suppressed, or intentionally destroyed on the initiative of the master or one of the crew or passengers. There is in such a case an element which will justify any suspicion and afford an excuse for capturing the vessel, subject to the master's ability to account for his action before the prize-court. Even if the court should accept the explanation given and should not find any reason for condemnation, the parties interested cannot hope to recover compensation. "An analogous case would be that in which there were found on board two sets of papers, or false or forged papers, if this irregularity were connected with circumstances calculated to contribute to the capture of the vessel."1 185. Hostile Expeditions.-The formation of hostile expeditions in neutral territory and their departure for warlike operations therefrom is a violation of the tenets of international law and, in most cases, of the municipal laws of states. So far as international law is concerned the following rules are in force to the signatories of The Hague Conventions V and XIII of 1907. In Convention V it is stated, in Article 4, that "corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting offices opened on the territory of a neutral power in the interests of belligerents." By Article 8 of Convention XIII we have also seen that "a neutral government is bound to employ the means at its disposal . . . to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or engage in hostile operations which has been adapted in whole or in part within the said jurisdiction to warlike use." This general restriction is supplemented by a previous prohibition in Article 5 of the same convention in which the belligerents are forbidden to use and, by analogy, neutrals prohibited from allowing the use by belligerents of neutral waters as a base of naval operations against their adversaries. A hostile expedition in the sense under discussion can be defined in accordance with international law as one starting 1 Declaration of London, accompanying report, Appendix IV. from neutral territory with the present purpose of entering into hostilities; it should be under naval or military command, and it should be organized with a view to acts of war against a belligerent or a power at peace with the country from which it departs. The last clause includes assistance in case of an insurrection or other form of domestic violence which has not attained a recognition of belligerency. "It was decided in 1870, when a large number of French and Germans returned to their respective countries to enter military service that, so long as they travelled as individuals or not organized, they did not answer to the description of a hostile expedition, even if there were large consignments of arms and ammunition to the French Government on board of the same ship which carried the French flag." The arms and ammunition in this case were not connected with the individual passengers referred to but carried in the way of ordinary commerce. It has been customary in all European wars to call home the reservists to serve with the armies of the belligerents mobilized upon a war footing. Of this phase of modern warfare the report accompanying the London naval conference speaks as follows: "Supposing the case is one of individuals who are natives of a continental European country and are settled in America; these individuals have military obligations toward their country of origin; they have, for instance, to belong to the reserve of the active army of that country. Their country is at war and they sail to perform their service. . . . It would be difficult, perhaps even impossible, without having recourse to vexatious measures to which neutral governments would not submit, to pick out of the passengers in a vessel, those who are bound to perform military service and are on their way to do so." In the same way, individuals going singly to enlist in a belligerent cause do not constitute a hostile expedition. 1 Stockton, "Manual of Int. Law," p. 228. 2 Higgins, "Hague Conferences," p. 594. From a municipal point of view we will quote the law of the United States upon this matter. Section 5286 of the United States Revised Statutes reads: "Every person who within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States begins, or sets on foot, or prepares the means for any military expedition or enterprise to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominions of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States are at peace, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor," etc. President Cleveland in his proclamation in regard to the Cuban insurrection, dated July 27, 1896, declared that in accordance with the judicial decision of the United States Supreme Court a military expedition under our neutrality laws consists of "any combination of persons organized in the United States for the purpose of proceeding to make war upon a foreign country with which the United States is at peace and provided with arms to be used for such purpose," and, furthermore, that the providing or preparing of the means for such military expedition or enterprise includes the furnishing or aiding in its transportation. 186. Right of Angary.-The right of angary, which literally means the right of transport, was formerly confined to purposes of that nature so far as neutrals were concerned. It was a practice of belligerents to use, by force if necessary, neutral merchant vessels and their crews for the purpose of transporting troops, ammunition, and provisions to certain destinations, paying freight, etc., in advance. This ancient right has fallen into disuse and is to a growing extent supplanted by a modern right under the same name which comprises the right of belligerents to make use of or destroy, for the purpose of necessary offence and defence, neutral property on the high seas or the territories of either bellig erent. The objective of the right of angary, according to Oppen heim, "is such property of subjects of neutral states as retains its neutral character from its temporary position on belligerent territory and which, therefore, is not vested with enemy character." The United States Naval War Code of 1900 states that: "If military necessity should require it, neutral vessels found within the limits of belligerent authority may be seized and destroyed or otherwise used for military purposes, but in such cases the owners of the neutral vessels must be fully recompensed. The amount of the indemnity should, if practicable, be agreed upon in advance with the owner or master of the vessel; due regard must be had for treaty stipulations upon these matters."2 It might be mentioned that in these times the right of angary as just expressed exists on land as well as at sea. An application of the right happened in 1871, during the Franco-German War. The German forces sunk some British vessels lying in the Seine River for the purpose of blocking the navigation of the river to the French gunboats. The German Government did not recompense the owners of the vessels at the time but afterward paid indemnities. In Article 19 of Convention V of the second Hague conference the right of angary is provided for in the case of neutral railway material coming into the territory belonging to or occupied by a belligerent power. Adequate compensation is also required. This subject needs further attention in future international conferences and could be taken up in connection with the third wish (veu) of the final act of the second Hague conference, which reads as follows: "The conference expresses the earnest desire that the powers should regulate by special treaties the situation, as regards military charges, of foreigners established in their territories." 1 1 Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. II, p. 447. 2 Stockton, "Laws and Usages of War at Sea," art. 6. 8 Higgins, "Hague Conferences," p. 69. TOPICS AND REFERENCES 1. The Inviolability of Neutral Territory and Waters— Westlake, "International Law," 2d ed., 233-5. Hall, "International Law," 6th ed., 594-8. Naval War College, "International Law Topics," etc., 1913, 11-53. 2. The Use of Neutral Waters as a Base of Naval OperationsOppenheim, "International Law," 2d ed., vol. II, 400-5. Moore's "Digest of International Law,” vol. VII, 934-950. Westlake, 2d ed., vol. II, 222. 3. Obligation of Neutrals as to Their Waters Moore's "Digest of International Law," vol. VII, 885-908. Naval War College, "International Law Topics," 1911, 9-36. Davis, "International Law," 3d ed., 422-5, 434-440. 4. Rights of Visit and Search Woolsey, 6th ed., 357-386. Hall, "International Law," 6th ed., chap. X. Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. II, chap. VI. 5. Convoy Naval War College, "International Law Topics," etc., 1911, 46-50. Westlake, 2d ed., vol. II, 300. Davis, "International Law," 488-491. 3d ed., 6. Spoliation of Papers Moore's "Digest," vol. VII, 485-7. Hall, 6th ed., 736-8. Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. II, 543-5. 7. Hostile Expeditions— Fenwick, "Neutrality Laws of the United States," 55-79. Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. II, 400. Hall, "International Law," 6th ed., 602-6. 8. Right of Angary Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. II, 446-9, 385, 510. Westlake, 2d ed., vol. |