The Mexican minister in reply called attention to the cases of Benavides, Martinez, and others, who were tried and sentenced in the Federal courts for conducting expeditions very similar, as the minister contended, to that carried into effect by Ochoa." The Attorney-General subsequently instructed the proper district attorney to prosecute any violation of the neutrality laws on being furnished with any tangible evidence of it, and it was stated that the War Department would also render any cooperation which might be practicable. The grand jury at El Paso, at the April term, 1894, returned a true bill against Ochoa for alleged violation of the neutrality laws. Ochoa was reported then to be at a hotel in the city of New York. It appears that after the failure of his attempts in Mexico, Catarino Garza fled to Costa Rica. Subsequently he went to San Juan del Norte, in Nicaragua, where he gathered about him some thirty men, chiefly Colombian exiles, and securing money and a quantity of small arms returned to Costa Rica with a view to make an incursion into Colombia. On the approach of Costa Rican troops he embarked, with his followers, for Bocas del Toro, where they were defeated and Garza and eleven of his followers killed, while the rest were taken prisoners. Mr. Baker, min. to Costa Rica, to Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, No. 490, See, as to the Garza raids, Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Attorney-General, 6. USE OF NEUTRAL TERRITORY AS BASE OF OPERATIONS. (1) STATION FOR HOSTILITIES. § 1301. "As it is contrary to the law of nations that any of the belligerent powers should commit hostility on the waters which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, so ought not the ships of war, belonging to any belligerent power, to take a station in those waters in order to carry on hostile expeditions from thence. I do myself the honor, therefore, of requesting of your excellency, in the name of the President of the United States, that, as often as a fleet, squadron, or ship, of any belligerent nation, shall clearly and unequivocally use the rivers, or other waters of as a station, in a For. Rel. 1894, 429. For. Rel. 1894, 430–431. c For. Rel. 1894, 432. order to carry on hostile expeditions from thence, you will cause to be notified to the commander thereof that the President deems such conduct to be contrary to the rights of our neutrality; and that a demand of retribution will be urged upon their government for prizes which may be made in consequence thereof. A standing order to this effect may probably be advantageously placed in the hands of some confidential officer of the militia, and I must entreat you to instruct him to write by the mail to this Department, immediately upon the happening of any case of the kind." Mr. Randolph, Sec. of State, to the governors of the several States, circular, April 16, 1795, 1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. 608; 8 MS. Dom. Let. 138. See, also, Mr. Randolph, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hammond, Brit. min., April 13 and April 22, 1795, 8 MS. Dom. Let. 124, 145. The circular of April 16, 1795, did "not request that vessels, using our waters as a hostile station should be ordered to depart." but " only that notice should be given to them of our intended demand upon their Government. An order to depart would be inconsistent with the letter of the 9th of Sept. 1793, which concedes to them our ports as a refuge in case of necessity and a resort for comfort or convenience, without limiting the time of their stay." Mr. Randolph, Sec. of State, to governor of Virginia, May 8, 1795, 8 MS. Referring to the use alleged to have been made of the port of St. Thomas, D. W. I., for the purpose of capturing neutral vessels, Mr. Seward stated that Commander Craven, U. S. N., had been instructed by the Secretary of the Navy" that it was not proper to make a convenience, in any manner, of neutral territory for the purpose of exercising the belligerent right of search or capture. A capture of a neutral vessel made after standing off and on a neutral harbor, or mouth of a river, or lying in wait within it for the purpose, although actually made beyond the neutral jurisdiction, would not be recognized as valid, and the right of search can not properly be exercised when it is known previously that, whatever the event of the search, the capture would not be lawful." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Lord Lyons, British min., July 29, 1863, MS. (2) SALE OF PRIZES, § 1302. "The doctrine as to the admission of prizes, maintained by the Government from the commencement of the war between England, France, etc., to this day has been this: The treaties give a right to H. Doc. 551-vol 760 armed vessels, with their prizes, to go where they please (consequently into our ports), and that these prizes shall not be detained, seized, nor adjudicated, but that the armed vessel may depart as speedily as may be, with her prize, to the place of her commission; and we are not to suffer their enemies to sell in our ports the prizes taken by their privateers. Before the British treaty, no stipulation stood in the way of permitting France to sell her prizes here; and we did permit it, but expressly as a favor, not as a right. . . . These stipulations admit the prizes to put into our ports in cases of necessity, or perhaps of convenience, but no right to remain if disagreeable to us; and absolutely not to be sold." Mr. Jefferson, President, to Mr. Gallatin, Aug. 25, 1801, 1 Gallatin's "The sale of prizes brought into the ports of the United States by armed vessels of the French Republic .. has been regarded by us not as a right to which the captors were entitled either by the law of nations or our treaty of amity and commerce with France." Mr. Pickering, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adet, May 24, 1796, 1 Am. State Papers, See, also, Mr. Pickering, Sec. of State, to the President, July 19, 1796, 9 "Prizes made upon the high seas, which may come to the ports of my dominions, shall not be permitted to sell their cargoes, if they consist of prohibited goods; but if they are not of that kind, and are exposed to damage, they shall be permitted to be sold." Royal Cedula of the King of Spain, No. 2, June 14, 1797, 10 MS. Dom. There is high authority for the position that a prize may be carried into a neutral port and there sold, but considerations of expediency should lead the neutral sovereign to exercise his undoubted right of prohibiting such sale. It would be a breach of neutrality to permit a port to be made a cruising station for a belligerent or a depot for his spoils and prisoners. It is not a breach of neutrality to permit a vessel captured as prize to be repaired in our ports and put in a condition to be taken to a port of the captor for adiudication. Wirt, At. Gen., 1828, 2 Op. 86. When a foreign belligerent cruiser brings a prize into a neutral port, the cruiser will be required to depart as soon as practicable, and will not be permitted to dispose in such port of the prize or of its goods. Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Tacon, Apr. 11, 1828, MS. Notes to For. "The laws of the United States do not admit of the sale within their jurisdiction, for any purpose, of prize goods taken by one belligerent from another and brought into their ports. This Government does not take jurisdiction at all upon the question of prize or no prize, but leaves that question exclusively to the cognizance of the tribunals of the respective belligerents." Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Obregon, May 1, 1828, MS. Notes to For. See, also, Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Saunders, min. to Spain, "Neither belligerent is allowed by the laws of the United States to sell his prizes within their ports. The rights of hospitality are equally offered to both. They could not be denied, in many cases, without a violation of the duties of humanity." Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rebello, May 1, 1828, MS. Notes to For. A neutral nation, while admitting belligerent men-of-war to its ports, may, as it sees fit, wholly admit or wholly exclude their prizes. Cushing, At. Gen., 1855, 7 Op. 122. In the case of the American steamer Chesapeake, which was taken possession of, while on a voyage from New York to Portland, Me., by persons acting in the name of the Confederate States, and which was afterwards recaptured in Nova Scotian waters, where the captors had sought asylum, by a United States ship of war, who took the vessel to Halifax and delivered her to the colonial authorities, the Hon. Alex. Stewart, C. B., of the vice-admiralty court, held that the sovereign whose territorial rights are violated by the subjects or citizens of a friendly state can, if he finds them within his jurisdiction, inflict on them his own penalty in his own mode; that the Chesapeake, if a prize at all, was an uncondemned prize; that for a belligerent to bring an uncondemned prize into a neutral port to avoid recapture is such a grave offense against the neutral state that it ipso facto subjects the prize to forfeiture, and that the vessel should be restored to the owners on the payment of costs. Mr. Seward had contended for the restitution of the vessel unconditionally, by executive authority, without waiting for an adjudication; but, on the rendition of the court's decision, he advised the owners to pay the costs under protest, and accepted the restitution as decreed. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adams, min. to England, No. 852, Feb. 24, 1864, Dip. Cor. 1864, I. 196. For the judgment of the court, see id. 197. For a further account of the case of the Chesapeake, see supra, § 210. Replying to an inquiry of the Peruvian legation as to the course the United States would pursue during the war between Spain and Peru, Mr. Seward said: "This Government will observe the neutrality which is enjoined by its own municipal law and by the law of nations. No armed vessels of either party will be allowed to bring their prizes into the ports of the United States." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Señor Garcia, Feb. 26, 1866, MS. Notes to (3) HOSTILE PASSAGE. § 1303. Early in April, 1898, the Canadian Government, acting upon a request presented by the Department of State to the British ambassador at Washington, granted permission for four United States revenue cutters to pass through the canals under Canadian control from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic coast, two of the vessels being armed revenue cutters, while the other two were under construction and were not to be delivered by the builders to the United States till they reached the sea. April 27, 1898, war between the United States and Spain having meanwhile begun, a memorandum was left at the Department of State by the British ambassador, in which, referring to the fact that the four vessels were in Lake Ontario awaiting the opening of navigation, he stated that Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that the permission given before the outbreak of war should not be withdrawn," provided that the United States Government are willing to give an assurance that the vessels in question will proceed straight to a United States port without engaging in any hostile operation." The opinion was further expressed " that the vessels should not be furnished with more coal and stores than are necessary to take them to New York or some other United States port within easy reach." The hope was expressed that assurances to that effect would at once be given, "in order that the facilities granted before the outbreak of war may still be extended without any breach of neutrality." The Department of State replied that instructions would be sent to the commanders of the vessels to observe the conditions above expressed, but added: "It is, of course, understood that the prohibition of engaging in any hostile operation would not preclude resistance to a hostile attack." On the 4th of May the British ambassador was advised that the proper orders had been issued to the commanding officers of two vessels which were then on their way to the Atlantic coast, and that similar orders would be given to the others whenever they should follow. For. Rel. 1898, 968-970. This incident is mentioned in President McKinley's annual message, Dec. 5, 1898. See, also, II. Doc. 471, 56 Cong. 1 sess. 65–72. |