the Revised Statutes of the United States, with a few verbal alterations and rearrangement, in Sections 5281 to 5291. This act was followed by and may be called the basis of the British foreign enlistment act of 1819. Both acts make it the duty of neutrals to prevent the fitting out and sailing of hostile cruisers or expeditions from their waters and also the enlistment of their citizens within their territory for foreign service in case of war. Various matters have connected the United States with at tempts of violation both of the law of neutrality and of international law and the municipal laws of the United States which |