The three rules of the Treaty of Washington of 1871, have owing to their loose phraseology raised more difficulties than they have solved; and the award of the Geneva Arbitrators merely settled the dispute submitted to the tribunal. The immense and unprecedented extension given by it to neutral duties is not likely to be embodied in International Law.

D. Foreign Enlistment Acts.

These are municipal statutes made by States for the protection of their neutrality. If any provisions in them go beyond the requirements of International Law, belligerents cannot demand that such provisions shall be enforced in their favour. On the other hand, if neutral governments are not armed by their own laws with sufficient power to enable them to fulfil their neutral obligations, the plea of such defect of power is no valid answer to belligerent demands. International Law, not Municipal Law, is the measure of a neutral's rights and obligations. This statement is proved abundantly by the history of the British and American Foreign Enlistment Acts.

QUESTIONS.

1. Write down the chief obligations of neutral States, distinguishing between those which are undoubted and those concerning which there is some controversy.

2. In what cases has a neutral jurisdiction to try the validity of belligerent captures ?

3.

Under what circumstances is a neutral bound to prevent the original departure from its ports of vessels fitted out therein for the naval service of a belligerent? If such vessels escape, how must the neutral State treat them afterwards?

4. Give and criticise the three rules of the Treaty of Washington.

HINTS AS TO READING.

This is the most doubtful and difficult part of the Law of Neutrality; and the student must expect to find conflicting views with regard to it in the books he reads. In Hall Chapters III. and XI. of Part IV. should be read, the former very carefully. In Wheaton portions of Chapter III. of Part IV. bear on our present subject; and Dana's notes are valuable, especially that on Neutrality or Foreign Enlistment Acts. Chapter XXIV. of Halleck will be found useful, as will Chapter VII. and the first part of Chapter VIII. of Abdy's Kent, Part II., Chapter II., Section I. of Woolsey, Book v., Chapters I—IV. of Manning, Vol. II., Chapters XI. and XII. of Twiss, and the papers numbered III., VI. and VII. in the Letters of Historicus.

CHAPTER III.

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AS BETWEEN BELLIGE RENT STATES AND NEUTRAL INDIVIDUALS.

Ordinary Commerce.

A. Various Principles for regulating Maritime Capture.

On land neutral goods in belligerent territory are subject to the ordinary rules of warfare. At sea the interests of belligerents and neutrals are so interwoven in matters of commerce that it is difficult to separate them, and strike at an enemy without injuring a friend. Two principles have found favour as rough attempts to make a workable compromise. They are

(1) That the quality of the goods should be determined by the character of the owner.

(2) That the quality of the goods should be determined by the character of the vehicle which carries them.

The first leads to the practical rule that Enemies' goods can be captured even on board neutral ships, and neutral goods are free even on board enemies' ships. This rule was laid down in the Consolato del Mare, and became part of the common law of

nations. Till 1856 England held by it in all cases, unless bound by treaty to other rules. The second principle gave birth to the twin rules, Free ships, free goods; Enemies' ships, enemies' goods. The Dutch were the great champions of these rules during the period when Holland was the chief carrying power: but in order to get the benefit of them they had to embody them in their treaties.

The combination of the two principles has given two more rules standing at opposite poles of severity to neutrals, according as the severe portions or the lenient portions of the principles are joined together. The first of these is the French rule, that Neutral goods in enemies' ships, and enemies' goods in neutral ships, are liable to capture. From 1681 to 1744 this was joined with the still more severe rule, Neutral ships laden with enemies' goods are liable to capture. The second is the rule of the Declaration of Paris, 1856, that Enemies' goods in neutral ships, and neutral goods in enemies' ships, are not liable to capture. This last is the old rule, Free ships, free goods, without the corollary, Enemies' ships, enemies' goods. Attempts were made to foist it into International Law by Prussia in the Silesian Loan controversy, and by the Armed Neutralities of 1780 and 1800. But the opposition of Great Britain was successful, and she did not agree to it till after the Crimean war. Since then the rule has been accepted by nearly all civilised powers, and seems likely to be incorporated into ordinary International Law.

B. Rules of Capture now in force against Neutrals.

The rules of capture which affect the ordinary trade of neutrals at the present time may be considered as dealing with

(1) Ships and goods without special protection from the neutral sovereign.

With regard to these we may lay down that (a) Though the common law of nations. allows the capture of enemies' goods in neutral vessels, the Declaration of Paris has banished the practice from civilised warfare.

(b) Though a neutral merchant has the right to lade his goods on board an unarmed merchant vessel belonging to a belligerent, it is doubtful whether he may lade them on board an armed merchant vessel of a belligerent without rendering them liable to capture, and certain that he may not lade them on board a belligerent ship of war.

(c) Resistance to belligerent search on the part of a neutral vessel renders both vessel and cargo subject to confiscation. (2) Ships and goods specially protected by means of Convoy.

From the middle of the sixteenth century onwards neutral states have often put forward