Dr. Woolsey admits that this is no offense against international law. "The law of nations, as interpreted by our courts, requires no neutral to interfere for the prevention of a trade in contraband carried on by its citizens or subjects (Cf. Introd. to Int. Law. § 162), or to take active measures against a ship purposing to run a blockade instituted by a friendly State." Yet he implies, later, by a single question, that it "may be the duty of nations to agree that contraband trade shall be prohibited at the commencement of a voyage." But this is to go behind the law of nations as it is, to suggest what it ought to be, a ground on which Mr. Sumner's tread is heavier and will be heard longer than any of those whom either commercial interest, or the passions of the hour, or the imperfections of international law led to disagree with him. In one passage Dr. Woolsey seems to hold with Mr. Sumner--to whose great discourses, however, he makes no allusion-that States and statesmen are not compelled to confine themselves to existing international law in dealing with international injuries—which is the exact ground on which the Treaty of Washington standsthough the drift of his article opposes this view. "Either we on this side of the water are grievously in the wrong, or international injuries are wholly independent of State law; if there is no law" (municipal law is meant)" or an inefficient one, that is no plea against foreign claims; the obligations of nations are the main points in the case. Let it be made to appear that no wrong known to the law of nations is committed when a ship builder on neutral soil constructs a vessel of war, which is to be employed avowedly in destroying the commerce of a friendly State, or let it be made to appear that a contrivance which puts the threads of an armament together in foreign waters, when they were entirely spun in one and the same country, may be overlooked, and the United States can have no just claim for damages in the case of the Alabama. But in that case it may well be asked: Of what value are international laws of neutrality, if the neutral subjects can do what they will, and if war is fed and prolonged by their cupidity?" This is the nearest approach he makes to intimating that we

have any claims. Mr. Bernard's argument against them he "feels compelled to pass by in respectful silence." And although he does still suggest three points: (1) That the Alabama was built for the Confederates; (2) the Government orders to detain the vessel (made after the bird had flown!) admitted that there was prima facie evidence against her;* (3) Did the trick of the Confederates, in combining ship and armament in foreign waters, free the Government of Great Britain "from all responsibility?"— the third and last point is only a query, and it is not clear but it falls into confusion of thought, for "responsibility " under the law of nations, is one thing, and "responsibility" outside of and beyond and above that law, is quite another. Responsibility under the law he is logically confined to- excluding our claims. The words italicised in the passage quoted above also suggest the same confusion in their interpretation. For the "obligations of nations" cover more than "wrongs known to the law of nations." And Dr. Woolsey declines to claim anything from England, save what is covered by the recognized law of nations, while he expressly says, later, of the present practice under the laws: "Neutrals supply the food upon which war lives, and supply it alike to either belligerent that can pay for it, so that until exhaustion comes upon one of the combatants, the harvest of the neutral trader goes on." Every one who has written or spoken on this subject, has had his election to stand within the limits of the letter of the law, or while recognizing theseto take higher ground, as Mr. Sumner and Mr. Dana and the Treaty have done. President Woolsey seems to have made the opposite choice.

In the second of Pres. Woolsey's lectures to his class, more than a year earlier, the report of which here cited is his own abstract, he seemed to go further, however. He gave the following statement of international law: "It is a violation of neutrality to open harbors for hostile enterprises, or to allow the presence of a person, or vessel, within the neutral's terri

*Contra. Bernard, p. 400. Note. To detain her is denied to have been "international duty."

tory, when there is evidence that a hostile undertaking is being planned, or to allow the subjects to prepare or augment any hostile expedition. Thus, to build, arm or man ships of war, with this view, or to build them with this intent; so far as to make them ready for an armament, which is to be put on board on the sea, or in some neutral port, is an unneutral proceeding." But he urges, after all, only a prima facie claim, and this simply on the score of neglect, or want of ordinary vigilance on England's part, "there was such hesitation, such unwillingness to act, such prolix counsel and advice, such fear to step an inch beyond the letter of the law,” (¿. e., the law of the State,- not to step beyond the law of nations, he approves,)" when great interests were at stake, that one can not but regard the claim for damages as prima facie a very good one." Subsequently, he maintains that the excuse of room for fraud because the line between ships of war built for commerce and those made for a belligerent is so fine, is a bad one, because the usual papers were not required of the Alabama. But the ground of our "fair claims for damages" is still held to be the same, not wrong, but mere neglect, since "it can be set aside by showing that all possible care was taken to discover and prevent this hostile expedition." Room is made in the Treaty for this very ground (in argument hereafter) by the terms, "the escape, under whatever circumstances, of the Alabama." If that were all "Her Britannic Majesty" had to say to us, there would be no departure in the international law, such as the new "Rules" afterward embody. Nor would there be any certainty of any damages whatever.

There are several points involved in this great international settlement which we do not discuss, for lack of space. They may be opened hereafter. It is worth while to observe, however, in closing, that while the second and third "Rules" of the Treaty might have been promulgated without the first, this draws after it, logically, the other two. Even "Historicus" discerned this. "If M. Hautefeuille," he says, "is right in saying that trade in contraband, within the neutral territory, carried on by neutral subjects, with one belligerent, affords to

the other belligerent a lawful cause of war, it is simply nonsense to pretend that it is not the duty of the neutral Government to prohibit such a trade." (P. 138, note.)

And it is worth while, also, to note that there have not been wanting suggestions, heretofore, of the very change which is now proposed in the law of nations-"hints toward reforms." The first, in point of time,— perhaps in point of dignity, also,

seems to have been American, and to have originated in the Congress of the United States. The first Foreign Enlistment Act, as old as 1794, revised in 1817-18, prohibited the preparation of any hostile expedition against friendly Powers, and the being concerned in fitting out any vessel to cruise or commit hostilities in foreign service, against any nation at peace with the United States, etc. The Act of 1817, when introduced, also prohibited the fitting out and arming " any private ship or vessel of war, to sell the said vessel, or contract for the sale of said vessel, to be delivered in the United States, or elsewhere, to the purchaser," with the intent to cruise, etc. (Letter of George Bemis, Esq., of Boston, on "American Neutrality, its honorable Past and expedient Future;” quoted by Bernard, p. 404.) Dr. Woolsey italicises the statement that this provision was struck out by the Senate. But we can not be robbed of the historic honor of the proposition, made more than fifty years before the Treaty of Washington. The title of the Bill of 1817 was originally, "A Bill to prevent cit izens of the United States from selling vessels of war to the citizens or subjects of any foreign Power, and more effectually to prevent the arming and equipping vessels of war in the ports of the United States, intended to be used against nations in amity with the United States." This title was, of course, changed when the provision above cited was omitted. The English Foreign Enlistment Act, 59 Geo. III., never contained any such provisions, nor did it contain any such as Secs. 10 and 11 of our Act of 1818, requiring armed vessels issuing from our ports to give bonds, and authorizing the detention of suspicious vessels by Collectors of the Customs. Galiani and Hautefeuille seem to have led the way among text-writers, in

advocating the extension of interdiction of trade in contraband to neutral territory, -a doctrine, we have seen, contradicted by Lampredi and Wheaton, and denounced by Azuni and "Historicus." This last writer stamps upon the view of Hautefeuille as "a monstrous and mischievous solecism," and ridicules Dr. Phillimore's astonishing error in approving it as coincident with "eternal justice." The Treaty of Washington turns the tables upon him with striking effect! Phillimore expresses his opinion that a true neutral should "abstain from every act which may better or worse the condition of a belligerent." "Historicus" thinks he proves that he should not, and utters the pious conviction that "neither the Government of Great Britain nor that of the United States is to be reckoned as a seceder from the institutes of international law, or a recruit to the principles of eternal justice."" How does that stand now? Phillimore expresses regret at Judge Story's celebrated and oft-quoted dictum in the case of the Santissima Trinidad, (7 Wheaton, 340,) and Dr. Woolsey adds his own, "if it be true." They might have included in their regret an earlier position of the Federal administration in opposition to the true position taken by the French in 1796, and the historical statements of Kent, all quoted on their side by the English of late. Dr. Woolsey also expresses himself, § 157, in favor of said neutrality, favors, § 160, the adoption by neutral governments of the American principle of requiring security of armed vessels, and suggests "a juster and humaner policy" than what "in the present state of the law of nations is felt to be obligatory." ($ 178, introd.) He adds, "The views of Phillimore, although he may confound the duty of a neutral State and that of a citizen of such State, do him great honor. If contraband trade in any article can be prevented within the borders of the neutral, he is bound in right reason, but not by the present law of nations, to prevent it." Even the British Government proposed, in 1862, to amend the law of England so as to prevent other Alabamas. This was in the winter, after the escape of the "290." The American Government, however, was first asked if its Foreign Enlistment