THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS.*
"AN adequate work," said Sir William Harcourt, in the preface to his well-known " Historicus" letters, "on the Rights and Duties of Neutrals, founded on a sound basis of historical investiga- tion and judicial decision, has yet to be written." Certainly it is desirable that there should exist among English law-books some work of a more judicial and exact character than that of Sir William Harcourt. Mr. Hall has, lie think, filled the void, and his workis a valuable and masterly contribution to legal literature. Occasionally it is marred by a too pompous style, but take it as a whole, it is well planned and well executed, clear in design and skilful in execution. The settled principles which now govern the relative rights and duties of neutrals and belligerents, and the historical facts to which these principles owe their recognition, are given shortly and clearly, but not so briefly as to make the book distasteful to the general reader. The clearness with which our author treats his subject is well shown by his chapter on "Analogues of Contraband." By the use of this term he avoids confusing questions relating to articles essentially con- traband of war with those which have reference to things quite different in their nature, yet, to a certain extent, governed by rules somewhat similar to those which apply to purely contraband goods. With the transport of contra- band merchandise, says Mr. Hall (p. 127), is usually classed analogically that of despatches bearing upon the conduct of the war and of persons in the service of the belligerents. But the distinction which exists between merchandise con- traband of war on the one hand, and despatches and servants of a belligerent power, in the most important case which has arisen within recent years, viz., that of the 'Trent,' was not properly appreciated either by Mr. Seward or Sir William Harcourt. Mr. Seward wished Messrs. Mason and Slidell to be considered as con- traband of war. Sir William Harcourt proves clearly enough that, from the destination of the vessel, they could not be contraband ; but though his arguments served well enough for the temporary purpose for which they were put forward, they are underlaid with the fallacy that persons can be contraband of war at all. A diplo- matic agent cannot be arrested by a belligerent ; the exemption from capture, as in the case of despatches, lies, not in the • The Rights and Duties of Neutrals. By W. E. Hall. London: Longa:Ana, Groan, and Co. 1874.
actual destination, but in the character of the person himself. "The despatches," says our author (p. 128), "are themselves exempt from seizure, on the ground that their transmission is as important in the interests of the neutral as of the belligerent country." The difference exists in this, that an apparently innocent cargo may be shown to be capable of being used in such a manner as to become contraband of war, but diplomatic persons cannot change their character, and are always exempt from capture. The question of destination, so important in the case of goods, is more or less immaterial in the case of diplomatic agents. It would be immaterial also in the case of a neutral ship having on board a body of belligerent troops, even though bound from one neutral port to another ; "it is possible for a vessel to render herself liable to seizure and confiscation for a transport effected between two neu- tral ports " (p. 132). This reasoning appears to be based upon the judgment of Sir William Scott in the case of the 'Friendship,' and that judgment seems clearly to justify this proposition. This example will sufficiently show the need for some attempt to lay down the existing law in a clear form.
The importance of the special question of neutrality as a distinct feature of international law has sprung into marked importance quite within recent years. The growth of commerce and the facility of intercourse between different parts of the world, and the more pacific doctrines which, as a rule, prevail among English and American politi- cians, will probably render it the most interesting portion of international law to the chief maritime States. Indeed, the importance of international law has, to a great ex- tent, been confined to the dealings of maritime nations. "Two schools of speculative opinion," writes Mr. Hall (p. 2), "and two independent currents of usage have hitherto existed, and as the larger number of questions arising out of the neutral attitude happen to be necessarily connected with maritime war or com- merce, the two theories of right have practically embodied the respective wishes of nations which were strong or weak at sea." While this general view is, taken as a whole, no doubt, correct, it is as well also to remember that some, at least, of the most important reforms in international law have sprung into being at the in- stance of a maritime nation. The United States, in 1793, first endeavoured to put an end to privateers, but until the Declara- tion of Paris in 1856, these pests of commerce could hardly be con- sidered as things of the past ; still it is as well to give credit to maritime nations who have initiated any reforms of so beneficial and pacific a nature. The rapid growth of sounder principles of neutrality, as we have already said, and as Mr. Hall in his sketch of the Law of Neutrality very clearly shows, can scarcely be ap- preciated without becoming acquainted with historical details For example, it is less than a hundred years ago, viz., in 1788, " that the right of a neutral State to give succour under treaty to a belligerent gave rise to serious, if any protest." In that very year, the Duke of Brunswick contracted to supply Holland with 3,000 men, and it may therefore well be said that neutrality, strictly speaking, is an outcome of the civilisation of the last hundred years. But while this growth of commerce, and 'consequent desire on the part of neutral nations to interfere as little as possible with either of the belligerents, and to enable their own ordinary transactions to continue with as little interruption as possible, may be considered as conducing to the general -comfort of the world, it is often held that it is easy to carry the doctrine of the freedom of trade to such an extent as to prolong wars. For instance, the question of the negotiation in neutral countries of foreign loans brought out for the benefit of a belligerent State is one which has been much debated. Sir Robert Phillimore and many Conti- nental jurists hold that this is in theory contrary to the duties of a neutral Power. Mr. Hall shows that though eminent writers hold this opinion, modern statesmen, as, for instance, Mr. Web- ster, consider the practice, the most recent instances of which are the negotiation in England of the French Morgan Loan and part of the North-German Confederation Loan, as quite justifiable. Money is, of course, an article of commerce, and like many other things which may influence the event of a war, and which yet may be legitimately supplied by the subjects of a neutral government, cannotbe prevented from flowing into the exchequer of a belligerent nation, if neutral nations put faith in its credit. Considering money even in the same class as arms, this would only entitle a belligerent nation to seize it as contraband of war, which is of course impossible. Mr. Hall writes (p. 50), "A belligerent no more dreams of complaining because the markets of a neutral nation are open to his enemy for the purchase of money, than because they are open for the purchase of cotton." We call attention to this point, because it seems to us, considering the difference of opinion that exists upon it, that Mr. Hall might have devoted more space to a subject of such importance. There is much more worthy of notice in this work, but we have suffi- ciently • indicated the importance of the subject of Mr. Hall's book,—that its theory and history are ably sketched, and that the points of law, as they now exist, are shown with much clearness and precision.
Previous page
