modern wars was the internment of a French force, consisting of over eighty thousand men, in the Franco-German War, who entered Swiss territory and were interned for the rest of the war, the French Government paying the expense incurred at its termination. A Federal force of Mexicans was interned by the United States in Texas, in 1914.

Article 12 goes on to say upon this subject that:

"12. In the absence of a special convention, the neutral power shall supply the interned with the food, clothing, and relief which the dictates of humanity prescribe.

"At the conclusion of peace, the expenses caused by internment shall be made good."

Article 13 states that:

"13. A neutral power which receives prisoners of war who have escaped shall leave them at liberty. If it allows them to remain in its territory it may assign them a place of residence.

"The same rule applies to prisoners of war brought by troops taking refuge in the territory of a neutral power." Articles 14 and 15 read that:

"14. A neutral power may authorize the passage over its territory of wounded or sick belonging to the belligerent armies on condition that the trains bringing them shall carry neither personal nor material of war. In such a case the neutral power is bound to adopt such measures of safety and control as may be necessary for the purpose.

"15. Wounded and sick brought under these conditions into neutral territory by one of the belligerents and belonging to the adverse party must be guarded by the neutral power, so as to insure their not taking part again in the operations of war. The same duty shall devolve on the neutral power with regard to wounded or sick of the other army who may be committed to its care."

It will be noticed that the passage of the sick and wounded mentioned in Articles 14 and 15 is entirely optional with the neutral government. This privilege, if given, must, of course,

be given impartially to all belligerent states and, properly, should not be given to one belligerent without the consent of the other.

Its possible effect may be seen from circumstances that occurred during the Franco-German War of 1870. After the battle of Sedan, the German army was embarrassed by masses of wounded whom it was difficult to move into Germany by the ordinary open routes, while, at the same time, their support affected the commissariat in supplying the active forces. The German Government hence applied to Belgium for leave to transport the wounded by railway across Belgian territory to Germany. As a result of the strong protest of France, Belgium after consultation with England, refused the application. If Belgium had consented, the Germans could have increased their transport service very materially by devoting their railway service entirely to warlike purposes.1

Article 15 of this convention closes the chapter by stating that "the Geneva convention applies to the sick and wounded interned in neutral territory."

Article 16 of the next chapter states that:

"The nationals of a state which is not taking part in the war are considered to be neutrals."

Neutral persons residing in the territory of a belligerent are liable to suffer, with the other inhabitants of the country, the vicissitudes of war. They are liable to be removed from their homes or even from the country, either for military reasons or on suspicion of affiliation with the invading force of an enemy or general misconduct during the operations of war.

This article with the following Articles 17 and 18 were not accepted by Great Britain and were duly reserved upon the signing of the convention by that power.2

Articles 17 and 18 read that "a neutral cannot claim the benefit of his neutrality—

1 Hall, 6th ed., pp. 595, 596.

'Higgins, "Hague Conferences." rp. 293, 294.

"(a) If he commits hostile acts against a belligerent;

(b) If he commits acts in favor of a belligerent, particularly if he voluntarily enlists in the ranks of the armed force of one of the parties."

In such a case the neutral shall not be more severely treated by the belligerent as against whom he has abandoned his neutrality than a national of the other belligerent state could be for the same act.

"18. The following acts shall not be considered as committed in favor of one of the belligerents within the meaning of Article 17, letter (b).

“(a) The furnishing of supplies or the making of loans to one of the belligerents, provided that the person so furnishing or lending neither lives in the territory of the other party nor in territory in the occupation of that party and that the supplies do not come from these territories.

"(b) The rendering of services in matters of policy or civil administration."

The two following wishes (vaux) were embodied in the final act of The Hague conference of 1907 and are enumerated there as (2) and (3).

They read as follows:

"(2) The conference expresses the wish that, in case of war, the responsible authorities, civil as well as military, should make it their special duty to insure and safeguard the maintenance of pacific relations, more especially of the commercial and industrial relations between the inhabitants of the belligerent states and neutral countries."

66

(3) The conference expresses the wish that the powers should regulate by special treaties, the position, as regards military charges, of foreigners residing within their territories."

Of these vœux Westlake says: "The second of the above wishes is a very proper one and will be understood when it is remembered that several Spanish-American states, led by the great immigration into them to claim the children of immi

grants as subjects by reason of their birth on the soil, have been engulfed in controversies with European powers who have considered that the principle of nationality by parentage ought to exempt such children from military service."1

The single Article 19 of Chapter IV of the Convention V under discussion treats of railway material, allowing as it does the free transfer of railway material except in cases of necessity.

178. Proclamations and Declarations of Neutrality.-While it is not a duty on the part of a neutral state to issue any proclamation or declaration of neutrality after the notification of the commencement of war, it has become customary to do so, especially when commercial interests are involved or the proximity of the hostile operations makes it advisable.

The practice of issuing such declarations or proclamations has several advantages: it calls the attention of the nationals of the state to the neutrality or corresponding municipal laws, to the obligations and penalties of citizens arising from the existence of a state of war; it is useful as a supplement to the neutrality laws in publishing the policy of the government toward the belligerents and in a maritime war giving the rules to be enforced as to the entry and use of its waters and ports by belligerent fleets and vessels. See Appendix V.

Proclamations of this sort have been issued by the Presidents of the United States from the earliest days in wars in which the country and its citizens were likely to come in contact. So far as the British Empire is concerned, it is not unusual for the governors of colonies likely to be involved to issue separate proclamations with especial reference to use of their ports by belligerent vessels of war.

In a civil war it is not unusual to combine with the proclamation of neutrality the recognition of a state of belligerency in the war; in fact, without such recognition there can be hardly an existence of a state of neutrality. Of course, there is no state of neutrality required or existing in international law be

1 Westlake, 2d ed., vol. II, p. 135.

tween a state and its insurgents when unrecognized. This, as we have seen can, however, be made a matter of neutrality laws or acts as municipal statutes.

TOPICS AND REFERENCES

1. The Creation of Neutral States by Commencement of WarWestlake, 2d ed., vol. I, 52-54; vol. II, 20-31. Higgins, "Hague Peace Conferences," 202-5. Oppenheim, "International Law," 2d ed., vol. II, 373-7.

2. The Status and Principles of Neutrality

Westlake, "International Law," 2d ed., vol. II, 190-8. Hall, "International Law," 6th ed., chap. III, 588, etc. Moore's "Digest of International Law," vol. VII, 860-871.

3. The Development of the Law of Neutrality

G. B. Davis, "International Law," 3d ed., 377-394. Westlake, "International Law," 2d ed., vol. II, 198-207. Woolsey, "International Law," 6th ed., 267-296.

4. Neutral Rights and Duties in Land Warfare

Higgins, "Hague Peace Conferences," 281-294. Oppenheim, 2d ed., 386-393, 397, 398, 409-416, 426-432. Holland, "Laws of War on Land," 62-68.

5. Proclamations and Declarations of Neutrality

Moore's "Digest of International Law," vol. VII, 1002-10. Fenwick, "Neutrality Laws of the United States," 1913, 5, 17, 25, 33, 42, 44-46, 53, 55-59, 145, etc. Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. II, 374. Appendix V.