war. Offending ves- ordinarily esteemed contraband of war. Should sels not simply contraband of this be the case, the United States might content themselves with a reference to the history of the legislation of the two countries, as a complete answer to such an assertion. While the subjects or citizens of either country have been left by law free to manufacture, or sell muskets or gunpowder, or to export them at their own risk, even if known to be for the use of a belligerent, the legislatures, the executives, and the judiciaries of both Great Britain and the United States, have joined the civilized world in saying that a vessel of war, intended for the use of a belligerent, is not an article in which the individual subject or citizen of a neutral State may deal, subject to the liability to capture as contraband by the other belligerent. Such a vessel has been and is regarded as organized war-more clearly organized war than was that unarmed expedition which left Plymouth in 1828 for Portugal,' and was arrested During the contest in Portugal between Don Miguel and Donna Maria II, an unarmed expedition of the adherents of Donna Maria left Portsmouth, ostensibly for Brazil, but really for the Azores. The British Government of that day pursued it to Terceira, fired into it and broke it up; and they were sustained in the House of Lords by a vote of 126 to 31, and in the House of Commons by a vote of 191 to 78. (Hansard for 1830, Vol. XXIII. See also Annual Register for 1829, and Phillimore's International Law, Vol. I, page 229, et seq.) The Tribunal of Arbitration will not fail to observe how differently the powers and duties of the Government were construed by the British Government when it was a question of the disintegration and disruption of the commerce of the United States. by the British navy at the same Terceira to which the Alabama fled to receive the arms and ammunition that she failed to take on board at Liverpool, either because the purposes of the Foreign Office were surreptiously revealed, or because the insurgent agents had reason to believe that they could evade the law by the construction of the vessel on one side of the river Mersey, the collection of the armament on the other side of it, and the putting them together more than three miles out at sea. It is not, however, necessary for the United States to rely in this respect upon the action of the several branches of the Governments of the two countries. The question has been considered by several of the leading publicists of the Continent. Ortolan, in his "Diplomatie de la mer,"1 says, in addition to what has already been cited: Offending vessels not simply contraband of war. tolan. "À part toute prohibition faite législativement Opinion of Orpar telle ou telle nation, il faut, en droit international, considérer comme des actes décidément contraires à la neutralité, l'équipement et l'armement et, à plus forte raison, la construction dans les ports neutres de bâtiments de guerre appartenant aux belligérants, ou destinés, par concert ostensible ou dissimulé avec les belligérants à être remis en leur pouvoir. Nous croyons fermement 1 Diplomatie de la mer, Ortolan, tome 2, page 214. lan. Opinion of Orto- qu'il est impossible d'assimiler de pareils actes à la contrebande de guerre proprement dite, et que l'obligation pour un état neutre de s'opposer à ce qu'ils aient lieu sur son territoire est indépendante de toute lo intérieure ou particulière à cet état; que la loi intérieure peut et doit sanctionner cette obligation, mais qu'elle ne saurait ni la créer ni la détruire, parceque c'est une obligation qui résulte uniquement de la loi internationale, laquelle défend d'user, dans un but hostile, du territoire neutre." Heffter, the distinguished German publicist, says to the same effect: And of Heffter. "C'est un devoir général pour les peuples restés spectateurs tranquilles de la lutte, de n'y prendre aucune part active, ni de participer directement aux actes de la guerre. Les gouvernements, les sujets étrangers qui fournissent à l'un des belligérants des secours directs, commettent une violation du devoir de la neutralité, un acte d'immixion dans les hostilités auquel l'adversaire est en droit de s'opposer par tous les moyens. Dans la pratique on regarde comme de tels actes d'hostilité: "1°, le transport volontaire des soldats, matelots et autres hommes de guerre; "2°, la construction dans les ports neutres de vaisseaux de guerre ou de commerce pour le de l'ennemi dès leur sortie; 1 compte 1 Heffter, Droit international, (French translation by Jules Bergson, Paris,) page 296. "3°, le transport volontaire de dépêches de l'un des belligérants. "Ces diverses contraventions, lorsqu'elles sont régulièrement constatées, entraînent la saisie et la confiscation du navire employé au transport. La confiscation s'étend également à la cargaison, s'il est établi que les propriétaires avaient connaissance du but illicite du voyage. Toutefois cette pénalité n'est pas toujours exécutée à leur égard avec la même sévérité. En réalité elle constitue un acte de légitime défense auquel le neutre qui se rend complice de l'un des belligérants, ne saurait échapper du côté de l'adversaire. "En dehors des cas qui viennent d'être énumérés, il existe encore un certain nombre d'objets dont le commerce est regardé d'une manière plus ou moins générale dans la pratique des états comme prohibé. Il constitue la contrebande de guerre proprement dite." Without wearying the patience of the Tribunal in the further discussion of this question, it will be assumed that a vessel of war is not to be confounded with ordinary contraband of war. Indeed, the only respectable authority which has been cited even apparently to the contrary, is an observation which Mr. Justice Story thrust into the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, upon the case of the Santisima Trinidad." 17 Wheaton's Reports, page 283. And of Heffter. Case of the Santisima Trinidad. tisima Trinidad. Case of the San- If that eminent jurist had said that a vessel of war was to be regarded in public law as an article which might be legitimately constructed, fitted out, armed, equipped, or dealt in by a person in the territory of a neutral, with the intent that it should enter the service of a belligerent, subject only to a liability to capture as contraband of war by the other belligerent, the United States would have been forced, with great regret, to ask this Tribunal to disregard an opinion so at variance with common sense, and with the whole current of the action of nations. Happily they are under no necessity of casting an imputation on the memory of one of their brightest juridical ornaments. During the last war between the United States and Great Britain a privateer, called the Monmouth, was constructed at Baltimore, and cruised against the enemy. After the peace she was stripped of her armament, and converted into a brig. She was subsequently loaded with munitions of war, armed with a portion of her original armament, and sent to Buenos Ayres, (which was then a revolted colony of Spain recognized as a belligerent, but not recognized as an independent government,) to find a market for her munitions of war. The supercargo was also authorized "to sell the vessel to the Government of Buenos Ayres if he could obtain a suitable price." He did sell her, and she |