Weekly national intelligencer., 1863-09-03
OUR NEUTRALITY LAWS.

ton, u. s. r., 2s3,) the Supreme Court OF the
United States applied the elementary law OF Vattel
and of subsequent text writers to question which
arose upon the record, was argued at the bar, and
stated. considered and decided by the court in its
unanimous opinion. That opinion was read by
Justice Story, and the decision referred to is
charged upon him as an obiter dieium Of his, uu-
called for in the case, without the authority of the
court, and in conflict with its opinion read by
Chief Justice Marshall in the case Of the Gran
Para, e Wheaton, U. S. r., AID
In illustrating the rule that the duty Of neutrals
towards belligerents is impartiaity between them,
Vattel says:
Further may be affirmed the same principles that
If nation trades IN arms, timber, ships. IDitary stores
SC i take it amss that it sells such things to my
enemy provided il d, not refuse them to me ALSO 1t
carries on its trade without any design OF urng me- and
in continuing it the it not engaged in war
that nation gives just cause of complaint. here
suppose that my enemy goes himself no neutral cOun-
try purchase what be has occasion for Let US now
discuss another point namely the trade which neutral
tions carry with my enemys country 1t ia certain
that they have part quarrel are under 10
obligation to abandon their trade that Hey may avoid fur
DishDg my enemy with the means Of making Should
they refuse to sell any OF those articles by taking
for Transporting great Quantities OF them to my enc
my with manifest intention Of avoring them such par
tiaty would exclude them lrs the neutrality they
joyed But il they only continue their customary trade
they do not thereby declare themselves against my inter
est they only exercise right Wh ch they under no
obligation Of sacrificing to me-" (Secs no. lll)
Vattel then goes on to state that though arms,
&c may be thus sold without any violation Of neu-
trality, they yet contraband of war, and there
fore subject to capture and confscation, and he
concludes thus
To avoid therefore, perpetual subjects for complaint
and rupture it has been agreed in manner entirely
grounded true principles, that thu powers at
seize and cabfScate all contraband goods which neutral
persons shall attempt to carry to their enemy without any
complaint from the sovereign OF those merchants
the other hard the power does not mpu'e to the
neutral eigns these prac Of their suecs ec
113)
Now, the opinion Of the Supreme Court and the
language of Justice Story merely abbreviated this
text of Vatte, and applied it to the facts in the
case Of the Santissima Trinidad. These facts were
that the Monmouth, built for prigateer and owned
in Baltimore, was in January, 1916, there armed
and equipped for war and sent thence to Buenos
Ayres for sale, and actually sold there; that in
October, 1917, then being public vessel Of Buenos
Ayres, under the name of the Independence, she
came to Baltimore and received an augmentation
of force by an increase Of her crew and the addi-
ton of an armtd tender, called the Altravida
Both vessels then sailed on cruise against Spanish
commerce, in which they captured the Santissima
Trinidad and sent goods taken from her to this
country.
The suit was brought by the Spanish CJnsul, in
behalf of the Spanish owners for the restitution Of
the goods, for which the libel counted on two dis
tinct grouuds-6rst, the original equipment, &c
of the capturing vessels in ports secondly,
the augmentation of force Of the Independents.
The report shows that both grounds we're argued
at the bar and the opinion Of the Court commences
thus: "Upon the argument at the bar several
questions have arisen which have been deliberate
ly considered by the court, and its judgment will
nov be pronounced" 1t then disposes of the first
question: (wRether the Independence was public
ship) and proceeds thus
"The ne xt question growing out Of the record is, whe
Ler the property in controversy captured IN violation
Of neutrality 80 that restitution ought by the law {"
naous to be decIeed 10 the lbelants Two grounds
relied upon justify restitution fret, that the Indepen
denca aud Arayida originally equipped armed and
nanued as vessels of in ports secondly that
there was illegal augmentation OF the force of the In
6ependencia in ports Are these grounds or either o
them, sustained by the evidence2"
The opinion then considers the testimony Of
witnesses, and continues thus:
But tie present does not stand on this to. mony
alone Ii derives is principal proofs altogether fr"m IN
sources The consderst of which the aten
ton Of the vii he directed The question ms
TO the rcna ler al armament and outfit OF The Indepen
denea may be dismissed in few words. 1t tpp aren't
that though equipped e Of war she was Sc 1t to
Bu.nns Az res commercial adventure contraband IA
deed but shape violating our laws or our national
neutrality II captured by spanish shpo war during
the voyage ehe ud have been Justly condemned as
good prize IN fr icing engag in traffic prohibited
by the law Of nations But there is tohing in our laws
or in the law o nations, that forbids citizens from
foreign ports for sale. It is commercial adventure
which no nation bouud to prohibit and which only
poses the persons engaged in il to the penalty Of consca
ton SuI sing therefore, the voyage TO have been for
commercial purposes aud the sale at Buenos Ayres to
have been bona sale (and there Is nothing IN the ev
dence before contradict I'D there IS no pretence to
say that the original outfit on the voyage was illegal or
that capture made alter the sale was, Tor that cause
alone, Illegal
We claim that the report and the opinion both
show that this is the judgment of the court upon
question "growiog out of the record" before it,
and that it carries with it the authority and sane
ton Of the court which the charge OF obiter dac-
tunp purports to deny. And il the law, thus laid
down, is in any body's way, the responsibility for
that belongs, not to Justice Story, but to the
Supreme Court of the United States and the ele-
mentary books on the law Of nations.
We shall seek to show that there is no conflict