room for doubt. The sale of merchant ves sels by neutral individuals to belligerents has generally been upheld in spite of their adapt ability to warlike purposes,1 although the original arming and equipping, as well as the augmentation of the force of such vessels after having been armed and equipped in a neutral port, has generally been deemed unlawful. The fact, however, that these vessels are alleged to have been auxiliary cruisers of the German Navy would seem to put a different face on the matter. In view of the close and intimate relations which must subsist between these companies and the German Government, the sale and exportation of such vessels would seem to be impossible without the consent or conniv ance of the German Government; and it can hardly be contended that such consent or connivance could be given without a serious breach of neutral obligation. In any case, the reported contention of Chancellor von Biilow to the effect that the sale of the vessels of a private firm to a for eign State or to a private firm is admissible cannot be maintained if it is meant that the neutral government is free from responsibil ity in all such cases. It lias been suggested that Germany would not be guilty of any breach of neutrality if she simply played the part of an "honest broker/' - and sold ships of all kinds impartially to both belligerents: but this notion is based upon a wholly erro neous conception of the real nature and scope of neutrality. "Neutrality does not consist in the mere impartial treatment of opposing belligerents, but in the entire ab stinence from any assistance of either party in his warfare," and "a neutral government is bound not only to abstain from affording any direct attention to the combatant force 1 See, e.g., the opinion of Sec. Clay to Mr. Rivas Salmon in 1827, Wharton's Dig. III., p. 520- This is not, however, in accordance with the newer, and. as we believe, the sounder rules. 3 See editorial in N. Y. Tribune for May 14, loo.j. and the opinion of Chancellor von Biilow, cited above. This seems also to have been the opinion of Sec. Clay. See Wharton's DÍR. III., p. 520.
of either belligerent, but to exercise a rea sonable diligence in compelling the like con duct on the part of all persons within its juris diction.3 Total abstinence—not mere im partiality—is in these matters the real extent of neutral obligation. In the case of the submarine boat Protcctot'f which was shipped as cargo on board the Norwegian steamer Fortuna, and which cleared from New York early in June, the Government of the United States couH in no wise be held responsible whatever her destination, although the owners or builders might, under certain circum stances, be indicted under our neutral ity laws. As Mr. Cass, Secretary of State, said in 1860: "A government is responsible only for the faithful discharge of its interna tional duties, but not for the consequences of illegal enterprises, of which it had no knowledge, or which the want of proof or other circumstances rendered it unable to prevent."4 The case of the submarine is distinctly one in which our Government neither actually had knowledge nor was 'charged' with it. ... To make sure that no submarines were building in the United States, we should have to maintain a con stant inspection of every shipyard and boat yard in the country, which is, of course, out of the question.5 It is one of the duties the diplomatic representatives of the belli gerent States in neutral countries to call the attention of such and similar violations of neutrality on the part of neutral individuals to neutral Governments. "If the attention of our Government were called, however, by the Russian or the Japanese representa tive at Washington to the fact that a sub marine was building, supposed to be in tended for use against his country, our effec tive responsibility would then begin. That 3 Walker, The Science, etc., pp. 374 and 388. 4 Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Molina, 1800. See Warton's Dig III. P. 603. 3 See an excellent editorial on this subject in the X. Y. Times for June 13, 1904.
