The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-03-13

m
sovereignty Of na'us at peace 10 word he ought TO
treat them 10 the if the most Prooand
peace coatnu~d prevail Those nations, in tct are al
peace With him. Fulfilling strictly their duties OF neu-
iaity they have the right enjoy the advantages OF
their position, aud to be exempt ron ali the evils Of war
The day Of the belgerent Is to abstain rom the nrnge
nent OF this right Thus neutral territory ought 10 De
held sacred aud nyolabe by nations At war These last
ougat cot any pretext nor in any manner 10 make
suh territory 10 subserve their purposes OF host
iss drptly or Indirectly The passage Of armed troops
the UyJu II sOlders &c, without the consent OF The
sovereign would constitute an offence sgans the soser-
guty II The ueulra aud violation OF the duty of the
beigerentn (Drots ct Deyors DIES Nations Neutre TOM
the territory Of neutral nations the occurrence of
hostiiies makes change nor modification Of their
rights they remain inyioabe in time OF peace Their
territory ought then be sheltered from oil enterprises Of
the bgerenis Of whatever nature they may be The con
sequences ought 20 he felt by them directly
that Is say, act Of hostility should be committed
against them under any pretext.
eliperent nations in this respect have only the rights
they possessed In time OF peace because war never Jn
riously Affects nations peace Belgerents cannot en
In any case without the permission Of the sovereign use
neutral tcrrOry-I do say directly for the operations
Of war but make OF II for any advantage
whatever the prejudice of their enemy TINS petms
sion cannot be granted 10 them by the neutral without
violating his duties
The principle OF the nviolaiiy the territory being
admitted the conclusion absolute as the principle ITSELF
folows-hat belligeren has right TO neutral ter
ory in any whatever without the permission of
the neutral nation soreegn of such territory and cannot
therefore, levy troops there and march armies through IL
SC, without this permission. . g.g.a
THE neutral has the nconestabe right to resist every
attempt the belligerent may make his erritoryo
oppose Il by all the means in his power and even BY
force OF arms, in the citizen has the
right 70 defend his property by all the means placed
at bis disposal by the law TO which lac Is subject (lbid
TOM 2, PIP. a. 4a) a
DO not perceive that this doctrine explicitly produced
n any one Of the books of international law published
during the last few years in Great Britain Possibly their
silence this point may be caused by the policy of their
country which, under the kings Of the House Of Hanover
has frequently relied upon foreign recruits in time of
However this may be- of the English works referred
to recognise the right OF every sovereignty TO the exclusive
use of s own territory and resources Widmans Inter
national Law vol p. Ga but without adyertng 10 the
present logical consequence of this rights although OF
them discusses fully the collateral question: whether St
ciudes properly that if IL be permitted to il should lie
permitted TO sash OF the respective begereut powers
I Nannngs Law Of Nations, bG. Ill ch. ~
In this connexon the accredited English writer
considers and conutes the assumption crude and
ousy taken up Great Britain that doctrine the
contrary of this is to he found in Vael And upon
elaborate review of the whoe subject concludes thus
- ."Foreign leves may not be allowed 10 one bellg
eren while refused TO his antagonist consistently with the
duties OF neutrality. When treaties ahecedent TO war per-
NIT such exclusive privileges then complaint Of breach
ofneutray be maintained by the excluded party
But when no antecedent treaty exists such permission
would be violation of neutrality, the principles of which
demand the strce abstinence from assistance either
party and Of course will not admit that exclusive prv
legss in SO important particular shond be granted
belligerent. Nor have the of Europe derived
isom the practices OF the middle ages established any usage
that prevents this question FROM bcag settled in accord
the iaH OF nature Mannipgs Laws Of Nations p. 1907
Mr. hsnnings reasoning is conclusive far it goes
an1 the mrereeon of other English law books in this
respect OF no account against the general authority
OF the expoanders Of international law in all the rest OF
Christendom sss e
Msconsruetion has also been placed on the fact that
synkerhock maintains the right of private or voluntary
expatra,on for the purpose Of foreign military
Wee But he does not express the thought
iAt foreign beigerent may recruit soldiers in a neu-
Ha country without the of its sovereign On the
contrary he exhibits in full the legislation OF The United
according 70 which i was capital offence to
states General. (Qamst Jur. Pnblici, lib. L. c. 221
Besides Great Britain has, in her legislation sane
TONED ana adopted the rule OF public law by enactino
that ifnny person whatever within the United Kingdom
or In auy part OF The domnions of Great Britain shall
hire engage, retain, procure or hall ATTEMPT or en-
eayor 10 hir RETAIN engage procure person what
ever TO ens or 10 enter engage enlist an officer
soldier sailor or marine either land service for
or under or IN aid Of any foreign prince
TO go or agree 10 or embark from any place in the
British dominons for the purpose with the intent Ia
e 50 ENLISTED entered or engaged aforesaid every per-
son 80 offending shall he deemed guilty Of misienea nor
punishable by line Imprisonment at the discretion ot
the court having Jurisdiction Of the act Act 50 Geo Ill
We in the United Sate acting In the sense OF natural
gh and following the rules OF public law ss OK blamed NV
ps lasls o. con'nestd Europe asserted and
WIS uocuihe AZ very early period, In opposition ~ the
OF the French government through is inina
VI A. eeps1 10 man or equip cruisers Within the United
Sut@. NJ Jefferson TO NJ Genet June IL 17sa Ameri-
can State Papers, For Az vol l. D. l54l And onr ,,
dca textbooks are full and explicit on tho Same moi
Nnneaton Dy Lawrence, p. 495 keups Com lee yil
Ills OBVIOUS 10 the most superficial reflection that no
s'lueuoh Of principle exists In the levy az military
orce 10 the neutral country between the Land and ,rs
ana y Great Britain may raise within the United
states tor her land service 80 Russia nav raise
mem Tor h.f marine service that s may fit out priva
eers III our ports and indeed 10 grant or hermit the
o.mer privilege 10 Great Britain we must in like manner
IN order to he mpartay neutral concede the latter priy
lege TO Russia. .... E'E# ar#s fI0 80
And u IS equally obvious that foreign recruiting cannot
Dlotbidden or permitted under the influence OF any az
suneu national sympatbes or anipathies Individual or
national preferences quite immateral ia such oues
ably practise simulated neutrality nor can disscmbed
anee pe claimed expected from u.s. either by Great
Britain or by Russia. q 49,
from the wel-ctablshed rules and principles Of law
inen, tits plain TO conclude:
The acts Of enlistment in question are contrary 10 the
mulcpal law OF ths country, and indctable as high
misdemeanor \. sE'' LII -
: hose ac If permitted to one beligvreut must be
permitted 10 al IN observance Of impartial neutrality
q BEING aguing, law IN the United States and there
tore notpcrmcd 10 Great Britain II undertaken by her
IS government they afford just Of war being di-
rect national violation OF The territorial sovereignty Of one
nation by another
4 Wbaiever agents OF the British government whether
official or unoeia acting voluntarily by orders have
participated 10 such acts only guilty of criminal
haeuon of The statute law but also IL the language of
ave- violating one OF the sacred rights OF The ma
presume that II In the present case the British minis
Ter naRines that the performed under bis direction
we've not contrary TO the municipal law must be on the
Eround tba The recruits not completely enlisted in
the tbUd Sists-bst is did here In ali forms enter
The tLitry service of Great Britain That assnmpon Il
Mpgelhr etioneous The statute is express that IL any