Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T23:13:53.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Law of Hostile Military Expeditions as Applied by the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Roy Emerson Curtis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

By the time of the establishment of the American Government the practice of the nations with regard to their mutual obligations had begun to resolve itself into fairly well-defined principles. Among these was one to the effect that one state must prevent the use of its territory and resources for hostile attacks upon its neighbors with which it is at peace. In the beginning this rule was evolved from the relations of neutrality; for the more pressing needs of the time of war tended to crystallize usage applying to it, while other practice was still incoherent. But obviously the law thus defined was only a phase of the general duty of a state to prevent injurious and offensive acts against friendly countries. The obligation is based upon the complete and exclusive control which the sovereign is presumed to exercise over its subject persons and territory. The authority of the sovereign exists alike in time of war and time of peace; and the requirement of the law extends as well to normal relations as to the exceptional conditions of neutrality.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 1914 , pp. 1 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1914

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, I, 125, 128. See Washington’s Annual Address, 3 Dec. 1793, American State Papers, For. Rel. I, 21.

2 “The American troops have been sent to form a solid military wall along the Rio-Grande to stop filibustering and to see that there is no further smuggling of arms and men across the international boundary.” Press correspondent with President Taft, Augusta, Ga., March 8, 1911. See Review of Reviews, Vol. 43, p. 406 (April, 1911).

3 “The law of nations is the great source from which we derive those rules, respecting belligerent and neutral rights, which are recognized by all civilized and commercial states throughout Europe and America. . . . The decisions of the courts of every country, so far as they are founded upon a law common to every country, are received not as authority, but with respect. The decisions of every country show how the law of nations, in a given case, is understood in that country, and will be considered in adopting the rule which is to prevail in this.” Chief Justice Marshall, in Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar v. Boyle, 9 Cranch, 191, 198. See also the Paquete Habana, 175 U. S. 677, 700, and Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 Dallas, 111.

4 Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar v. Boyle, 9 Cranch, 191.

5 S. Ex. Doc. 112, 41 Cong. 2 Sess. p. 3.

6 See Ross f. Rittenhouse, 2 Dallas, 160, 162; Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsey, 2 Cranch, 64, 118; Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cranch, 1; Chacon v. Eighty-nine Bales of Cochineal, 1 Brock, 478 (Fed. Cas. 2568).

7 U. S. v. O’Sullivan, 9 N. Y. Legal Obs. 257 (Fed. Cas. 15974).

8 “The phrase ‘neutrality act’ is a distinctive name applied for convenience sake merely. . . . The scope and purpose of the act are not thereby declared or restricted. The act itself is so comprehensive that the same provisions which prevent our soil from being made the base of operations by one foreign belligerent against another likewise prevent the perpetration within our territory of hostile acts against a friendly people by those who may not be legitimate belligerents, but outlaws in the light of the jurisprudence of nations.” For. Rel. 1885, 776. See also U. S. v. O’Sullivan, Fed. Cas. 15974, and same, Fed. Cas. 15975. Also 21 Op. At. Gen. 267, 270.

9 The following outline is illustrative of the classification here adopted:

Duty of Non-interference and Neutrality

I. Abstention from 1. Intervention in internal affairs i. Directly injurious acts a. Armed assistance to the enemy
2. Violation of territory ii. Indirectly injurious acts a. Sale of munitions, loans of money, etc.
b. Grants of discriminatory privileges.

10 See Holland, Thos. E., Neutral Duties in Maritime War, Proc. Brit. Acad., II, 55.

11 See Moore’s Digest, Chap. XXVIII, III, 6.

12 See Hall, W. E., International Law, p. 605.

13 See 1 Amer. St. Pap., For. Rel. 608; and Davis, Elements of International Law (3rd ed.), p. 404.

14 Act of March 4, 1909, sec. 13, “An Act to codify, revise, and amend the penal laws of the United States.”

15 U. S. v. Burr, Coomb’s Trial of Aaron Burr, 377 (Fed. Cas. 14694a).

16 Lloyd’s Trial of Wm. S. Smith and Samuel G. Ogden (Moore’s Digest, VII, 917).

17 U. S. v. Nunez, 82 Fed. 599, 609.

18 U. S. v. Smith, Fed. Cas. 16342a. Also U. S. v. Rand, 17 Fed. 142.

19 U. S. v. Nunez, 82 Fed. 599; also U. 8. v. Hart, 78 Fed. 868; and U. S. v. Pena, 69 Fed. 983.

20 U. S. v. Pena, 69 Fed. 983; U. S. v. Nunez, 82 Fed. 599; U. S. v. O’Brien, 75 Fed. 900; 13 Op. At. Gen. 541.

21 U. S. v. Rand, 17 Fed. 142; U. S. v. Murphy, 84 Fed. 609; U. S. v. Hart, 78 Fed. 868; U. S. v. The Mary N. Hogan, 18 Fed. 528; U. S. v. Two Hundred and Fourteen Boxes of Arms, 20 Fed. 50; U. S. v. The Conserva, 38 Fed. 431; 21 Op. At. Gen. 267, 271.

22 U. S. v. Pena, 69 Fed. 983; U. S. v. O’Brien, 75 Fed. 900; Chacon v. Eighty-nine Bales of Cochineal, 1 Brock, 478 (Fed. Cas. 2568).

23 U. S. v. Hart, 74 Fed. 724.

24 U. S. v. Pena, 69 Fed. 983; MS. Notes to Spain, VII, 79 (Moore’s Digest, VII, 927).

25 13 Op. At. Gen. 641.

26 U. S. v. O’Brien, 75 Fed. 900. See also U. S, v. Hart, 78 Fed. 868.

27 U. S. v. Lumsden, 1 Bond, 5 (Fed. Cas. 15641).

28 U. S. v. Burr, Coomb’s Trial of Aaron Burr (Fed. Cas. 14694a).

29 U. S. v. Hart, 74 Fed. 724.

30 Wiborg v. U. S., 163 U. S. 632; U. S. v. Hart, 78 Fed. 868.

31 U. S. v. O’Sullivan, Fed. Cas. 15975.

32 U. S. v. Ybanez, 53 Fed. 536.

33 U. S. v. Nunez, 82 Fed. 599; U. S. v. O’Brien, 75 Fed. 900; U. S. v. Ybanez, 53 Fed. 536.

34 U. S. v. Hart, 74 Fed. 724.

35 Wiborg v. U. S., 163 U. S. 632, 653–654; U. S. v. Murphy, 84 Fed. 609.

36 U. S. v. Hart, 78 Fed. 868.

37 Wiborg v. U. S., 163 U. S. 632.

But when the protection of an enterprise is sought on the ground that it is approved by the government of the country to which it is directed, it may become necessary to determine the status of that government. Such an occasion arose in 1855, when a certain Mr. Fabens sought the aid of the government of this country to protect the “Kinney expedition” to Nicaragua. The professed object of the undertaking was colonization, but it had been denounced by the government of Nicaragua as an unlawful expedition. The authority of that government was questioned, but Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, declined to act, since our minister had recognized it as holding the executive power of the state. 44 MS. Dom. Let. 173 (Moore’s Digest, VII, 924).

38 U. S. v. Hughes, 70 Fed. 972, citing Hall, International Law, p. 609; see also Wiborg v. U. 8., 163 U. S. 632, 653–654.

39 See Hall, International Law, p. 607.

40 U. S. v. Murphy, 84 Fed. 609; U. S. v. Nunez, 82 Fed. 599.

41 U. S. v. Hughes, 70 Fed. 972.

42 Ex parte Needham, 1 Pet. C. C. 487 (Fed. Cas. 10080).

43 Charge to Grand Jury, 5 Blatchf. 556 (Fed. Cas. 18264).

44 U. S v. Murphy, 84 Fed. 609.

45 Charge to Grand Jury, 4 Wkly. Law Gaz. 214 (Fed. Cas. 18268). Same, 5 McLean, 306 (Fed. Cas. 18267).

46 Hart v. U. S., 84 Fed. 799; U. S. v. Hart, 78 Fed. 868; U. S. v. Band, 17 Fed. 142.

47 Wiborg v. U. S., 163 U. S. 632.

48 U. S. v. O’Brien, 75 Fed. 900.

49 U. S. v. Hart, 78 Fed. 868; Hart v. U. S., 84 Fed. 799.

50 U. S. v. Hughes, 75 Fed. 267.

51 Supra, note 49.

52 U. S. v. Ybanez, 53 Fed. 536.

53 U. S. v. Hart, 78 Fed. 868.

54 U. S. v. Trumbull, 48 Fed. 99, 103; see also U. S. v. The Itata, 49 Fed. 646; and the case of The Wahlberg, For. Rel. 1895, II, 867–876.

55 H. Ex. Doc. 74, 25 Cong. 2 Sess. p. 7.

56 U. S. v. Rand, 17 Fed. 142.

57 U. S. v. Lumsden, 1 Bond, 5 (Fed. Cas. 15641). See also S. Ex. Doc. 57, 31 Cong. 1 Sess. p. 48.

58 From the reply of the Secretary of State, Mr. Bayard, For. Rel., 1885, 776.

59 Mr. Cushing, At. Gen., to Mr. Marcy, Sec. of St., Dec. 2, 1856, 8 Op. At. Gen. 216.

60 U. S. v. Lumsden, 1 Bond, 5 (Fed. Cas. 15641).

61 Dip. Corres. 1865, II, 103; 1866, I, 77.

62 Charge to Grand Jury, 5 McLean, 249 (Fed. Cas. 18266).

63 Charge to Grand Jury, Fed. Cas. 18265.

64 U. S. v. O’Sullivan, Fed. Cas. 15975; U. S. v. Ybanez, 53 Fed. 536.

65 Infra, sec. 2.

66 Supra, I, 1.

67 Supra, II, 2.

68 Wharton, Criminal Law, sec. 1901. See convention relative to the creation of an international prize court, Hague Peace Conference, 1907. Article 4 allows an appeal to the court by individuals directly in some cases.

69 7 Op. At. Gen. 367, 381 (in connection with enlistments).

70 This was the case before the enactment of the Neutrality Act of 1794.

71 This is implied in the statement of the statutes of the U. S., and England. See Chap. VI, sec. 1.

72 Fillmore, Annual Message, Dec. 2, 1851, Richardson, Messages, V, 113, 115.

73 This is implied in the statements of European legislation. See Chap. VI, sec. 1.

74 U. S. v. The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1; For. Rel. 1886, 57.

75 Ibid.

76 Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of St., to Mr. Morris, Min. to Prance, Aug. 16, 1793, American State Papers, For. Rel. I, 167, 168.

77 For. Bel. 1885, 776, 778.

78 For instances, see Chap. VI, sec. 2. Being a political offense, it affords no ground for extradition. (Wharton, Criminal Law, sec. 1908.)

79 Op. At. Gen. 216; S. Ex. Doc. 57, 31 Cong. 1 Sess. p. 48.

80 Charge to Grand Jury, Fed. Cas. 18266.

81 Infra, Chap. IV, sec. 2.

82 Charge to Grand Jury, Fed. Cas. 18266. See also the cases submitted to arbitration, referred to in Chap. VI, sec. 2. For the means of enforcement of the direct responsibility, see Chap. V.

83 See infra, Chap. IV, sec. 2.

84 Charge to Grand Jury, 5 McLean 306 (Fed. Cas. 18267).