hand of an enemy or enemies. On the other hand, I conclude that, with the above exception, there is no intention to derogate from the principles of neutrality laid down by the rules. As to the first of these propositions, I am not prepared to deny that contingencies may arise when not only from a national point of view, but on behalf of the commercial interests of the whole world, it might be of supreme importance to the United States that they should be free to adopt measures for the defense of the canal at a moment when they were themselves engaged in hostilities." "

Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty.—In the treaty with the Republic of Panama, commonly known as the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, which has been mentioned under the head of the Republic of Panama in a previous chapter, there is mention of subjects which are referred to in the preceding pages which treat of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.

In Article II Panama grants, not cedes, to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land, and land under water, for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said canal. There is a further grant in perpetuity of any other lands or waters outside of the zone described which may be necessary and convenient for the purpose just mentioned in the enterprise.

Article XVIII states that "the canal, when constructed, and the entrances thereto shall be neutral in perpetuity, and shall be opened upon the terms provided by Section 1, Article III, of, and in conformity with all the stipulations of, the treaty entered into by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain on November 18, 1901."

Article XXIII reads:

If it should become necessary at any time to employ armed

17 Moore's Digest, Vol. 3, p. 215.

forces for the safety or protection of the canal, or of the ships that make use of the same, or the railways and auxiliary works, the United States shall have the right, at all times and in its discretion, to use its police and its land and naval forces, or to establish fortifications for these purposes.

Article XXV reads:

For the better performance of the engagements of this convention, and to the end of the efficient protection of the canal and the preservation of its neutrality, the Government of the Republic of Panama will sell or lease to the United States lands adequate and necessary for naval or coaling stations on the Pacific Coast and on the Western Caribbean Coast of the republic at certain points to be agreed upon. with the President of the United States.18

The conditions of the two treaties quoted in regard to the Panama Canal are such as to provide for its free use in time of peace and in time of war by belligerents; it does not, however, include in these belligerents any state at war with the United States, as was done in the Suez Canal convention with respect to the Ottoman Empire. It practically puts the canal in the same status as a neutral port, so far as the use and stay of belligerent vessels are concerned. Such ports can be defended in time of a war in which they are concerned as a belligerent by fortification and defenses of various kinds duly prepared for such purposes in times of peace.

In regard to other maritime nations, besides Great Britain, there is a reference in Section 1 of Article III of the HayPauncefote Treaty in the following terms: "The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these rules," etc. Hence, for non-observance of these rules, there can be an exclusion from the use of the canal, necessarily by the United States and, if required, by force.

18 Compilation of Treaties in Force, 1904, p. 609.

In regard to canals in general, Moore says, "While a natural thoroughfare, although wholly within the dominion of a government, may be passed by commercial ships, of right, yet the nation which constructs an artificial channel may annex such conditions to its use as it pleases." (The Avon, 18 Int. Rev. Rec. 165.)

19 Moore's Digest, Vol. 3, p. 268.

CHAPTER V.

NATIONALITY.-INTERCOURSE OF STATES.-RELATIONS BETWEEN THE NAVY AND DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR OFFICERS. INTERNATIONAL FUNCTIONS OF NAVAL OFFICERS. -PROTECTION OF CITIZENS IN FOREIGN STATES.

Nationality the link between individuals and international law. Oppenheim says, with respect to nationality as a link between international law and individuals, that “it is through the medium of their nationality only that individuals can enjoy benefits from the existence of the law of nations. This is a fact which has its consequences over the whole area of international law. Such individuals as do not possess any nationality enjoy no protection whatever, and if they are aggrieved by a state they have no way of redress, there being no state which would be competent to take their case in hand. As far as the law of nations is concerned, apart from morality, there is no restriction whatever upon a state to abstain from maltreating to any extent such stateless individuals. On the other hand, if individuals who possess nationality are wronged abroad, it is their home state only and exclusively which has a right to ask for redress, and these individuals themselves have no such right. It is for this reason that the question of nationality is a very important one for the law of nations, and that individuals enjoy benefits from this law not as human beings but as subjects of such states as are members of the family of nations. And so distinct is the position of subjects of these members from the position of stateless individuals, and from subjects of states outside the family of nations, that

it has been correctly characterized as a kind of international indigenousness." 1

1

Right to protect citizens abroad.-The existence of nationality in an individual, which is generally termed citizenship, carries with it a right to protection from the home country, both as to the individual when abroad or as to his property abroad when he is at home.

Duty to receive expelled citizens.-There is a duty also on the part of the home state of receiving within its territory such of its citizens as are not permitted to remain abroad. These are generally paupers, idiots, habitual criminals, diseased persons and others likely to be detrimental to the state into which they have come. They may, however, be persons also expelled for political reasons.

Other rights of states with respect to citizens abroad.— In addition to the right and duty just mentioned with regard to citizens abroad the state has the right to tax its people abroad for its own purposes; it can require them to come home for military or other purposes, or can punish them for offenses committed abroad. On the other hand, a state cannot forcibly detain foreign citizens called home by their own state, or to prevent them from paying taxes to the state of their allegiance.

66

Nationality either natural or acquired.-Sir Alexander Cockburn, in speaking of the sources of nationality, says that nationality or, in other words, the status of an individual as a subject or citizen in relations to a particular state, is either natural or acquired; natural, when it results from birth; acquired, when an individual is accepted as a subject or citizen by a state to which he did not originally belong. Nationality by birth or origin depends according to the law of some nations on the place of birth; according to that of