The public ships of a neutral are inviola ble; and so are its private ships, subject, however, to laws relating to a breach of blockade, contraband, and search. Neutral territory, including the sea for a distance of three miles from low-water mark, is inviola ble. If a ship is captured in neutral waters, in violation of neutrality, the neutral power is bound to enforce its restoration or compen sate the injured belligerent; and, in general, a neutral is bound to prevent and punish a violation of its 'rights as a neutral by either belligerent; Halleck, Int. L., Baker's ed. 143. These principles are now confirmed by 13 H. C. (1907) arts. 1-3.
Where a United States war vessel captured a Confederate steamer in a neutral port of Brazil and brought it to a United States port, and it was there sunk by a collision, and the United States disavowed the action of its ship in making the capture, it was held that as the capture was unlawful, or had been disavowed by the government, a libel for the captured vessel as prize of war could not be sustained; The "Florida," 101 1J. S. 37, 25 L. Ed. 898. A neutral may de mand the return of a captured vessel and further redress. But where the vessel chooses to resist capture in neutral waters, its capture is not an offence against the neu tral; Cobb, Int. L. Cas. 230; Hall, Int. L. § 228.
Where neutral territory is violated by il legal outfit and equipment, the offence is deposited after the termination of the voy age; The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283, 348, 5 L. Ed. 454. A neutral ship should, ordinarily, submit to capture and seek its remedies in the courts for damage; 1 Rob. 374.
It has been suggested that a belligerent who has begun an attack on another bellig erent outside of neutral territory or water may continue the contest withiti the neutral waters and complete the capture; 5 C. Rob. 365; but on the other hand it is said that the inviolability of neutral territory should allow of no exceptions, and that property captured under such circumstances must be restored, though it actually belonged to the enemy ; 5 C. Rob. 15; 3 Phill. Int. L. 386.
It belongs exclusively to the neutral gov ernment to raise the question of a capture' made within neutral territory ; The Adela, Wall. (U. S.) 266, 18 L. Ed. 821; the owner of the captured ship must assert his claim through his government; 1 Kent 121; an enemy cannot do so ; The Sir William Peel, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 517, 18 L. Ed. 696; but when
ever a capture is made by a belligerent In violation of neutral rights, if the prize come voluntarily within the jurisdiction of the neutral, it should be restored to its original owner ; 3 Phill. Int. L. 532; La Amistad de Rues, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 385, 5 L. Ed. 115. See 13 H. C. (1907) arts. 12-20.
A public vessel of a belligerent may enter a neutral port to make such repairs or to take in such coal and provisions as may be necessary ; but the ordinary rule is that it must not remain more than twenty-four hours, except in case of necessity.
A belligerent vessel may bring a prize into a neutral port and sell it there, with the consent of the neutral; Hopner v. Apple by, 6 Mas. 77, Fed. Cas. No. 6,699; and a neutrai may permit a prize to be brought into its ports for repairs; 1 Op. Att. Gen. 603 ; but neutrals may prohibit this and have often, by proclamation, done so ; 2 Halleck, Int. L., Baker's ed. 148.
Where a neutral allows the right of pas sage through its territory to one belligerent, it must accord It to both; 3 Phill. Int. L.
183; 1 Kent *120; 21 Re?). de Dr. Int. 117. The troops of a belligerent cannot cross neu tral territory, nor can even the wounded be taken across neutral territory, without the express permission of the neutral, which, in the case of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, was refused by Belgium ; nor can a rieutral allow its ports and waters to be used as a base of operations or supplies, or as a point from which to watch the other belliger ent. See 5 H. C. (1907) arts. 1-2; 13 H. C. (1907) art. 5.
The subjects of neutral states are entitled to carry on, upon their own account, a trade with a belligerent; this doctrine is well set tled; 3 Phill. Int,. L. 300. But it was consid ered unlawful, under the common law, for an English subject to raise a loan to support the subjects of a foreign state at war with a government in alliance with his own; 3 Phill. Int. L., 247; yet it now appears to be the opinion that, although the neutral state cannot loan money, yet the individual citi zens of a neutral state may, and such loans are not considered a violation of neutrality any more than the sales of arms and ammu nition; Snow, Lect. Int. Law 119. But such loans to an insurgent state or colony have been considered unlawful; Risley, Law of War; 9 Moore, P. C. 586.