As to the reported attack of a band of armed men, said to have been organized in Arizona, on the custom-house and town hall at Nogales, State of Sonora, Mexico, see Mr. Rockhill, Act. Sec. of State, to the Attorney-General, Sept. 17, 1896, 212 MS. Døm. Let. 529, enclosing copy of a note of Mr. Romero, Mexican minister, of Aug. 27, 1896. 3. UNNEUTRAL ACTS. § 224. From the supremacy and exclusiveness of the territorial jurisdiction, it follows that it is the duty of a state, within the bounds of legal responsibility, to prevent its territory and territorial waters from being used to the injury of another state. We have seen that this duty has been held to embrace the prevention of the counterfeiting of the moneys of foreign governments. It also extends to the prevention of acts the performance or toleration of which the law of neutrality forbids, such as the use of territorial waters as a base of belligerent operations. The attempt to do these acts constitutes, on the other hand, a violation of the national jurisdiction, of which the offended sovereign may justly complain. With regard to the proceeding of the Citizen Genet, French minister, in fitting out cruisers and granting military commissions in the United States, Mr. Jefferson stated that the President had reexamined the subject, and the result appeared to be that it was "the right of every nation to prohibit acts of sovereignty from being exercised by any other within its limits, and the duty of a neutral nation to prohibit such as would injure one of the warring powers;" that "the granting military commissions, within the United States, by any other authority than their own" was "an infringement on their sovereignty, and particularly so when granted to their own citizens, to lead them to commit acts contrary to the duties they owe their own country;" and that it was not doubted that the vessels which had been illegally equipped would be "permitted to give no further umbrage by their presence in the ports of the United States." Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to Mr. Genet, French min., June 5, 1793, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 150. See, also, Moore, Int. Arbitrations, I. 311 et seq. While a neutral state is not bound to forbid its inhabitants to go abroad and enlist in the service of a foreign belligerent, yet it is not lawful for such belligerent, without the consent of the neutral government, to recruit its forces in the latter's territory, either by enlisting men there or by retaining them to go abroad and enlist. Cushing, At.-Gen., 1855, 7 Op. 367. a United States v. Arjona, 120 U. S. 479; supra, § 23. One other subject of disscussion between the United States and Great Britain has grown out of the attempt, which the exigencies of the war in which she is engaged with Russia induced her to make, to draw recruits from the United States. "It is the traditional and settled policy of the United States to maintain impartial neutrality during the wars which from time to time occur among the great powers of the world. Performing all the duties of neutrality toward the respective belligerent states, we may reasonably expect them not to interfere with our lawful enjoyment of its benefits. Notwithstanding the existence of such hostilities, our citizens retain the individual right to continue all their accustomed pursuits, by land or by sea, at home or abroad, subject only to such restrictions in this relation as the laws of war, the usage of nations, or special treaties may impose; and it is our sovereign right that our territory and jurisdiction shall not be invaded by either of the belligerent parties for the transit of their armies, the operations of their fleets, the levy of troops for their service, the fitting out of cruisers by or against either, or any other act or incident of war. And these undeniable rights of neutrality, individual and national, the United States will under no circumstances surrender." President Pierce, annual message, December 31, 1855, Messages and "In authorizing a plan of recruitment, which was to be carried out in part within our territory, the British Government seems to have forgotten that the United States had sovereign rights as well as municipal laws which were entitled to its respect. For very obvious reasons the officers employed by Her Majesty's Government in raising recruits from the United States would, of course, be cautioned to avoid exposing themselves to the penalties prescribed by our laws, but the United States had a right to expect something more than precautions to avoid those penalties. They had a right to expect that the Government and officers of Great Britain would regard the policy indicated by these laws, and respect our sovereign rights as an independent and friendly power." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Crampton, September 5, 1855, MS. Notes, "This Government does not contest Lord Clarendon's two propositions in respect to the sovereign rights of the United States-first, that in the absence of municipal law Great Britain may enlist, hire, or engage as soldiers within the British territory persons who have left the United States for that purpose; (this proposition is, however, to be understood as not applying to persons who have been enticed away from this country by tempting offers of reward, such as com missions in the British army, high wages, liberal bounties, pensions, and portions of the royal domain, urged on them while within the United States by the officers and agents of Her Majesty's Government); and, secondly, no foreign power has a right to enlist and organize and train men as British soldiers within the United States. The right to do this Lord Clarendon does not claim for his Government; and whether the British officers have done so or not is, as he appears to understand the case, the only question at issue, so far as international rights are involved, between the two countries. "In his view of the question as to the rights of territory, irrespective of municipal law, Lord Clarendon is understood to maintain that Her Majesty's Government may do anything within the United States short of enlisting and organizing and training men as soldiers for the British army with perfect respect to the sovereign rights of this country. "This proposition is exactly the reverse of that maintained by this Government, which holds that no foreign power whatever has the right to do either of the specified acts without its consent. No foreign power can, by its agents or officers, lawfully enter the territory of another to enlist soldiers for its service or organize or train them therein, or even entice persons away in order to be enlisted without express permission.” Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buchanan, December 28, 1855, MS. Inst. The following is part of the award of the Geneva arbitrators on September 14, 1872: * * * "And whereas the judicial acquittal of the Oreto at Nassau cannot relieve Great Britain from the responsibility incurred by her under the principles of international law: the tribunal, by a majority of four voices to one, is of opinion-That Great Britain has in this case failed, by omission, to fulfill the duties prescribed in the first, in the second, and in the third of the rules established by Article VI. of the treaty of Washington." Papers relating to the Treaty of Washington, IV. 51-52. "It is true that the vice-admiralty court of the Bahamas, by its judgment, which is given at page 521 of the fifth volume of the Appendix to the American Case, acquitted the Florida of every charge; but, while respecting the authority of the res judicata, I ask whether it is possible to deduce from this an argument on which to found a moral conviction that the English government is released from its responsibility under the rules laid down in Article VI of the treaty of Washington? I abstain from repeating the consid erations into which my honorable colleagues who have preceded me have entered on this subject. "It is not the question of special legal responsibility with which we have here to deal, but rather that of the responsibility which results from the principles of international law, and the moral conviction at which we have arrived in consequence of the acts imputed to the Florida. "This conviction is strengthened by a consideration of the terms of the conclusion of the judgment of the vice-admiralty court, where it is said, that all the circumstances of the case taken together seem sufficient to justify strong suspicion that an attempt was being made to infringe that neutrality so wisely determined upon by Her Majesty's government. "The decision of the vice-admiralty court may then be considered as conclusive, even if not perfectly correct, as between those who claimed the vessel and the British government, which claimed its confiscation under the clauses of the foreign-enlistment act; but I do not think it is sufficient to bar the claim of the United States against Great Britain. The United States were not parties to the suit; everything relating to it is for them res inter alios acta." Count Sclopis, opinion in Geneva Tribunal, in 1872, Papers relating to the "The objection that the judicial decision at Nassau relieves Great Britain of all responsibility cannot be maintained. As regards the internal (or municipal) law, the judgment is valid; but as far as international law is concerned, it does not alter the position of Great Britain." Mr. Staempli, opinion in the Geneva Tribunal, in 1872, id. IV. 112. The courts of the United States would have authority, in the absence of any act of Congress, to decree restitution of property captured in violation of their neutrality. The right of adjudicating on all captures and questions of prize belongs exclusively to the courts of the nation to which the captor belongs and from which his commission issues; but if a captured vessel be brought or voluntarily comes infra prasidia of a neutral power, the latter may inquire whether its neutrality has been violated by the capture, and, if any violation be shown, should decree restitution. The Estrella, 4 Wheat. 298; La Amistad de Rues, 5 Wheat. 385. 4. UNAUTHORIZED OR COUNTERFEIT MONEY. $ 225. A suit was brought in England by the Emperor of Austria, as King of Hungary, for an injunction against certain persons who had manufactured a large quantity of printed paper to serve as the public paper money of the Kingdom of Hungary in order to use it when opportunity should occur for purposes hostile to the sovereign ruling power of that Kingdom. The defendants were ordered to deliver up the paper, to be canceled, and were restrained by perpetual injunction from manufacturing such paper, the court declaring that the law of nations was part of the common law of England, and that, money being the medium of commerce, a foreign sovereign at peace with the Crown of England might, by suit in the court of chancery, protect his prerogative right of issuing coin or paper money. Emperor of Austria . Day and Kossuth (1861), 2 Giffard, 628. See, particularly, United States v. Arjona, 120 U. S. 479, holding that the United States statute punishing the counterfeiting of foreign money is a valid exercise by Congress of its constitutional power to define and punish offences against the law of nations. This case is given supra, § 23, I. 61. "Representations have been also made to this Department that a person has been arrested at New Orleans, upon whom a quantity of counterfeit Mexican dollars have been found, and he [the Mexican minister] has reason to believe that a manufactory of them is established at St. Louis for the purpose of exporting them to Mexico. If you find, from the examinations, on the trial of this person, that there is any reasonable ground to suspect, you are requested to communicate with the district attorney of the United States for the State of Missouri on the subject, giving him all the information in your power to enable him to arrest the offenders under the law of the United States, if the coin counterfeited be any such as is made current by law in the United States; and, if it be of any other description, that information is given to this Department of the extent of such operations, as it is intended to propose a law, making it an offence to make or export any such base coin for the purpose of giving it currency in a foreign country." Mr. Livingston, Sec. of State, to Mr. Slidell, U. S. attorney at New Orleans, The United States having brought to the attention of the Belgian Government the counterfeiting in that country of certain stamps and coins of the United States, it was found that no law existed in |