“By these acts he makes himself personally a party to a war in
which, as a neutral, he had no right to engage, and his property is
justly treated as that of an enemy.”--_International Law_, p. 631.
Our other home authority, Professor Woolsey, in his work on
International Law, section 162, says:--
“International Law does not require of the neutral sovereign
that he should keep the citizen or subject within the same
strict lines of neutrality which he is bound to draw for
himself.”--_Introduction to the Study of International Law_, 2d
edition, p. 270.
That is, a citizen may sell ships and arms to a belligerent and take
the penalty, but the Government cannot do any such thing.
Another authority of considerable weight, Bluntschli, the German, lays
down the rule as follows:--
“The neutral State must neither send troops to a belligerent, nor
put ships of war at its disposal, nor furnish subsidies to aid it
in making the war.
“In coming _directly_ to the aid of one of the belligerent powers
by the sending of men or war material, one takes part in the
war.”--_Droit International Codifié_, tr. LARDY, art. 757, p. 381.
There is the true principle: “By the sending of men or war material one
takes part in the war.”
* * * * *
But the most important illustration of this question, and the only case
bearing directly on this point, which, according to my recollection,
has ever been diplomatically discussed, is one somewhat famous at the
time, known as that of the Swedish Frigate, which will be found in the
second series of “Causes Célèbres,” by Baron Charles de Martens.
It seems that in 1825, after ten years of peace, the Swedish Government
conceived the idea of parting with ships, some of them more than twenty
years old, as comparatively useless. A contract for their sale was made
with a commercial house in London. The Spanish Government, by their
minister at Stockholm, protested, on the alleged ground, that, though
nominally sold to merchants, they were purchased for the revolted
colonies in Mexico and South America, and in his communication, dated
the 1st of July, 1825, used the following energetic language, which I
translate:--
“And what would his Majesty the King of Sweden think, on the
supposition of the revolt of one of his provinces,--of the kingdom
of Norway for example,--if friendly and allied powers furnished the
rebels with arms, munitions, a fleet even, through intermediate
speculators, and under pretence of not knowing the result--