200 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



tain measure the State itself. The laws of 

 humanity demand that the quality of belli- 

 gerents should be accorded to that party, 

 and that its people should not be considered 

 a mass of criminals. A party that is suffi- 

 ciently strong to create a power analogous to 

 that of a State, which offers by its military 

 organization sufficient guarantees of order, 

 and gives evidence by its acts of its intention 

 to become a State, that party has a natural 

 right to demand for its army the same treat- 

 ment that is accorded to a State already in 

 existence. The sacrifices of war are in that 

 way diminished not only for the new party, 

 but for all its adversaries. If, on the contrary, 

 the volunteers of the new party are pursued as 

 criminals, the contest becomes more savage, 

 and neither of the adversaries will allow itself 

 to be surpassed by the other in the barbar- 

 ism of its acts or the cruelty of its reprisals. 

 Under this head are ranged the expeditions 

 undertaken by certain forces called corps francs, 

 or free corps. When these corps are regularly 

 organized and respect the laws of war, they 

 ought to be considered as belligerents.' (Blunt- 

 schli, pp. 271.) 



" Mr. Phillimore, in his work on interna- 

 tional law, which is of the highest authority, 



' ' There is no proposition of law upon which 

 there exists a more universal agreement of all 

 jurists than that the virtual and de facto rec- 

 ognition of a new State (recognizing the com- 

 mercial flag and sanctioning the appointment 

 of consuls to its ports) gives no just cause of 

 offence to the old State, inasmuch as it decides 

 nothing concerning the asserted rights of the 

 latter.' He makes a distinction between the 

 ' virtual ' recognition of a new State by ad- 

 mitting its commercial flag and the appoint- 

 ment of consuls and the formal recognition by 

 sending ambassadors and entering into treaties 

 with the new State by foreign powers, which 

 should not be done until after 'a practical 

 cessation of hostilities,' though it does not 

 demand a 'perfect and undisturbed internal 

 tranquillity ' within its borders. This would, 

 in fact, be an admission of the competency of 

 the new powers to negotiate and contract en- 

 gagements under the law of nations. (Philli- 

 more's 'International Law,' vol. ii., pp. 17-22.) 

 " In case of revolution, Wheaton says the 

 civil war does not necessarily extinguish the 

 existence of the sovereign or parent State, but 

 that, 'until the revolution is consummated, 

 while the civil war involving a contest for the 

 Government continues, other States may remain 

 indifferent spectators of the controversy, still 

 continuing to treat the ancient Government as 

 sovereign, and the Government de facto as a 

 society entitled to the rights of war against 

 its enemies, or may espouse the cause of the 

 party which they believe to have justice on its 

 side. In the first case, the foreign State ful- 

 fils all its obligations under the law of nations, 

 and neither party has any right to complain, 



provided it maintains an impartial neutrality.' 

 (Part i., ch. ii., sec. 6.) 



" And, again, he says : ' It has already been 

 stated that while the contest for the sover- 

 eignty continues and the civil war rages, other 

 nations may remain passive, allowing to both 

 contending parties all the rights which war 

 gives to public enemies ; or may acknowledge 

 the independence of the new State, forming 

 with it treaties of amity and commerce, or may 

 join in alliance with one party against the 

 other. In the first case neither party has any 

 right to complain, so long as other nations 

 maintain an impartial neutrality and abide 

 the event of the contest.' (Wheaton, part i., 

 ch. ii., sec. 10.) 



"Such are the views of modern jurists. In 

 the late civil war in America all the nations in 

 Europe recognized and acted upon this doc- 

 trine. Belgium, France, the Netherlands, 

 Portugal, Denmark, Prussia, Eussia, Spain, 

 and Great Britain, issued proclamations declar- 

 ing their neutrality, and setting forth regula- 

 tions for the government of their subjects. 

 Our government protested against the man- 

 ner in which some of these declarations were 

 made, and against the manner in which they 

 were executed, but it never denied the right 

 of any Government to declare its neutrality in 

 any contest. 



" The declarations of Great Britain and Spain 

 were substantially alike. That of Great Brit- 

 ain was as follows : 



BY THE QUEEN A PKOCLAMATION, VICTORIA E. 



Whereas, we are happily at peace with all sover- 

 eigns, powerSj and States ; and whereas hostilities 

 have, unhappily, commenced between the Govern- 

 ment of the United States and certain States styling 

 themselves the Confederate States of America ; and 

 whereas we, being at peace with the Government of 

 the United States, have declared our royal determina- 

 tion to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in 

 the contest between the said contending parties, we 

 therefore have thought it fit, by the advice of our 

 privy council, to issue this, our royal proclamation, 

 etc. Dated May 13, 1861. 



" That of Spain was as follows : 



PROCLAMATION BY THE QUEEN OF SPAIN. 



Considering the relations which exist between Spain 

 and the United States of America, and the expediency 

 of not changing the reciprocal feelings and friendly 

 understanding on account of the grave events which 

 have happened in that republic, I have resolved to 

 maintain the strictest neutrality in the struggle en- 

 gaged in between all the Federal States of the Union 

 and the Confederate States of the South ; and in order 

 to avoid the losses which our subjects might suffer, 

 both in shipping and commerce^ for want of definite 

 rules to which their conduct might conform, in ac- 

 cordance with my council of ministers, I decree as 

 follows (and then the regulations which govern neu- 

 tral nations are given as in the British proclamation). 

 Dated June 17, 1861. 



" We protested against the manner in which 

 the British proclamation was issued, and the 

 faithless manner in which it was executed ; but 

 we made no protest against that of Spain, 

 whose declaration was identical with that of 

 England, except that it repeated the word 



