Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-11-07
THE QUESTION OF THE Ell CID.
Are Neutrality Laws Violated by Per-
hitting EnlistElents.

Are Neutrality Laws Violated by Per-
hitting Enlistrients.
1t has been claimed that the manning and
equipment Of ships in this country for use
in the suppression Of the instruction in
Brazil is a violation Of section 52S2 Of the
Revised Statutes. That section is as fol-
lows:
Every person, who, within the jurisdic-
ton OF the United States, enlists or enters
himself, or hires or retains another to enlist
or enter himself, to go beyond the limits or
Jurisdiction of the United States, with intent
to be enlisted or entered in the service of
any foreign prince. entered in the service of
any foreign province, state. colony, district,
or people, as soldier, or as a marine or
seaman on board of any. vessel of war. let
ter Of marQue, or privateer, shall be deemed
guilty Of high misdemeanor. and shall be
fined not more than $1,000. and imprisoned
not more than three years."
A naval officer who has made a study of
questions of this kind. was asked for an
expression Of opinion on this point, and he
replied as follows:
Section $3.50. Revised Statutes. is a pa IT
OF the neutrality chapter The purpose of
the neutrality chapter is to provide for
maintaining the neutrality of the United
States when two foreign powers are at war.
The neutrality chapter contemplates the ex-
istence OF a state Of war, and has no appli-
cation In time Of peace. 1t prohibits enlist
ing In the service of any foreign prince or
state with whom the United States are at
peace.
In Gilston vs.. Hoyt the Supreme Court of
the United States decided that the phrase.
any foreign prince or state does not in
ciude pretended foreign state, or rebellious
1actlSn not yet recognized by our govern
ment. Consequently, the neutrality chapter
does not apply to our present case. %
He further said that even IL the above
decision Is not in itself sufficiently weiehtv
there Is the decision of the United States
District Court in the kazinski case Tho
decision in this case says that one docs NOT
violate section 5.2S2 Of the Revised Statutes
by leaving this country with intent to enlist
In foreign military service. Neither is it
an ofense, under this statute, to TRANSPORT
persons out of this country with their own
consent, they having the intention to enlist
for foreign military service.
The ofense under this statute" he said.
even in time of war, consists in an actual
enlisting. or hiring, within the limits, of the
United States, and the Kazinski case de-
cided that ships company may 20 ON E,I
CD or any other of the new Brazilian craft,
, for ordinary merchant service and With the
intent to undertake military service as soon
as they reached Brazil. The actual enlist
ment may then take place in Brazil and
neltner the person SO enliStinY - the per-
sons who induced them to euAlcrA liable
under United States laws"
The statement that the Brazilian govern
ment was DESTROYS of securing possession of
American war vessels recalls the sale of the
old Dunderberg in 1867. The vessel was a
broadside honclad, and considered at that
time the most powerful ship afioat with her
armament of fifteen-inch guns. She was
still in course Of completion by William II.
Webb Of New York when the war closed.
and as the need of such a ship was believed
to have passed. the builder was permitted
on repaying to the United States the money
building. The builder of a naval ship is
not considered the owner, and after the first
payment the government assumes a proprie-
tary interest which could not be disrepa r,a3