of Paris, with the extension of protection towards neutral goods and ships and neutral rights with respect to blockades; and fourth, the general development of armaments so that neutrals feared belligerents and belligerents feared neutrals, and both avoided offense accordingly.

In 20th century.-Neutrality, as it has been developed up to the present time in the 20th century, may be defined as the impartial attitude and practice of the non-belligerent states towards the belligerents in time of war. While remaining at peace the non-belligerent states continue friendly relations and proper intercourse with both or all of the belligerents.

Holland on obligations of neutrality.-Professor Holland, one of the leading, if not the principal authority upon international law in Great Britain, considers the obligations of a neutral state as being of three classes, involving, respectively abstention, prevention and acquiescence.

I. "The first of these, abstention, is of a negative character, It consists of restrictions upon the free action of the neutral state, by which it is, for instance, bound not to supply armed forces to a belligerent; not to grant passage to such forces; and not to sell to him ships or munitions of war, even when the sale takes place in the ordinary course of getting rid of superfluous or obsolete equipment."

II. Prevention." The second class of neutral obligations is of much wider scope than the first, and gives rise to a greater number of debatable questions. It is positive in character, imposing on the neutral state duties of interference with the action of belligerents and of its own subjects."

III. Acquiescence." The third head of neutral duty is of a negative character, obliging the neutral state to acquiesce in acts on the part of belligerents which, but for the existence. of war, would be unlawful and ground for redress.""

2 Holland. See Transactions of the British Academy, Vol. II, p. 58.

Rights and duties of neutrals.-The rights and duties of neutrals are linked together, especially so far as state acts are concerned.

For instance, the great right of sovereignty of a state gives a right which is but another phase of sovereignty applicable in war time, i. e., the right of inviolability of territory.

As to its duties they are also founded upon the general sovereign rights of a state, hence it may be well to limit our discussion to such duties arising from war conditions which are mutual upon the part of the neutrals and of the belligerents, and that are defined by international law in a general sense and made part of the municipal law by state action.

Belligerent acts not permissible in neutral territory. It is a duty on the part of the hostile states to avoid committing such acts, while it is a corresponding duty on the part of the neutral to forbid and prevent such belligerent actions.

The most important of the duties that arise in this connection are grouped under the general statement that belligerent acts are not permissible in neutral territory.

Hostilities may be carried on properly in the territory of either belligerent and upon the high seas. Within the territorial land and waters of a neutral no such hostilities can be permitted.

Any territory which is not in the possession of a state is held to be in the same category as the high seas.

Proclamation of neutrality.-While it is not a duty on the part of a neutral state to issue any proclamation of neutrality, it has become customary to do so when commercial or other interests may be involved.

The practice of issuing such proclamation has several advantages; it calls the attention of the subjects or citizens of the state to the neutrality or corresponding laws, to the obligations and penalties of citizens arising from a state of war, and supplements the neutrality laws by announcing the atti

tude of the government towards the belligerents, and to its own rules, particularly those as to the entry and use of its ports and waters by belligerent cruisers.

Proclamations of this kind have been issued by the Presidents of the United States from the latter part of the last century down to that of President Roosevelt in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese War, giving the duties of the nation and its citizens arising therefrom.

Passage of belligerents over neutral territory.-A permission given for the passage of troops of a belligerent through a neutral territory, though sanctioned by earlier writers upon international law, is now considered a warlike act and is not permitted. Given to one belligerent it is an act of partiality and favor to one of the belligerents. Given to both it is a matter which is almost if not quite impossible to arrange impartially, no matter how just may be the ideas of the neutral in the matter. As Lawrence says, "In the crisis of a great war it may be a matter of life and death to one belligerent to pass a body of troops across the outlying portion of neutral territory, whereas the other may never be placed in a similar position through the whole course of hostilities. It would be little consolation to him in the midst of defeat and ruin to be told that he would have received the same privileges as his adversary had the conditions been reversed. Moreover, the permission is of necessity given to further a warlike end, and is therefore inconsistent with the fundamental principle of state neutrality."

In 1870 the Swiss Republic refused to allow bodies of Alsatian recruits for the French army to cross her frontiers. In 1877 we made the action of the Mexican Government in pursuing some insurgents into our territory a subject of serious remonstrance.

3 Principles of Int. Law, 3d edn., pp. 525-526.

Cases arise when naval vessels after an engagement put into neutral ports and waters with prisoners from the captured vessels of the other belligerent detained on board during their stay. The usage in these circumstances is that the authorities of the port have no right to interfere so long as they remain on board ship. Their detention is part of the internal administration of the man-of-war which in this matter comes under the laws of its own state.

If the prisoners of war escape from the vessel the local authorities must not return them or allow any agents of the belligerents to recapture them within their jurisdiction.

Internment of belligerent forces in neutral territory.The only case in which belligerent troops are permitted to cross neutral boundaries is when they are driven over by the enemy. The practice in this case is to disarm the refugees when they have entered the neutral territory and to detain them there until the end of the war. This is called interning, and the troops so placed are said to have been interned. By convention of the Second Hague Conference in 1907 provision is made for such internment, which is to be as far as possible from the theatre of war. They may be guarded in camps or even in fortified places. Officers may be paroled not to leave the neutral territory and all expenses occasioned by the internment are to be reimbursed by the neutral state at the close of the war.

The last example of internment on land was in 1871 when a large force of French troops, the last of Bourbaki's army, were interned by special arrangement with Switzerland during the closing days of the Franco-German War. Internment of naval forces occurred during the Russo-Japanese War, in the Philippines, at Mare Island, California, and elsewhere.

It has been provided by treaty agreement, as in the case of the United States and Mexico, that the regular forces of two countries may, under certain conditions, reciprocally cross

the boundary lines of two states when they are in close pursuit of a band of hostile savage Indians.

In this agreement made in 1890 it was provided that this reciprocal crossing should be confined to certain localities, which in all cases should be in the unpopulated or desert parts of the boundary line. The pursuing forces were to retire as soon as an engagement had taken place with the hostile band, or had lost its trail, and the commanding officer of the force was obliged to give notice of his pursuit to the nearest civil or military official of the country entered.

Use of neutral territory in emergencies for self-protection. -Authorities agree that some exigencies of self-defense will justify a temporary violation of neutral territory or waters. But it should certainly be confined within the strictest limits required by the necessities of the case, and an ample apology should be given to the state whose territory is violated.

The case of the "Caroline" is cited in this connection, and it rests, as all others should rest, upon the grounds given by Mr. Webster, then our Secretary of State, that the necessity of self-defense was instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means or moment for deliberation. Those American lawyers and publicists who justified the seizure of the "Virginius" rested it upon the same ground, but, of course, did not attempt to cover the massacre of the prisoners in Santiago de Cuba by the same reasons.

Neutral port as a base. The prohibition of belligerent acts by recent conventions in neutral territory extends to the use of ports and waters of a neutral as a base for hostile operations. This includes the fitting out of warlike expeditions. Jomini gives the definition of a base of operations as a place from which an army draws its resources and reinforcements, that from which it sets forth on an offensive expedition, and in which it finds a refuge at need.