chasing arms from citizens of the United States and shipping them at the risk of the purchaser.

Speed, At. Gen., 1865, 11 Op. 408; id. 451.

As to supply of arms to South American colonies when in insurrection against Spain, see 5 J. Q. Adams's Memoirs, 46.

For a criticism of the position of the United States in reference to the rights of neutrals to furnish contraband of war to belligerents, see 3 Phill. Int. Law (3d ed.), 250, 408; and as criticising Sir R. Phillimore and pointing out his mistakes in this relation, see Historicus [Sir W. Vernon Harcourt], Letters on some Questions of Int. Law, 130.

Citizens of the United States have, by the law of nations and by treaty, the right to carry to the enemies of Spain, whether insurgents or foreign foes, all merchandise not contraband of war, subject only to the requirements of legal blockade. "Articles contraband of war, when destined for the enemies of Spain, are liable to seizure on the high seas, but the right of seizure is limited to such articles only, and no claim for its extension to other merchandise, or to persons not`in the civil, military, or naval service of the enemies of Spain, will be acquiesced in by the United States. This Government certainly can not assent to the punishment by Spanish authorities of any citizen of the United States for the exercise of a privilege to which he may be entitled under public laws and treaties."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lopez Roberts, Span. min., April 3, 1869,
S. Ex. Doc. 7, 41 Cong. 2 sess. 12.

This note is cited in Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cushing, min. to
Spain, No. 31, June 9, 1874, For. Rel. 1876, 493.

See, also, Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Shippen, Ecuadorean consul at
Philadelphia, Nov. 4, 1876, 115 MS. Dom. Let. 615; Mr. Evarts, Sec.
of State, to Mr. Sherman, Sec. of Treas., June 19, 1877, 118 MS. Dom.
Let. 621.

"The exportation of arms and munitions of war of their own manufacture to foreign countries, is an important part of the commerce of the United States. In time of war their Government will expect those engaged in the business to beware of all the risks legally incident to it. No such expectation, however, can be indulged in a time of profound peace; an indemnification will be asked of any nation which may unnecessarily or illegally obstruct such trade.”

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cramer, July 28, 1874, MS. Inst. Denmark, XV. 107. See, also, Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Russell, June 4, 1875, MS. Inst. Venezuela, II. 291.

During the war between Chile, Bolivia, and Peru the Chilean Government desired the Argentine Republic to prohibit the traffic in arms and munitions of war with the belligerents. Bolivia strongly

protested against such an inhibition, maintaining that it would in its operation be unfair to that Government. On the question at issue the Argentine minister of foreign affairs, Dr. Bernardo de Irigoyen, took substantially the following position: That while it is generally conceded that the traffic in arms and munitions of war by private persons, without intent to aid either belligerent, is admissible as a commercial transaction, subject to the risk of capture, yet that, when the shipment is made by agents of the belligerents on a scale so large as to convert them into important aids to the war, neutral governments should use due diligence to prevent such traffic with one of the belligerents, so that it may not be required to sanction similar operations on the part of the other belligerent and thus tolerate the conversion of its territory into a center of expeditions in conflict with its neutral character. The reports of the Argentine ministry of foreign affairs show several cases during the war in which Chile protested against alleged shipments of arms from the Argentine Republic to Bolivia; but as the alleged shipments in question were unimportant, the matter does not appear to have resulted in anything more than an exchange of notes.

Mr. Buchanan, min. to the Argentine Republic, to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, No. 584, Dec. 1, 1898, enclosing a report of Mr. François S. Jones, sec. of legation, 37 MS. Desp. from Arg. Rep.

In the summer of 1879 the captain of a steamer bound from Panama to Callao declined to take on board five large packages which were bound from New York to Callao, and which, on examination, were found to contain "a torpedo launch, in five sections, ready to be set up." It was stated that other consignments of like character were to follow. At the instance of a United States customs inspector at Panama the Treasury Department solicited the views of the Department of State as to whether the transaction, assuming that the articles were to be delivered to the Government of Chile or of Peru, involved an infraction of the neutrality laws of the United States. Mr. Evarts, after conference with the Secretary of the Treasury and incidentally with the Chilean minister, and after having caused the question to be examined by the law officer of the Department of State, stated that the only legal provision, if any, applicable to the case was section 5283 of the Revised Statutes, and that he was "clearly of opinion that the simple manufacture and shipment of such materials [as those in question] as merchandise would not be in violation of the provisions of that section. Uniform and repeated rulings of the executive and judicial branches of the Government," said Mr. Evarts, “in regard to the true interpretation of the neutrality laws of the United States in the case of even completed seagoing vessels, make it clear that the facts respecting this material stated by In

spector Carter, if the same was found within the jurisdiction of the United States, would not present a case of the violation of the provisions of section 5283 of the Revised Statutes. The articles in question are, as before stated, doubtless contraband of war, and are sold, shipped, and purchased at the peril and risk of capture. Subject to such risk, they continue to be a legitimate element of commerce to the citizens of the United States, a neutral power, with either of the belligerents in time of war, in the same manner and to the same extent as they would be in time of peace, and afford no ground for the interference of the executive officers of the United States, either within their own jurisdiction or elsewhere, with such a mercantile transaction."

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sherman, Sec. of Treas., Nov. 14, 1879, 130 MS. Dom. Let. 472.

March 2, 1885, Mr. Becerra, Colombian minister at Washington, advised the Department of State that certain Colombian citizens, acting in the interest of the rebels who then controlled the Atlantic coast of that country, were about to purchase arms and munitions of war in New York, and also possibly to fit out vessels there for the purpose of carrying the war into the interior of Colombia. These allegations were brought by Mr. Bayard, who was then Secretary of State, to the attention of the proper authorities.

On March 10, 1885, Mr. Garland, Attorney-General, sent to Mr. Root, United States district attorney at New York, the following telegram: "Minister of United States of Colombia at this capital states that parties are engaged in purchase of arms to carry on war against his Government. Steamer leaves your port to-morrow or next day. You are directed to immediately adopt stringent measures to prevent any departure of warlike elements intended to assist expeditions against Colombia."

Mr. Root, on receiving this telegram, ascertained through the local Treasury officials that the steamer Albano, belonging to a regular line, had just cleared for a port in Colombia having arms on her manifest. He requested that the clearance be stopped and the vessel not allowed to leave till further examination; and at the same time he asked Mr. Garland for more particular information, saying: "The mere fact that a steamer cleared for a port in the United States of Colombia having arms among her cargo is no ground for interference. It is highly improbable that the vessel in question, whether it be the Albano or any other steamer, will correspond with the description of section 5290. The Albano I understand to be a vessel of a regular line. The detention for the purpose of examination justified by section 5290 will accordingly be brief. In order to take

any further steps to prevent the arms from going forth, I must have some facts which will establish a violation of some provisions of the neutrality act. The case of the steamship Florida, decided by Judge Blatchford in the district court in this district in 1871, and reported in the 4th of Benedict District Court Reports, 452, illustrates the difficulty of establishing violations of law of this description."

This correspondence was communicated by Mr. Bayard to Mr. Becerra on March 11, 1885. Next day Mr. Becerra, undertaking to furnish the further information which Mr. Root had requested, represented that the Albano had special contracts with the Colombian Government—a more than ordinary observance of neutrality in the domestic contentions of that country was required; that, in spite of this, the vessel had taken on arms for the rebels, for the purpose of delivering them at a port which the competent authorities of Colombia had by decree declared to be closed to foreign commerce; and that the United States, as the guarantor of the neutrality of the Isthmus under the treaty of 1846, was specially interested in preserving order there and in repressing the insurrection. On the 17th of March Mr. Becerra complained that the Albano, in spite of his efforts, had not been detained; and he also stated that a sailing vessel laden with arms had left New York for a port in Colombia held by the insurgents and likewise declared closed to commerce.

On March 25, 1885, Mr. Bayard, replying to Mr. Becerra's representations, said: "The existence of a rebellion in Colombia does not authorize the public officials of the United States to obstruct ordinary commerce in arms between citizens of this country and the rebellious or other parts of the territory of the Republic of Colombia. It is a well-established rule of international law that the allowance of such commerce is no breach of duty towards the friendly government whose enemies may thus be supplied with arms. As no charge is made that the vessels in question are armed vessels intended for the use of the rebels mentioned, or that military expeditions are being set on foot in this country against the Republic of Colombia, the duties of this Government are limited to the enforcement of the statutory provisions which apply to such cases."

In a subsequent note to Mr. Becerra, of March 27, 1885, Mr. Bayard, again referring to the shipment of arms by the Albano, said: "It has not as yet been possible to ascertain whether these articles are intended to be used in expeditions hostile to the Colombian Government, but even should this prove to be the case, this Government, however much it may regret the encouragement in any manner from this country of the revolt against the constitutional authorities of its sister Republic, must maintain the right of its citizens to carry on without a violation of the neutrality laws the ordinary traffic in arms

with the rebellious or other parts of that Republic, as more particularly set forth in my note to you of the 25th instant."

Mr. Becerra, Colombian min., to Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, March 2, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 231; Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Becerra, March 11, 1885, id. 232-234; Mr. Becerra to Mr. Bayard, March 12, 1885, id. 234-236; Mr. Bayard to Mr. Becerra, March 25, 1885, and March 27, 1885, id. 238–239.

See, also, Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Garland, At. Gen., March 17, 1885, 154 MS. Dom. Let. 503; same to same, March 9, 1885, id. 415; same to same, March 12, 1885, id. 451; Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Sec. of Treas., March 17, 1885, id. 509.

"It is also to be observed that the fact that certain articles of commerce are contraband does not make it a breach of neutrality to export them. There has not been, since the organization of our Government, a European war in which, in full accordance with the rules of international law, as accepted by the United States, munitions of war have not been sent by American citizens to one or both of the belligerents; yet it has never been doubted that these munitions of war, if seized by the belligerent, against whom they were to be used, could have been condemned as contraband.

"The question, then, is whether furnishing to belligerents coal and life shells is a breach of neutrality which the law of nations forbids. The question must be answered in the negative as to coal, and the same conclusion may be adopted with regard to life shells, which are said to be projectiles used in the bringing to shore or rescue of wrecks.

"Under these circumstances it is not perceived why, in the present case, the United States authorities should intervene to prevent such supply from being forwarded to the open ports of either belligerent. Even supposing such articles to be contraband of war and consequently liable to be seized and confiscated by the offended belligerent, it is no breach of neutrality for a neutral to forward them to such belligerent ports subject, of course, to such risks. When, however, such articles are forwarded directly to vessels of war in belligerent service another question arises. Provisions and munitions of war sent to belligerent cruisers are unquestionably contraband of war. Whether, however, it is a breach of neutrality, by the law of nations, to forward them directly to belligerent cruisers depends so much upon extraneous circumstances that the question can only be properly decided when these circumstances are presented in detail."

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smithers, chargé at Peking, June 1, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 172.

See, also, For. Rel. 1885, 156, 168, 170. That neutrals may sell arms to belligerents, see Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dayton, Feb. 19, 1883, MS. Inst. Netherlands, XV. 418.