6. It is reasonable, as applicable to all nations, to permit a portion of a prize cargo to be sold under the superintendence of the public officers for reparation of the ship; as to France, it is within the 19th article of the treaty of 1778. (Pub. Trs., 209-annulled by act of 1798-1 Stat., 578.) Reparation of prize ships, 1 Op., 67, Lee, (1796.)

7. There is no law that can prevent a merchant or ship-owner selling his vessel and cargo to a citizen or inhabitant of South America; but if a vessel be fitted out, furnished, &c., with intent to employ it in the service of any foreign state, to cruise or commit hostilities upon the subjects or property of another state with which the United States is at peace, it would be unlawful.

Sale of an English ship, 1 Op., 190, Rush, (1816.)

8. A vessel fitted out at Savannah with armament, munitions, and sea

stores, and afterward found with a commission from the republic of Venezuela to cruise against the subjects of Spain, and having sailed on such a cruise, but under another name, and being seized at Savannah on the charge of having been fitted out in a port of the United States to cruise against Spain, is a fit case for adjudication, and not one calling for the interference of the Government.

The Corony, 1 Op.. 231, Wirt, (1818.)

9. Colombian vessels are entitled, under articles 6 and 31 of the treaty with that republic of 1824, (Pub. Trs., 151 and 157,) to make repairs in our ports when forced into them by stress of weather, but not to enlist recruits there, either from our citizens or from foreigners, except such as may be transiently within the United States.

The Libertador, 2 Op., 4, Wirt, (1825.)

10. It is not a breach of neutrality to permit a Spanish merchantman, captured as a prize by a Mexican war-vessel, and brought by the latter into an American port in an unseaworthy condition, to be repaired and put in a condition to be carried home to a port of the captor for adjudication, whether her disabilities proceeded from the sea or the action.

Case of a Spanish ship, 2 Op., 86, Wirt, (1828.)

11. There is high authority for the position that a prize may be brought into a neutral port and sold, without violating the law of nations concerning neutrality; but as there is no doubt of the authority of the neutral sovereign to prohibit such sales, and as the strongest considerations of expediency and safety urge him to do so, the better course, clearly, is to prohibit them..

12. It would be a breach of neutrality to permit a neutral port to be made a cruising station for a belligerent, or a place of depot for his spoils and prisoners.

Ib.

13. The building of two schooners of war in New York for the Mexican government, and preparing to furnish the same with guns and the usual military equipment, is clearly a violation of section 3 of the act of 1818. (3 Stat., 447; R. S., § 5283.)

Case of schooners built for Mexico, 3 Op., 738 Legaré, (1841.)

14. These vessels having been built expressly for the service of Mexico, which is waging war against Texas, (recognized by the United States as an independent State,) the persons are liable to the penalties of the act, and the vessels to forfeiture.

15. The policy of this country is, and ever has been, perfect neutrality and non-interference in the quarrels of other nations.

16. Where certain vessels, being constructed in the United States for Mexico for the purpose of waging war against Texas, (an independent State,) were not delivered, nor the property changed, within our jurisdiction, but were sent out of port under control of our own citizens unarmed, and where every possible precaution had been taken to insure pacific conduct on the high seas, the doc trine of the preceding opinion is reaffirmed, but does not apply as fully to the case now presented as was supposed from the first statement of the case.

Case of schooners built for Mexico, 3 Op., 741, Legaré, (1542) 17. Nevertheless, although the sale is made abroad, if the vessels were equipped by American citizens within the United States for belligerent purposes, and for a nation belligerent to another with which ours is at peace, knowing the purposes for which they are to be employed, it is insisted that the equipment is repugnant to the act of 1818. (3 Stat., 447; R. S., § 5283.)

18. All trading with a belligerent, in ships of war already equipped for service, is repugnant to the settled policy of the United States and to the solemn declaration of Congress in the act of 1818. (3 Stat., 447; R. S., § 5286.)

However popular opinion may have changed on so important a subject, the act of 1818, like that of 1794, (1 Stat., 381, repealed,) was intended to secure, beyond all risk of violation, the neutral and pacific policy which they consecrate as our fundamental law.

19. All equipping within our jurisdiction of vessels of war for a belligerent by an American citizen, knowing the purposes for which they are to be employed, is unlawful.

Ib.

20. The enlistment of seamen or others for marine service on Mexican steamers in the port of New York, they not being Mexicans transiently within the United States, is a clear violation of the 2d section of the act of 1818, (3 Stat., 448; R. S., § 5282;) and the persons enlisted, as well as the officers enlisting them, are liable to the penalties of the act.

Enlistment of seamen for Mexico, 4 Op., 336, Nelson, (1844.)

21. The augmentation of the force of the Mexican war-steamers in the port of New York, by adding to the number of their guns, or by changing those originally on board for guns of larger caliber, or by the addition of any equipment solely applicable to war, is a violation of the 5th section of the same act. (R. S., § 5285.)

Ib.

22. The repair of their bottoms, copper, &c., does not constitute any increase or augmentation of force within the meaning of the act; and the steamers themselves are not subject to seizure by any judicial process under it.

Ib.

23. The commanders, and officers of vessels of other nations, found to have violated the statute in question, are amenable to the criminal jurisdiction of our courts.

Ib.

24. The purchase and fitting out of a war-steamer by the German government in the port of New York, while a state of war exists between that government and Denmark, adapted for cruising and committing hostilities against the property or subjects of the latter, is contrary to the provisions of the 3d section of the act of 1818. (3 Stat., 447; R. S., § 5283.)

Purchase of steamer by Germany, 5 Op., 92 Johnson, (1849.)

25. The act makes no distinction between the degrees of intent with which a vessel shall be fitted out; any intent to commit hostilities against a nation with which the nation fitting her out is at war, is within its prohibition.

Ib.

26. According to the law of nations, neutrals have the right to purchase during the war the property of belligerents, whether ships or anything else; and any regulation of a particular state which contravenes this doctrine is against public law, and in mere derogation of the sovereign authority of all other independent states.

Letter of British minister as to purchase of ships, 6 Op., 638, Cushing, (1854.)

27. A citizen of the United States may lawfully purchase a merchantship of either of the belligerents-Turkey, Russia, Great Britain, France, or Sardinia; if purchased bona fide, such ship becomes American property and entitled as such to the protection and to the flag of the United States; and although she cannot take out a register by our law, yet that is because she is foreign-built, not because she is belligerent-built, and she may obtain a register by special act of Congress.

28. It is a settled principle of the law of nations that no belligerent can rightfully make use of the territory of a neutral state for bel ligerent purposes without the consent of the neutral government. British consul's case, 7 Op., 367, Cushing, (1855.)

29. The undertaking of a belligerent to enlist troops of land or sea in a neutral state, without the previous consent of the latter, is a hostile attack on its national sovereignty.

П.

30. A neutral state may, if it please, permit or grant to belligerents the liberty to raise troops of land or sea within its territory; but for the neutral state to allow or concede this liberty to one belligerent and not to all, would be an act of manifest belligerent partiality, and a palpable breach of neutrality.

31. The United States constantly refuse this liberty to all belligerents alike, with impartial justice; and that prohibition is made known to the world by a permanent act of Congress.

Ib.

32. Great Britain, in attempting by the agency of her military and civil authorities in the British North American Provinces, and her diplomatic and consular functionaries in the United States, to raise troops here, committed an act of usurpation against the sovereign rights of the United States.

All persons engaged in such undertaking to raise troops in the United States for the military service of Great Britain, whether citizens or foreigners, individuals or officers, unless protected by diplomatic privilege, are indictable as malefactors by statute.

33. Foreign consuls are not exempted, either by treaty or by the law of nations, from the penal effect of the statue.

34. The act of Congress prohibiting foreign enlistments is a matter of domestic or municipal right, as to which foreign governments have no right to inquire, the international offense being independ ent of the question of the existence of a prohibitory act of Congress.

35. A foreign minister who engages in the enlistment of troops here for his government, is subject to be summarily expelled from the country; or, after demand of recall, dismissed by the President.

Ib.

36. Miscellaneous expenditures, incurred by order of the State Department, for the purpose of preserving the neutrality of the United States, are chargeable to the appropriate funds placed by law in the control of that Department.

Case of the United States and Ocean Wave, 7 Op., 398, Cushing, (1855.) 37. The doctrine of the right of neutrals to purchase the ships of bellig. erants re-affirmed.

Case of purchase of ships, 7 Op., 538, Cushing, (1855.)

38. If agents of the British government, being instructed to enlist military recruits, succeed by ingenious devices in evading the municipal law, and so escape punishment as malefactors, such successful evasion serves to increase the intensity of the international wrong done to the United States.

British enlistments, 8 Op., 468, Cushing, (1855.)

39. Report to the President on the legal questions involved in the enlistment of troops by British officers in the United States.

British enlistments, 8 Op., 476, Cushing, (1856.)

40. The commander of the military department of California has no authority to prohibit our own citizens from exporting munitions of war, by way of merchandise, to the belligerents in Mexico.

Exportation of arms to Mexico, 11 Op., 408, Speed, (1865.)

41. Neutrals may lawfully sell at home to a belligerent purchaser, or carry themselves to the belligerent powers, contraband articles, subject to the right of seizure in transitu. The right of the neutral to transport, and of the hostile power to seize, are conflicting rights, and neither party can charge the other with criminal act.

Ib.

42. The district attorney should not be instructed, in the case of a vessel seized and libeled for an intended breach of the neutrality laws, to consent to the bonding of the vessel.

The Meteor, 11 Op., 444, Speed, (1866.) 43. There is no law or regulation which forbids any person or government, whether the political designation be real or assumed, from purchasing arms from citizens of the United States, and shipping them at the risk of the purchaser.

Arms for Maximilian, 11 Op., 451, Speed, (1865.)

44. The rule of international law is well established that a foreigner who resides in the country of a belligerent can claim no indemnity for losses of property occasioned by acts of war of the other belligerent.

Case of Wheelwright and others, 12 Op., 21, Stanbery, (1866.)