"It can keep them in camps, and even confine them in fortresses or locations assigned for this purpose.

66

It shall decide whether officers may be left at liberty on giving their parole that they will not leave the neutral territory without authorization.

"ARTICLE LVIII. Failing a special Convention, the neutral State shall supply the interned with the food, clothing, and relief required by humanity.

"At the conclusion of peace, the expenses caused by the internment shall be made good.

"ARTICLE LIX. A neutral State may authorize the passage through its territory of wounded or sick belonging to the belligerent armies, on condition that the trains bringing them shall carry neither combatants nor war material. In such a case, the neutral State is bound to adopt such measures of safety and control as may be necessary for the purpose.

"Wounded and sick brought under these conditions into neutral territory by one of the belligerents, and belonging to the hostile party, must be guarded by the neutral State, so as to insure their not taking part again in the military operations. The same duty shall devolve on the neutral State with regard to wounded or sick of the other army who may be committed to its care.

"ARTICLE LX. The Geneva Convention applies to sick and wounded interned in neutral territory."

Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed
at The Hague, July 29, 1899, Annex, Regulations, Section IV., on the
Internment of Belligerents and the Care of the Wounded in Neutral
Countries, 32 Stat. II. 1824.

VI. ENFORCEMENT OF NEUTRAL DUTIES.

1. PROCLAMATIONS.

§ 1319.

"Whereas it appears that a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands of the one part, and France on the other, and the duty and interests of the United States require, that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers:

"I have therefore thought fit by these presents to declare the disposition of the United States to observe the conduct aforesaid toward these powers respectively; and to exhort and warn the citizens of the United States carefully to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever, which may in any manner tend to contravene such disposition.

"And I do hereby also make known, that whosoever of the citizens of the United States shall render himself liable to punishment or forfeiture under the law of nations, by committing, aiding, or abetting hostilities against any of the said powers, or by carrying to any of them those articles which are deemed contraband by the modern usage of nations, will not receive the protection of the United States, against such punishment or forfeiture; and further, that I have given instructions to those officers, to whom it belongs, to cause prosecutions to be instituted against all persons, who shall, within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the law of nations, with respect to the powers at war, or any of them."

President Washington's Neutrality Proclamation, April 22, 1793, Am.
State Papers, For. Rel. I. 140.

See Moore, Int. Arbitrations, I. 310; V. 4406.

"I particularly recommend to your consideration the means of preventing
those aggressions by our citizens on the territory of other nations,
and other infractions of the law of nations, which, furnishing just
subject of complaint, might endanger our peace with them." (Presi-
dent Washington, annual address to Congress, Nov. 6, 1792, Richard-
son's Messages, I. 128.)

"You may on every occasion give assurances, which cannot go beyond the
real desires of this country, to preserve a fair neutrality in the pres-
ent war, on condition that the rights of neutral nations are respected
in us as they have been settled in modern times either by the express
declarations of the powers of Europe, or their adoption of them on
particular occasions. From our treaties with France and Holland,
and that of England and France, a very clear and simple line of con-
duct can be marked out for us, and I think we are not unreasonable
in expecting that England will recognize towards us the same prin-
ciples which she has stipulated to recognize towards France in a state
of neutrality." (Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pinckney, min.
to England, April 20, 1793, MS. Inst. U. States Ministers, I. 272.)
"The public papers giving us reason to believe that the war is becoming
nearly general in Europe, and that it has already involved nations
with which we are in daily habits of commerce and friendship, the
President has thought it proper to issue the proclamation of which I
inclose you a copy, in order to mark out to our citizens the line of
conduct they are to pursue. That this intimation, however, might
not work to their prejudice, by being produced against them as con-
clusive evidence of their knowledge of the existence of war and of the
nations engaged in it, in any case where they might be drawn into
courts of justice for acts done without that knowledge, it has been
thought necessary to write to the representatives of the belligerent
powers here the letter, of which a copy is also inclosed, reserving to
our citizens those immunities to which they are entitled till authentic
information shall be given to our Government by the parties at war,
and be thus communicated with due certainty to our citizens." (Mr.
Jefferson, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Morris, Pinckney, and Short, Apr.
26, 1793, MS. Inst. U. States Ministers, I. 275.)

See, to the same effect, Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to the "Ministers of
France and Great Britain and the President of the United Nether-
lands," April 23, 1793, 5 MS. Dom. Let. 92.
"You have most perfectly seized the original idea of the proclamation.
When first proposed as a declaration of neutrality, it was opposed,
first, because the Executive had no power to declare neutrality. Sec-
ond, as such, a declaration would be premature, and would lose us
the benefit for which it might be bartered. It was urged that there
was a strong impression in the minds of many, that they were free to
join in the hostilities on the side of France. Others were unap-
prised of the danger they would be exposed to in carrying contra-
band goods, etc. It was, therefore, agreed that a proclamation should
issue, declaring that we were in a state of peace, admonishing the
people to do nothing contravening it, and putting them on their
guard as to contraband. On this ground, it was accepted or acqui-
esced in by all, and E. R., who drew it, brought it to me, the draft,
to let me see there was no such word as neutrality in it. Circum-
stances forbid other verbal criticisms. The public, however, soon
took it up as a declaration of neutrality, and it came to be considered
at length as such. . . . With respect to our citizens who had
joined in hostilities against a nation with whom we are at peace the
subject was thus viewed. Treaties are law. By the treaty with Eng-
land, we are in a state of peace with her. He who breaks that
peace, if within our jurisdiction, breaks the laws, and is punishable
by them. And if he is punishable, he ought to be punished, because
no citizen should be free to commit his country to war.". (Mr. Jef
ferson to Mr. Monroe, July 14, 1793, 2 Randall's Life of Jefferson,
167.)

See, also, Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morris, min. to France, Aug.
16, 1793, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 167; Jefferson to Madison.
June 23, 1793, 3 Rives's Madison, 325.

The issuance of the proclamation gave rise to animated discussions both as to the nature of the act and as to the President's constitutional powers. Hamilton, under the name of Pacificus, argued that all treaty-making and war powers belong to the Executive, except so far as limited by the Constitution, while Madison, under the name of Helvidius, contended that such powers should be exercised by means of laws, which should be enacted by the legislature and enforced by the Executive. (1 Madison's Writings, 614 et seq.) As to this discussion, see 3 Rives's Madison, 354, 355; 4 Hildreth's Hist. of the United States, 429.

"Of the great trading nations, America is almost the only one that has shown consistency of principle. The firmness and thorough understanding of the laws of nations, which during this war [growing out of the French Revolution] she has displayed, must for ever rank her high in the scale of enlightened communities." (Ward's Rights and Duties of Neutrals, cited in Bemis's American Neutrality, 28.)

A collection of the laws, decrees, and circulars of various governments in relation to neutrality may be found in the papers submitted by the United States to the Geneva tribunal. By a circular of the Department of State of June 21, 1898, the diplomatic representatives of the United States were directed to obtain and report

any later laws or regulations of the governments to which they were accredited on the subject of neutrality, as well as any cases that had arisen under such laws and regulations, and particularly any action. taken in regard to the sale or delivery of arms and munitions of war and other contraband, and the sale or delivery of ships, to belligerents. The proclamations and decrees issued by neutral governments as well as by the belligerents during the war between the United States and Spain were collected and published by the Bureau of Foreign Commerce of the Department of State in a pamphlet entitled "Proclamations and Decrees during the War with Spain: Washington, Government Printing Office, 1899." A portion of this pamphlet is printed in the Foreign Relations of the United States for 1898, pages 841-904.

For responses to the circular of June 21, 1898, see the following manuscript dispatches:

Mr. Buchanan, min. to the Argentine Republic, No. 584, Dec. 1, 1898, enclosing a report prepared by Mr. François S. Jones, sec. of legation. This report stated that there were no Argentine neutrality laws; that the question of enacting such laws had been agitated in the congress, but that none had been adopted. An investigation of the diplomatic relations of the country since 1870 showed few cases involving questions of neutrality, and such as were discovered were embraced in the report.

Mr. Storer, min. to Belgium, No. 140, Sept. 14, 1898. The Belgian foreign office stated that no law had been enacted by that country since 1870. It is the practice of the Belgian Government, when foreign powers are at war, to publish in the official journal a notice of the fact, calling attention to article 123 of the penal code.

Mr. Wilson, min. to Chile, to Mr. Day, Sec. of State, Sept. 8, 1898, enclosing copy of a note from the Chilean minister of foreign relations of Aug. 20, 1898, saying that that Government "has never taken any steps regarding neutrality, nor has any question arisen regarding this subject" since 1870.

Mr. Allen, min. to, Corea, to Mr. Day, No. 129, July 29, 1898, reporting
that Corea had enacted no laws or regulations affecting neutrality,
except perhaps the instructions that were given to the port authori-
ties during the war between the United States and Spain.

Mr. Sampson, min. to Ecuador, No. 53, Aug. 6, 1898, reporting that nothing
could be found in Ecuador on the subject of neutrality since 1870.
Mr. Rockhill, min. to Greece, No. 5, Aug. 24, 1898, conveying a similar
report with regard to that country.

Mr. Hunter, min. to Guatemala, No. 81, Aug. 4, 1898, enclosing a transla-
tion of a note of the Guatemalan minister of foreign affairs of July
27, 1898, stating that Guatemala had no special law on the subject of
neutrality, but was governed in such matters by the principles of
international law.

Mr. Buck, min. to Japan, July 26, 1898, saying that he had found no laws or regulations in that country since 1870, and that no questions appeared to have arisen as to the sale or delivery of contraband or of ships.

Mr. Clayton, min. to Mexico, No. 517, July 13, 1898, reporting that articles 1090 and 1091 of the Mexican penal code embraced all the legislation of Mexico on the subject of neutrality, and that no cases had arisen growing out of the violations of those articles. By article 1090, "any Mexican who, by acts not authorized nor approved by the Government, provokes a foreign war, or gives cause for declaring such war, or exposes Mexicans thereby to suffer oppressions or reprisals, shall be punished by four years' imprisonment." By article 1091, "any official who, in discharge of public functions, compromises the faith or dignity of the Republic shall suffer four years' imprisonment; but if the crime be committed in the exercise of diplomatic or consular functions the punishment shall be doubled.”

Mr. Newel, min. to the Netherlands, Oct. 11, 1898, enclosing circulars issued by the Dutch Government in 1877, 1894, and 1897, together with an extract from the penal code. By this extract it appears that any person "who, during a war in which the Netherlands are not concerned," intentionally commits any act by which the neutrality of the State is endangered, or intentionally infringes any special order issued by the Government with a view to the maintenance of its neutrality, is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years. Mr. Finch, minister to Paraguay, Sept. 22, 1898, reporting that the only special measure ever adopted by that Government with regard to neutrality was the decree of Dec. 21, 1865, prohibiting the sale in Paraguayan ports of prizes that might be taken by the Chilean or Spanish forces, which were then at war.

Mr. Dudley, min. to Peru, July 21, 1898, enclosing copies of decrees issued by the Peruvian Government on October 24 and 31, 1870, during the Franco-German war.

Mr. Townsend, min. to Portugal, Sept. 20, 1898, reporting that no laws or
declarations of neutrality had been issued by Portugal since 1870,
except the declaration issued in 1898 with reference to the war
between the United States and Spain, and that the only case which
had arisen under the Portuguese regulations governing neutrality
was that of the Prussian man-of-war Arcona, which made a long
stay in the waters of the Azores in 1870 on the ground of asylum.
Mr. Townsend's dispatch encloses a copy of the entire correspondence
made from the archives of the Portuguese foreign office, together
with a translation. The case involved disputed questions of fact as
well as of law.

Mr. Rockhill, min. to Servia, No. 15, Aug. 11, 1898, reporting that since
1877, when Roumania formally declared its independence, no special
laws or regulations on the subject of neutrality had been made.
Mr. King, min. to Siam, Aug. 19, 1898, reporting that there were no special
laws or regulations on the subject of neutrality in that country.
Mr. Thomas, min. to Sweden and Norway, June 13, 1899, enclosing copies
of Swedish ordinances of April 8, 1854, September 13, 1855, June 21,
1856, and July 29, 1870; and a Norwegian ordinance of March 7, 1864.
Mr. Leishman, min. to Switzerland, July 7, 1898, transmitted a note of the
Swiss Government of July 6, 1898, stating that there were no new
laws or regulations in that country concerning neutrality since 1870.

As to the neutrality proclamations issued by various powers on the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese war, see For. Rel. 14.