erency,' and the consideration of the present case arising under section 5283 confirms us in the view thus expressed." The Three Friends (1897), 166 U. S. 1, 51. "Neutrality, strictly speaking, consists in abstinence from any participation in a public, private or civil war, and in impartiality of conduct toward both parties, but the maintenance unbroken of peaceful relations between two powers when the domestic peace of one of them is disturbed is not neutrality in the sense in which the word is used when the disturbance has acquired such head as to have demanded the recognition of belligerency. And, as mere matter of municipal administration, no nation can permit unauthorized acts of war within its territory in infraction of its sovereignty, while good faith towards friendly nations requires their prevention. 66 6 Hence, as Mr. Attorney-General Hoar pointed out, 13 Opinions, 177, 178, though the principal object of the act was to secure the performance of the duty of the United States, under the law of nations, as a neutral nation in respect of foreign powers,' the act is nevertheless an act to punish certain offences against the United States by fines, imprisonment and forfeitures, and the act itself defines the precise nature of those offences."" The Three Friends (1897), 166 U. S. 1, 52, Fuller, C. J., delivering the opinion of the court. IX. EFFECT OF ARMISTICE. § 1333. "Shortly after I had entered upon the discharge of the executive duties I was apprized that a war steamer belonging to the German Empire was being fitted out in the harbor of New York with the aid of some of our naval officers rendered under the permission of the late Secretary of the Navy. This permission was granted during an armistice between that Empire and the Kingdom of Denmark, which had been engaged in the Schleswig-Holstein war. Apprehensive that this act of intervention on our part might be viewed as a violation of our neutral obligations incurred by the treaty with Denmark and of the provisions of the act of Congress of the 20th of April, 1818, I directed that no further aid should be rendered by any agent or officer of the Navy; and I instructed the Secretary of State to apprize the minister of the German Empire accredited to this Government of my determination to execute the law of the United States and to maintain the faith of treaties with all nations. The correspondence which ensued between the Department of State and the minister of the German Empire is herewith laid before you. The execution of the law and the observance of the treaty were deemed by me to be due to the honor of the country, as well as to the sacred obligations of the Constitution. I shall not fail to pursue the same course should a similar case arise with any other nation. Having avowed the opinion on taking the oath of office that in disputes between conflicting foreign governments it is our interest not less than our duty to remain strictly neutral, I shall not abandon it. You will perceive from the correspondence submitted to you in connection with this subject that the course adopted in this case has been properly regarded by the belligerent powers interested in the matter." President Taylor, annual message, Dec. 4, 1849, Richardson's Messages, See, as to this case, which was that of the war steamer United States, On August 22, 1898, ten days after the conclusion of the general armistice between the United States and Spain, Mr. Hay, American ambassador in London, was instructed to " ascertain whether Admiral Dewey may dock, clean, and paint bottoms of vessels under his command at Hongkong. These operations," it was added, "could not under present circumstances be considered as connected with actual hostilities, but are in the nature of repairs affecting the preservation of vessels." August 23 Mr. Hay replied that the British Government had telegraphed to the governor of Hongkong to accede to Admiral Dewey's application. .For. Rel. 1898, 1002. "I have the honor to inform you that on the 22nd ultimo I received the following telegram of that date from Mr. Harris, United States consul at Nagasaki: 'Ascertain if Japanese Government will allow dock-yard company here to dock ships of our fleet during armistice. Answer soon as possible.' "From an interview had with the vice-minister for foreign affairs it is clear that the Japanese Government are strongly convinced that, the present being an armistice and not definite peace, the relation of neutral and belligerent remains unchanged; and that therefore they could not without a breach of neutrality allow the docking of United States war vessels in a Japanese port. "Mr. Harris was accordingly on the 24th ultimo answered by wire in the negative. He has since informed me that his telegram to me was sent in view of a telegram to him from Admiral Dewey request ing him to ascertain whether ships of the fleet could be docked at Nagasaki during the armistice, and desiring a speedy reply." Mr. Buck, min. to Japan, to Mr. Day, Sec. of State, No. 190, Sept. 6, 1898, September 21, 1898, after the conclusion of the general armistice. between the United States and Spain, the Department of State instructed the embassy of the United States in London that it was desired to send the small light-draft gunboat Helena to China for river service, for which purpose she was expressly built, and that she would sail about October 1st, touching at Bermuda, Madeira, and Gibraltar. The embassy was instructed to ask permission for the vessel to visit Bermuda and Gibraltar and coal there, with the understanding that she "does not reinforce Asiatic Squadron for operations against Spain should hostilities be resumed." The desired permission was granted by the British Government on the understanding expressed in the application. For. Rel. 1898, 1005. By the protocol between the United States and Spain, concluded at Washington, August 12, 1898, hostilities were immediately suspended, and it was provided that commissioners should meet at Paris to treat of peace. Subsequently the U. S. S. Marietta, on visiting the Dutch port of Curaçao, in the West Indies, was, after a stay of forty-four hours, requested to depart. The American minister at The Hague was instructed to bring the matter to the attention of the Dutch Government and to inquire whether it regarded its neutrality proclamation as being strictly applicable during the existing truce and when the treaty of peace seemed to be on the eve of consummation. It was stated that other neutral powers had treated the armistice between the United States and Spain as a practical end of the war, and had admitted public ships of the United States freely to enter their ports for docking, taking on supplies, and for other purposes. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Newel, min. to the Netherlands, No. 195, See, also, Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. White, chargé at London, Oct. X. RESPECT DUE TO NEUTRAL TERRITORY. 1. INVIOLABILITY. § 1334. On May 2, 1793, the United States received from Mr. Hammond, the British minister, a request for the restoration of the British ship Grange, which had been captured by the French frigate L'Embus cade, in the Delaware Bay, and brought to Philadelphia. Next day Mr. Jefferson assured Mr. Hammond that the United States would "certainly not see with indifference its territory or jurisdiction violated" by either belligerent, and that an inquiry would at once be made into the facts. On the same day Mr. Jefferson wrote in a similar sense to the French minister and asked that the ship be detained till the President's decision could be made. Subsequently Mr. Jefferson asked that the ship and her cargo be restored, and this was done. Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 148, 150; Moore, Int. Arbitrations, IV. 3968; Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to the British minister, May 3, 1793, 5 MS. Dom. Let. 101; Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to the French minister, May 3, 1793, id. 100. "As in cases where vessels are reclaimed by the subjects or citizens of the belligerent powers, as having been taken within the jurisdiction of the United States, it becomes necessary to ascertain that fact, by testimony taken according to the laws of the United States, the governors of the several States, to whom the application, will be made in the first instance, are desired immediately to notify thereof the attorneys of their respective districts. The attorney is thereupon instructed to give notice to the principal agent of both parties, who may have come in with the prize, and also to the consuls of the nations interested, and to recommend to them to appoint, by mutual consent, arbiters, to decide whether the capture was made within the jurisdiction of the United States, as stated to you in my letter of the 8th instant, according to whose award the governor may proceed to deliver the vessel to the one or the other party. But in case the parties, or consul shall not agree to name arbiters, then the attorney, or some person substituted by him, is to notify them of the time and place, when and where he will be, in order to take the depositions of such witnesses as they may cause to come before him, which depositions he is to transmit for the information and decision of the President." Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hammond, Brit. min., Nov. 10, 1793, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 183; 1 Wait's State Papers, 196; 4 Jefferson's Works, 76. No foreign power can of right institute or erect any court of judicature in the United States, except such as may be warranted by treaties, and the admiralty jurisdiction which has been exercised in the United States by the consuls of France, not being so warranted, is not of right and cannot be recognized. Glass v. Sloop Betsey (1794), 3 Dall. 6. By a royal cedula of June 14, 1797, the King of Spain declared that the immunity of the coasts of all his dominions should not be limited as theretofore "by the doubtful and uncertain reach of a cannon shot, but by the distance of two miles of nine hundred toises each," and that no prize made within that distance should be valid unless it belonged to a power with which he was at war. All prizes made within that limit were to be adjudged by the Spanish tribunals; those made outside, by the tribunals of the captor.. But this rule was subject to the qualification that, if a neutral vessel captured outside the territorial distance and brought into a Spanish port should contain Spanish property amounting to a half of the value of the cargo, the whole prize should be judged by the Spanish tribunals, while, if the Spanish property on board amounted to less than half the value of the cargo, the tribunals of the captor should take cognizance of it. 10 MS. Dom. Let. 284. The invasion of neutral rights by an attack on one belligerent cruiser by another on neutral waters is not condoned by the fact that the chase was begun outside of the neutral line. Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, to Mr. Monroe, Nov. 25, 1806, MS. Inst. U. "I take the true principle to be, that for violations of jurisdiction, with the consent of the sovereign, or his voluntary sufferance, indemnification is due; but that for others he is bound only to use all reasonable means to obtain indemnification from the aggressor, which must be calculated on his circumstances, and these endeavors bonâ fide made; and failing, he is no further responsible.' It would be extraordinary indeed if we were to be answerable for the conduct of belligerents through our whole coast, whether inhabited or not." Mr. Jefferson, President, to the Secretary of State, Apr. 21, 1807, 5 Jefferson's Works, 69. In the case of the American privateer brig General Armstrong, which was destroyed by an English squadron in the harbor of Fayal in 1814, the United States claimed indemnity from Portugal on account of the failure of protection. Louis Napoleon, to whom the case was referred as arbitrator, disallowed the claim on the ground that, before the fight took place, the commander of the privateer omitted to invoke the protection of the colonial authorities. Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1071, 1096. See, also, Hall, Int. Law (4th ed.), 648; Abdy's Kent (2d ed.), 157; |