mitted to cross neutral borders occurs when they are driven over them by the enemy. Under such circumstances humanity forbids that they should be driven back to captivity or death by lines of neutral bayonets; but at the same time impartiality demands that they shall not be allowed to use the territory they have entered as a place of refuge, in which, safe from pursuit, they can reorganize their shattered forces, and from which they can sally forth to renew the conflict when occasion offers. The two are reconciled by the practice of disarming them as soon as they cross the frontier and retaining them in honorable detention till the conclusion of the war. This is called interning and the troops so treated are said to be interned. They are bound to submit to the process and to make no attempt to compromise the neutrality of the state in which they find asylum. The expenses to which it is put in consequence of their presence should be repaid by their own government. The last example of internment occurred in 1871, when eighty-five thousand ragged and starving French troops, the wreck of Bourbaki's army, took refuge within the Swiss frontier from the pursuit of Manteuffel in the closing days of the Franco-German War. They received permission to cross it by special convention between their commander, General Clinchant, and the Swiss General Herzog, and were at once disarmed, clothed and fed by the orders of the central government of the Helvetic Republic. At the conclusion of peace they returned to France under an agreement between the two countries which provided for the payment by the latter of a lump sum to defray the costs to which the administration and citizens of Switzerland had been put in consequence of their presence.1

1 Fyffe, Modern Europe, III., 462; Annual Register for 1871, pp. 160, 161; Calvo, Droit International, § 2336.

2 L

§ 252.

Every belligerent lays under a strong obligation

To make reparation to any state whose neutrality it may have violated.

(4) To make reparation to any state whose neu

trality it may have violated.

International Law contains no precise rules as to the exact form which such reparation should take. It certainly requires the restoration of property illegally captured, when ships or goods have been seized within neutral jurisdiction; but it does not go further and prescribe the scale on which indemnities should be calculated, or the wording of apologies, or the forms to be used in paying ceremonial honors to the flag of the injured state. These details are left to be settled by negotiation at the time; and all we are able to say about the matter is that the reparation should be adequate and proportioned to the gravity of the offence. In all cases it must be made to the injured neutral, whose duty it is to deal with the other belligerent if loss has fallen upon him in consequence of the violence complained of. For instance, when the commander of a ship of war seizes a vessel belonging to his enemy in neutral waters, the neutral government demands from the country of the offender the surrender of the prize, or takes possession of it if it is within the jurisdiction, and, having obtained control of it, restores it to the original belligerent owner, either by administrative act or through the machinery of a Prize Court. If the neutral state is unable or unwilling to obtain satisfaction from the offending belligerent, serious complications are likely to follow. It exposes itself to the risk of similar outrages from the injured side. Claims for indemnity may be made against it, and it may even be threatened with war.

Violations of neutrality by a belligerent may take as many forms as the duties they contravene. Like other offences

they may be gross or slight, committed in heedlessness and hot blood or carefully planned and executed according to a predetermined method. They are generally the unauthorized acts of over-zealous or unscrupulous subordinates. The appropriate reparation varies from a formal apology to a serious humiliation. In important cases the matter is brought by diplomatic complaint before the government of the offending state; and it is expected to undo the wrong as far as possible, punish the perpetrators, and give whatever satisfaction is deemed just and proper. A good example of executive action is afforded by the case of the Florida, one of the Confederate cruisers in the American Civil War. In October, 1864, she was seized in the neutral Brazilian port of Bahia by the Federal steamer Wachusett and brought as a prize to the United States. Brazil at once demanded reparation, and the government of Washington disavowed the act. Full satisfaction was offered by Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State. The commander of the Wachusett was tried by courtmartial; the United States consul at Bahia, who had advised the attack, was dismissed; the Brazilian flag was saluted on the spot where the capture took place; and the crew of the captured vessel were set at liberty. The Florida herself, ought, it was admitted, to have been delivered over to the Brazilian authorities; but she was run into and sunk in Hampton Roads by a Federal transport, and it was therefore impossible to restore her.1

It is sometimes held that states engaged in hostilities possess a right to make use of and even destroy vessels and other property belonging to neutral individuals and found within the limits of belligerent authority, if the exigencies of warfare render such use or destruction a matter of great and pressing importance. This real or supposed right is called Droit d'Angarie or Angaria, which has been anglicized into Angary. Another name for it is Prestation.

1 Wharton, International Law of the United States, §§ 27, 399; Wheaton, International Law (Dana's ed.), note 209.

Undoubtedly the property of neutrals permanently situated in belligerent territory must share the risks of war. But when the right to deal with it is extended to cover the seizure of neutral vessels trading in belligerent ports and their use as transports for an expedition against the enemy, we may well hesitate to accept a doctrine so inconsistent with acknowledged principles. Nothing but long and uninterrupted usage can justify a practice which runs counter to the rudimentary principle that a belligerent must make war with his own resources. If he can seize neutral ships, there seems no reason why he may not also seize neutral specie, neutral arms and even neutral subjects. If the methods of a bandit are forbidden in some matters, why not in all? Unfortunately there can be no doubt that the practice of states, even in modern times, has permitted such seizures as we are discussing. In most cases payment has been made for the service rendered, and there are in existence treaties which provide for compensation. Hall discusses the matter fully, but cautiously refrains from expressing a decided opinion upon it. He cites a number of continental writers and refers to several cases, the general result of which is to justify seizure under stress of extreme necessity. Phillimore declares that it can be excused by nothing short of an emergency "which would compel an individual to seize his neighbor's horse or weapon to defend his own life."2 Most of the jurists who have dealt with the subject do not distinguish between acts which, though contrary to law, are condoned on the plea of necessity, and acts which may be lawfully done under certain conditions and in certain circumstances. Angary belongs to the former class. In the words of Dana, "it is not a right at all, but an act resorted to from necessity, for which apology and compensation must be made, at the peril of war."3 The last instance of it bears out this view. In 1870 the Germans sank six English

1 International Law, § 278.

2 International Law, III., § XXIX. 8 Note 152 to Wheaton's International Law.

merchant vessels in the Seine at Duclair to stop the advance up the river of some French gunboats. Compensation was ⚫demanded and given, and the act was excused on the ground that the danger was pressing and could not be met in any other way.1 Angary is no exception to the rule that the belligerent is bound to make reparation to the neutral for any violation of neutral rights of which he may have been guilty.

1 Annual Register for 1870, p. 110.