year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, at the district aforesaid, within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States,

and within the jurisdiction of this court, with force and arms, did [231] hire and retain *William Budd to go beyond the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, with the intent of him, the said William Budd, to be enlisted and entered as a soldier in the service of a foreign prince, state, colony, district, and people, the said Henry Hertz and Emanuel C. Perkins, at the time they so hired and retained the said William Budd to go beyond the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, with the intent as aforesaid, not being a subject or citizen of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, transiently within the United States, and said hiring and retaining not being on board any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, which at the time of the arrival within the United States of such vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, was fitted and equipped as such, and the said William Budd. so hired and retained, not being a subject or citizen of the same foreigu prince, state, colony, district, and people, transiently within the United States, enlisting and entering himself to serve such foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, on board such vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, the United States being at peace with such foreign prince. state, colony, district, and people, contrary to the form of the act of Congress in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States of America.

SIXTH COUNT.-The grand inquest of the United States of [232] America, inquiring for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, upon

their oaths and affirmations do present that Henry Hertz, late of said district, yeoman, and Emanuel C. Perkins, late of the district aforesaid, yeoman, heretofore, to wit, on the twentieth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, at the district aforesaid, and within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, and within the jurisdiction of this honorable court, with force and arms, did hire and retain William Budd to go beyond the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, with intent of him, the said William Budd, to be enlisted and entered as a soldier in the service of a foreign prince, state, colony, district, and people, to wit, in the service of Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, the said Henry Hertz and Emanuel C. Perkins, at the time they so hired and retained the said William Budd to go beyond the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, with the intent as aforesaid, not being a subject or citizen of the said Queen of Great Britain, transiently within the United States, and said hiring and retaining not being on board any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, which at the time of its arrival within the United States was fitted and equipped as such, and the said William Budd, so hired and retained, not being a subject or citizen of Her

Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, [233] transiently within the United States, enlisting and entering

himself to serve the said Queen of Great Britain on board such vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, the United States being at peace with the said Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the form of the act of Congress in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States of America.

JAMES C. VAN DYKE, Attorney for the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

J. C. VAN DYKE, esq., attorney for the United States, opened the case on the part of the prosecution in substance as follows:

May it please the court: Gentlemen of the jury, it is a fact which will be judicially noticed by this court and jury, that during the year 1855, as for some time previous, the Crimea has been the site of a sanguinary and melancholy conflict between some of the most powerful nations of the globe. That conflict has been conducted principally by the British, French, and Turks on one side, and by Russia on the other, and has become part of the political and legal history of nations. It is not important for us to inquire into the cause of this conflict, nor is it necessary for us to trace the various military or political maneuvers by which it has been conducted, much less to endeavor to ascertain or

speculate as to the probable result of an attack on the part of the [234] allies *producing those misfortunes to the British government

which they have endeavored to retrieve by a violation of law in this country. We do not deem it in any degree important to the American people that the combined forces of Southern Europe should be successful against a single nation of the North in maintaining her asserted rights. In this free and republican country, the home ordained by Providence for the oppressed of all nations, we have very little to do with the struggles for supremacy and power by the different crowned heads of the Old World. The various schemes which have been adopted for the support of a balance of power by the potentates of Europe never 'have, and I am of opinion never will advance those republican institutions which it is our pleasure and duty to foster. On the contrary, those combinations which have been formed in support of such balance, have at all times been made the instrument of retarding in Europe the progressive democratic spirit of the age, and of binding the masses more firmly beneath the yoke of an overgrown and decaying aristocracy; and although the popular pulse in this country is manifestly against all war which originates in the desire to perpetuate or extend any other than a republican form of government, yet a proper regard for our national integrity forbids us to tolerate, on the part of those residing among us, any intermeddling in the disputes of other nations, where those disputes do not interfere with or concern the legitimate objects and manifest destiny

of our own wide-spreading institutions. Except in such cases our [235] policy is peace, and we should endeavor to keep ourselves free

from all political connections which might in any way involve us in the conflict among European powers, not so much for the reason that we are not ever ready to defend our rights by an effectual resort to arms, but because our implied and treaty obligations require us firmly and faithfully to maintain an impartial neutrality.

By prudence and an entire good faith in observing the position of an independent neutral nation we increase our own happiness and prosperity at home, and secure to ourselves the right to demand a proper respect abroad.

A neutral nation cannot with propriety interfere with any matter of dispute between foreign belligerent parties, nor can it furnish aid to either without justly incurring the danger of the displeasure of the other. The propriety of a nation not directly involved in an existing war, in maintaining this position of strict impartiality, is manifest. It is protection and preservation both to our citizens and our property. This has been the doctrine of all neutral powers, and although for centuries disregarded by European governments in violation not only of the well-settled laws of nations, but also of highly penal statutes, it has ever

been regarded by American statesmen as a cardinal element in American diplomacy.

The benefits of a strict observance of neutrality are too great and too many to be enumerated in the trial of the issue which I am about to

present to you. Suffice it to remark that, so great are those bene[238] fits, that from the beginning of our Government we have consid

ered it the duty of every resident in this country, whether minister plenipotentiary, consul, or private citizen, to inquire the character and extent of our laws upon this subject, and carefully to observe them. No one residing here has a right to violate the national sovereignty of the United States by setting those laws at defiance, by the perpetration of acts derogatory to our character as an independent, impartial, neutra! nation; and any neglect of this duty renders him amenable to the laws of the land. As an example of the early feeling of our Government upon this subject, Mr. V. read the proclamation of President Washington, in 1793, in relation to "the war then existing between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, on the one part, and France on the other, stating that the duty and interest 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 bave therefore thought fit, by these presents, to declare the disposition of the United States to observe the conduct aforesaid toward those powers respectively, and to exhort and to warn the citizens of the United States carefully to avoid all acts and proceed-,

ings whatsoever which may tend in any manner to contravene such disposition. [237] * And I do hereby also make known that whosoever of the citizens of the

United States shall render himself liable to punishment or forfeiture by the laws of nations, by combatting, 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 such persons who shall, within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the laws of nations, with respect to the powers at war, or any of them.

The justice of the principles contained and proclaimed in this message, no doubt produced in 1794 the passage of the first law for the protec tion of our neutrality. That act is the same in its principal features as the English statute 9 Geo. II, ch. 30, sec. 2, and 29, ch. 17, sec. 2.

Mr. Van Dyke then referred to the various acts of Congress which had at different times been enacted for the purpose of imposing punishment upon those who should violate the national sovereignty of the United States by interfering with the rights of belligerents.

The act of June 5, 1794, ch. 50, punishes any citizens of the United States for accepting and exercising a commission to serve in any war,

on land or at sea, in the service of any foreign prince or state, [238] and prohibits any person within the territory or jurisdiction of

the United States enlisting or entering himself, or hiring or retaining another person to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the limits of the United States, with the intent to be enlisted or entered in the service of any foreign prince or state as a soldier, or as a mariner, or seaman on board any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, and forbids the fitting out or attempting the fitting out of ships of war, within any of the waters of the United States, or procuring the same to be done. This act also forbids any person within the territory of the United States increasing or augmenting, or procuring the increase or augmentation, or knowingly being concerned therein, of the force of any ship of war, cruiser or other armed vessel of any foreign prince or state, or belonging to the subject of any foreign prince or state, the same being

at war with any other foreign prince or state with whom the United States are at peace.

Section 5 prohibits all persons within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States to begin or set on foot, or provide or prepare the means for any military expedition or enterprise, to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominions of any foreign prince or state, with whom the United States are at peace.

Section 6 makes the offense indictable in the district court of the United States.

Section 7 authorizes the President of the United States to em[239] ploy the armed forces of the United States, to prevent the commission of the offenses declared against by the neutrality laws of the United States.

Section 8 authorizes the President to use the armed forces of the United States to compel the departure of any armed ship of any foreign prince, in all cases in which by the laws of nations or the treaties of the United States they ought not to remain in the United States.

This act was to continue in force for two years, or until the next Congress thereafter. In 1797 the act was further extended for the period

of two years.

On the 24th April, 1800, Congress, by an enactment, made the act of 1794 perpetual.

The next enactment was March 3, 1817, ch. 58, by which new punishment and penalties were imposed for a violation of the provisions of the act of 1794.

Mr. V. said he referred only to the substance of these acts of Congress, without delaying the court to read from the books, because, having been repealed by the law under which the present bills of indictment are framed, they are important for two reasons only:

1. They show, in a most conclusive manner, the policy of our Government in maintaining a strict neutrality on the international affairs of European powers. "Peace with all nations, entangling alliances with none" has ever been the motto, not only of the Government but of the people of this country.

[240] By adopting and strictly observing this just and fair *policy, the United States has in times of intense political excitement, and bloody and disastrous warfare in other countries, cultivated peace with all nations, and secured at all times national repose and commercial prosperity at home and respect abroad. By fulfilling with a strict impartiality our neutral responsibilities toward belligerent powers, we have in times past avoided the disasters which have befallen other free governments, and, by continuing so to do in the future, we will continue able to present to mankind an example of republican integrity worthy of imitation by the civilized world.

2. They are important, because, from their peculiar similarity with the act of 1818, under which these defendants now on trial are indicted, we are enabled more fully to comprehend the meaning of the several judicial constructions which have been given to them, especially in cases of prize, and to ascertain the bearing of such construction upon the act of 1818.

In 1818 the Congress of the United States felt the importance of remodeling the law upon the subject of American interference in disputes between foreign nations, and in act passed on 20th April, which repeals all former laws upon the subject, adopted a most wholesale law, which, though varying somewhat from former enactments, is the same in all essential points. Mr. Van Dyke referred to this act at

length. The defendants are indicted under the provision of the second section of this act. The grand jury have found several bills of [241] indictment against them *for the various violations of this law,

which seem to them susceptible of the most easy proof.

It will be observed that the crime mentioned in this section consists in the doing of various acts. You will be instructed by the court that you must be satisfied of certain propositions which it will be my duty to submit to your consideration.

First. It will be necessary for the Government to satisfy you that the act complained of was committed within the territory of the United States.

Second. That the defendants, or either of them, enlisted or entered himself respectively in the service of a foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, as a soldier, or as a mariuer or seaman on board any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer.

Third. That the defendants, or either of them, hired or retained another person to enlist or enter himself in such service.

Fourth. That the defendants, or either of them, hired or retained another person to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United States, with the intent to be enlisted or entered in such service.

Upon the first point I remark that, if from the evidence you are satisfied that the acts complained of were not committed within the limits of the United States, and also within the limits of the jurisdiction of this court, which is bounded by those counties forming the eastern district

of Pennsylvania, it will be your duty to acquit both the de[242] *fendants on all the bills now laid before you. Upon this point,

however, gentlemen, I think you will have no trouble. The evidence will be conclusive that whatever was done by the defendants was done within the eastern district of Pennsylvania.

Upon the second point you are relieved from any inquiry, there being no charge in the indictment that the defendants, or either of them, enlisted himself in any foreign service.

Having found, however, the first point in favor of the Government, your investigations will be directed to the third and fourth points of inquiry, viz: Did the defendants, or either of them, at the various times specified in the various bills under consideration, hire or retain any or all of the persons mentioned to be enlisted or entered in a foreign service, or did they hire or retain any or all of the persons mentioned in these bills to go beyond the limits of the United States, with the intent to be enlisted or entered in such foreign service? If either, or both, then you will find them, or either of them, guilty on such counts in the indictment as are applicable to the facts upon which you base your conclusions. The court, I am of opinion, will inform you that the intent mentioned in the act refers to the intention of the party enlisted, hired, or retained. Not that such an intent must be an absolute determination to enlist when arriving beyond the limits of the United States, but the crime charged against the defendants being the hiring of some other person.

which other person must have the intent, it is sufficient ground [243] for conviction, if, *from all the testimony, you are satisfied that

the defendants, at the time they so hired or retained any other person, believed it to be the bona-fide intention of the person so hired or retained to enlist or enter such foreign service when he should arrive beyond the limits of the United States. Upon this point, however, gentlemen, you will have no difficulty upon many of the bills, as I shall be able to prove to your entire satisfaction, first, that the defendant Hertz thought the recruit had such intention; and, secondly, that the