The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1849-06-30
perusal of the editors of the Union. Some
extracts from it are entitled to particular
attention at this time. Mr.. JEFFERSON


son the declaration of war between France and
England, the United States being at peace with
both, their situation was so new and inexperienced
by themselves, that their citizens not, in the
first instant, sensible Of the new duties resulting
therefrom, and of the restraints it would impose
even on their dispositions towards the belgerent
powers" In another passage, advertlng TO the
claims presented on the part Of France, Mr.. JEF-
PERSON, says: MIR. GENET asserts his right of arm
ing IN our ports, and of enisting our citizens, and
that we have no right TO restrain him or punish
them. Examining this question under the law of
nauons founded on the general sense and usage OF
mankind, we have produced proofs from the most
enlightened and approved writers on the subject,
that neutral nation must, in all things relating to
the war, observe exact impartlality towards the
parties; that yors to the prejudice of the other
would import fraudulent neutrality of which no
nation would be the dupe that no succor should be
given to either, unless stipulated by treaty. in men,
arms, or any thing else, directly serving for war;
that the right of raising troops, being one of the
rights of sovereignty, and consequently appertainng
exclusively to the nation itself, no foreign power
can levy men within Its territory, without It's as
SENT and he who does, may be rightly and severely
punished; that if the United States have right to
refuse permission to arm vessels and raise men
within their ports and territories, they are bound by
the laws Of neutrality to exercise that right, and to
prohibit such ornaments and enistments. To these
principles of the law of nations, Mr.. Genet an
swers by calling them diplomatic subtleties, and
'aphorsms of Vattel and Others But something
more than this is necessary to dsprove them, and
till they disproved, hold il certain that the
law of nations, and the rules Of neutrality, forbid
our permitting either party to arm in our ports"
Such were the views taken by the
Cabinet Of WASHINGTON, and expounded
by JEFFERSON, of our duties resulting from
our neutral position, under the law of ma
tons. Such was the course pursued by
WASHINGTON, with the unanimous concur
renee of his Cabinet, at that early period
of our history, and under circumstances
which had so powerful tendency to sway
the judgment and to swerve us from that
precise position which regard to law en-
Joined. These views, be it remembered,
were thus expressed and acted upon in
reference exclusively to the rules pre-
scribed by public law, for Congress had
not then legislated upon the subject. No
act of Congress was then in existence re-
cognising these principles, imposing upon
the Executive the duty of enforcing them,
and subjecting parties to criminal prosecu
ton, and to severe penalties for their in
| fraction.
This position of affairs was soon changed.
The President brought the subject before
Congress. Whatever may have been our
duties as nation, and the duties of the
Executive as representing the nation in
its dealings with foreign powers, no means
had been provided for the enforcement of
those obligations through the instrument
tality of the tribunal of justice.
Congress responded to the call, and on
the 9th June, 1894, an act was passed
giving legislative sanction to the views
of the Executive, and providing means
for making them effective. The Sd sec
ton of this statute prohibited any person
within the United States from fitting out,
arming, or attempting to Fl out and arm,
or procuring to be fitted out and armed, or
being knowingly concerned in the fitting out
or arming, ''any ship or Dessel, with intent
that such ship or vessel shall be employed
in the service of any foreign prince or
State, to cruise or commit hostilities upon
the subjects, citizens, or property of another
foreign prince or State, with whom the
|
United States is at peace" The 4th sec
ton prohibits, in like manner, the increase
or augmentation of the force of any ship of
war, or other armed vessel, which, at the
time of her arrival within the United States,
was in the service of a foreign prince or
State, or belonged to the subjects or citi-
zens Of such, the same being at war with
another foreign prince or State, with whom
the United States are at peace. Various
other provisions were made in this statute,
which, having been limited in sts duration,
was subsequently further extended by the
act of March 2, 1897, and made perpetual
by the act of April "a, 1900.
These various provisions are embodied
in, extended, and made more precise, by
the act of April 20, 1918; which has been
discussed by the parties in the late con-
troversy.
The question, then, as to the obligation
of the United States, as a neutral nation,
in the case Of pending war between two
foreign powers, with both of whom we are
at peace, may be viewed under two as
poets. First, what is the nature and ex
tent of that obligation resulting from the
general law of nationsl Secondly, what
is it under the special legislation upon the
subject' Under the first we have the au-
thoritative exposition Of our duty from the
pen of Mr. JEFFERSON, sanctioned, so far