sel's cargo and equipment, nothing indicating an intent to violate the neutrality laws could be found, and that no information of anything tending in that direction had been obtained. He therefore inquired whether there was any objection to granting the vessel a clearance. Mr. Bayard answered that none was perceived; and the steamer duly sailed. (For. Rel. 1885, 138–144.) In connection with the subject of seizure of vessels, in relation to the right of search, see a series of able articles by James C. Welling, in the National Intelligencer, June 1, 1858, and other issues. In 1898, Mr. Merry, American minister to some of the Central American States, on hearing that an American vessel which had sailed from Salvador was suspected of carrying a revolutionary expedition against the Government of Nicaragua, issued a circular letter to consular officers within his jurisdiction instructing them to make inquiries, and, if the result should justify the step, authorizing them to call upon the commander of any American man-of-war within reach "to examine her papers and seize her if found to be engaged in an illegal voyage in violation of the statutes of the United States." With reference to this circular, the Department of State said: "There is not, so far as the Department is aware, any statutory provision authorizing the seizure of a vessel under such conditions. Section 5287 of the Revised Statutes, which provides for the seizure of vessels under certain stated circumstances, is not applicable to the case of vessels fitted out beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. . . It is entirely proper for you to call upon the consular officers to make inquiry as to the truth of the charges against the vessel, and to furnish to this Government any evidence tending to show that the Celia has violated the neutrality laws of the United States by preparing for such expedition within the waters of the United States. Further than this, there is no authority for a minister or consul to act." Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Merry, No. 66, March 25, 1898, MS. 10. DUTY UNDER EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. § 1328. In 1867 the Japanese Government, as represented by the Tycoon, sent two commissioners to the United States to purchase ships of war. They bought from the Government of the United States the ironclad ram Stonewall, the price being $400,000, of which the sum of $300,000 was paid, the rest to be transmitted to the United States through the American legation in Japan. The ram was sent out to Japan under Captain George Brown, U. S. N., who was granted leave of absence, to act as the agent of the Japanese commissioners in taking the vessel to Yokohama. Before her arrival there war broke out between the Tycoon and the Mikado; and on February 28, 1868, the diplomatic corps in Japan agreed upon and signed a memorandum in which they declared that the only way to preserve a perfect neutrality between the contending parties was to regard them both as belligerents, and that, as vessels of war had been ordered by princes belonging to both parties, in Europe as well as in America, they had decided to use their utmost endeavors to prevent the delivery of the vessels in question on their arrival. In acknowledging receipt of the American legation's report of this proceeding, Mr. Seward, who was then Secretary of State, remarked that the course which had been marked out seemed in regard to the Stonewall to be impracticable, since the vessel was delivered to the Japanese Government in American waters and was placed under the Japanese flag, her officers and crew being employees of the Japanese Government and not in the service of the United States. Under these circumstances, it was thought that no agent of the Government of the United States had a lawful right to reduce the vessel into possession, or to interfere with her movements. The subject was, however, left to the legation's discretion. Before these instructions were written the Stonewall arrived in Japan and was kept by the legation under the American flag. The legation reported that if she could have been delivered all the money due on her would have been promptly paid by the Tycoon's government; but that, as that government to all appearances had subsequently ceased to exist, and the Mikado's government had not taken possession of Yedo, the Stonewall had been kept at Yokohama, the legation having provided for her expenditures while there. The legation, in a communication to Captain Brown, written immediately on the arrival of the Stonewall, directed that the vessel should be kept under the American flag and not delivered into the hands or control of any Japanese until instructions, which had been applied for, should have been recieved from the Department of State. Representatives of the Tycoon claimed the vessel, but the legation declined to permit her to be delivered up; and the legation at the same time refused to deliver her to the government of the Mikado. November 12, 1868, Mr. Seward, instructed the legation as follows: "Your proceeding in retaining possession and control of that vessel [the Stonewall] is approved. We, nevertheless, anxiously await such a solution of the political complication in Japan as will enable this Government to relieve you of that embarrassment." For the correspondence in relation to the case of the Stonewall, see Dip. The position of the United States is that the principles of neutrality are applicable to China. In the case of the Tonquin war, in 1885, the Department of State, referring to the course which the United States had pursued in their international conflicts, and in the recent wars between Russia and Turkey and between Chile and Peru, directed the American minister at Peking that he was, so far as he had opportunity, to "enjoin upon all American citizens in China the necessity and importance of their due observance of the laws and obligations of neutrality, watching at the same time with care and diligence the interests and rights of such American citizens regarding their persons, property, ships, and commercial privileges." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Young, min. to China, No. 382, In March, 1885, Mr. Young, American minister at Peking, referring to the war then going on between France and China, cabled to his Government as follows: "Chinese object American pilots French men-of-war. Shall I forbid such service?" To this inquiry Mr. Bayard replied: "Although well disposed, we can not forbid our citizens serving under private contract at their own risk. Not prohibited by statutes or cognizable by consuls." In confirming this reply by a formal instruction, Mr. Bayard adverted to the fact that, while the obligation of a neutral government to prevent the commission of hostile acts was usually limited to things done within its own jurisdiction, foreign powers possess extraterritorial jurisdiction in China by virtue of treaties. But this jurisdiction was, he said, in no wise arbitrary, but was limited by laws, and was not preventive, but punitory. In this relation Mr. Bayard cited section 4102, R. S., which provides that "insurrection or rebellion against the government of either of those countries [i. e., the countries named in sec. 4083, whereof China is one] with intent to subvert the same, and murder, shall be capital offenses, punishable with death," and added: "But the simple act of entering into a private contract to serve either combatant in open warfare would not appear to be triable under this section; and even if it were, this Government would have no rightful power to forbid such service. It is, of course, understood that this reasoning does not apply to persons in the employ of the Government of the United States. For such persons, while so employed, to perform hostile service for either party would be a breach alike of discipline and neutral good faith, which the rules of the service would be competent to prevent.' Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Young, min. to China, No. 407, March 11, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 160. Mr. Bayard further said: "In the interest of good will between nations, it is desirable that citizens of the United States should not take part with either belligerent, or, if they do so, that it should be distinctly known that they thereby act beyond all effective responsibility of their own Government. Your discretion will doubtless show you how far it may be opportune to go in the direction of dissuading any citizen of the United States from taking sides in the present contest. but whatever you may do should be marked with the most obvious impartiality." (Id. 161.) The question raised by Mr. Young obviously is a very important one, and it may be proper to consider whether sec. 4102 covers, or was intended to cover, the whole ground of jurisdiction in the consular courts in extraterritorial countries to prevent and punish unneutral acts. Those courts possess general jurisdiction to enforce the criminal statutes of the United States as to acts done by American citizens within the consul's jurisdiction. It may be doubted whether the distinction drawn between the power to "punish" and the power to "forbid" is material, where the act is in reality forbidden and made punishable by law. In considering the question whether a consul in an extraterritorial country has jurisdiction to enforce there the neutrality statutes, the fact should be borne in mind that a negative answer necessarily would signify either that the American citizen is in such matters subject to the local jurisdiction, which in the case before us is that of China, or that he is, when in such a country, under no legal responsibility to refrain from making war upon it, unless his act takes the form of insurrection or rebellion. In view of these very grave considerations, it may be observed that the language of the formal instruction to Mr. Young was much less definite and positive than that of the telegraphic response. "Your memorandum does not suggest that the coming of armed revolutionary expeditions to Constantinople is apprehended; but even in the extreme supposition that citizens of the United States might attempt to enlist abroad for the purpose of making war upon any foreign power with which the United States are at peace, the United States minister is authorized in countries where the United States possess extraterritorial jurisdiction to issue writs and otherwise to prevent such enlistments, carrying out this power by resort to such force belonging to the United States as may at the time be within his reach (Rev. Stat., sec. 4090). Under this provision, the admiral commanding the United States fleet on the European station was instructed nearly a year ago to cooperate heartily with our minister in Turkey in enforcing all writs issued by the latter to prevent the entry into Turkey of any American citizens as armed revolutionists. As your communication has particular reference to the situation at Constantinople, it is proper to remark that the admiral's instructions can only hold good in fact at ports or places visited by the vessels under his orders, so that in the absence of a dispatch boat at Constantinople subject to his directions the hands of the United States minister are tied." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Moustapha Bey, Turkish min., Nov. 11, 1896, VII. MEASURE OF EXERTION. 1. REQUISITE DILIGENCE. $1329. During the wars immediately preceding the Peace of Amiens, many claims arose on the part of citizens of the United States against Spain on account of captures made either by French privateers fitted out in Spain or by French privateers in Spanish waters, as well as on account of condemnations by French consuls or other French agents in Spanish jurisdiction. The Spanish Government denied its liability, first, on the ground that it was unable to prevent the acts complained of, and, secondly, on the ground that the primary liability rested on France, and that as France was (so the Spanish Government contended) released from any liability for the claims by the convention with the United States of Sept. 30, 1800, the secondary liability of Spain was released. The United States, on the other hand, maintained (1) that Spain was primarily liable; (2) that the renunciation of the convention of 1800 extended only to claims for which France was primarily liable, and (3) that the inability of Spain to prevent the acts complained of was not established. Mr. Madison, in an instruction of Oct. 25, 1802, took the ground, as to the last point, that, in order to excuse a sovereign for permitting a violation of his neutrality, it must "be shown that the force or danger which destroyed the free agency really existed, and that all reasonable means. were employed to prevent or remedy the evil resulting." By the treaty of February 22, 1819, the United States renounced its claims against Spain and undertook to compensate its own citizens to the amount of $5,000,000. Among the claims embraced in this settlement were those "on account of prizes made by French privateers, and condemned by French consuls, within the territory and jurisdiction of Spain." Mr. Marshall, Sec. of State, to Mr. Humphreys, min. to Spain, Sept. 8, 1800, MS. Inst. U. States Ministers, V. 358; Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pinckney, min. to Spain, Oct. 25, 1802, id. VI. 57; same to same, Feb. 6, 1804, id. 196; Mr. Madison to Mr. Monroe, Oct. 26, 1804, id. 256. For an opinion of Messrs. Ingersoll, Rawle, McKean, and Duponceau, in support of Spain's alleged release by the French convention of 1800, see Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 605. For comments on this opinion, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 1491- See Bosanquet, S. R. C., and Tangye, R. T. G., The Burden of Neutrality. "The Government of the United States, having used all the means. in its power to prevent the fitting out and arming of vessels [in |