CHAPTER XLVII CRIMINAL CODE, CHAPTER TWO OFFENSES AGAINST NEUTRALITY § 670. Crim. Code § 9. § 671. Crim. Code § 10. § 672. Crim. Code § 11. § 673. Crim. Code § 12. § 674. Crim. Code § 13. § 675. Crim. Code § 14. § 676. Crim. Code § 15. § 677. Crim. Code § 16. § 678. Crim. Code § 17. § 679. Crim. Code § 18. Accepting a Foreign Commission. Arming Vessels against People at Peace with the Augmenting Force of Foreign Vessel of War. Enforcement of Foregoing Provisions. § 670. Criminal Code. Sec. 9. Accepting a Foreign Commission. Every citizen of the United States who, within the territory or jurisdiction thereof, accepts and exercises a commission to serve a foreign prince, state, colony, district or people, in war, by land or by sea, against any prince, state, colony, district or people, with whom the United States are at peace, shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars and imprisoned not more than three years.1 This section does not merely apply to a state recognized politically. The words "colony, district, or people", make it a crime to aid any warring factions contending for dominion.2 The commission may be conferred by any district or association of 2 United States v. The Lucy H., 235 Fed. 610. 1 § 670. Formerly R. S. Sec. 5281, 35 Stat. L. 1089. people whose right to confer it shall be recognized by the person appointed. Only a citizen of the United States can commit a violation of these laws, and an overt act must have been committed under the commission. The effect on citizenship of the acts of the defendant is determined largely by the particular facts in the case.4 § 671. Criminal Code. Sec. 10. Enlisting in Foreign Service. Whoever, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, enlists or enters himself or hires or retains another person to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted or entered in the service of any foreign prince, State, colony, district, or people as a soldier or as a marine or seaman on board of any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer shall be fined not more than $1000 and imprisoned not more than three years; Provided, That this section shall not apply to citizens or subjects of any country engaged in war with a country with which the United States is at war, unless such citizen or subject of such foreign country shall hire or solicit a citizen of the United States to enlist or go beyond the jurisdiction of the United States with intent to enlist or enter the service of a foreign country. Enlistments under this proviso shall be under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War.1 Whether the defendant "hired or retained" other persons is a question for the jury.2 This section does not apply to individuals who go abroad voluntarily to enlist in a foreign army. It is 3 Charge to Grand Jury, 2 McLean, 1, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18265. ♦ Talbot v. Janson, 3 Dallas (U. S.), 133, 1 L. ed. 540; Juando v. Taylor, 2 Paine, 652, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7558; Williams Case, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17708. 1 § 671. Formerly R. S. § 5282, 35 Stat. L. 1089. 2 United States v. Blair-Murdock Co., et al., 228 Fed. 77; Blair v. United States, 241 Fed. 217, 154 C. C. A. 137 (9th Cir.); In re Addis, 252 Fed. 886. 3 United States v. Nunez, 82 Fed. 599; United States v. O'Brien, 75 Fed. 900, United States v. Kazinski, Fed. Cas. No. 15508; United States v. Wiborg, 73 Fed. 159, judgment modified in 163 U. S. 632, 41 L. ed. 289, 16 S. C. 1127. not essential to a violation of this section that a state of war should exist anywhere at the time of such violation.1 § 672. Criminal Code. Sec. 11. Arming Vessels against People at Peace with the United States. Whoever, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, fits out and arms, or attempts to fit out and arm, or procures to be fitted out and armed, or knowingly is concerned in the furnishing, fitting out, or arming of any vessel, with intent that such vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace, or whoever issues or delivers a commission within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States for any vessel, to the intent that she may be so employed, shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars and imprisoned not more than three years. And every such vessel, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all materials, arms, ammunition, and stores which may have been procured for the building and equipment thereof, shall be forfeited; one half to the use of the informer and the other half to the use of the United States.1 The statute was undoubtedly designed in general to secure neutrality in wars between two other nations, or between contending parties recognized as belligerents, but its operation is not necessarily dependent on the existence of such state of belligerency. There is a distinction between recognition of belligerency and recognition of a condition of political revolt. Belligerency is recognized when a political struggle has attained a certain magnitude and affects the interests of the recognizing power; and in the instance of maritime operations, recognition 4 United States v. Blair-Murdock Co., et al., 228 Fed. 77; Blair v. United States, 241 Fed. 217, 154 C. C. A. 137 (9th Cir.). § 672. 1 Formerly R. S. Sec. 5283, 35 Stat. L. 1090. 2 Wiborg v. United States, 163 U. S. 632, 41 L. ed. 289, 16 S. C. 1018; United States v. The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1, 41 L. ed. 897, 17 S. C. 495. may be compelled, or the vessels of the insurgents, if molesting third parties, may be pursued as pirates. It is not essential that some one should be first convicted before a forfeiture could be declared under this section. It is the duty of the political department to determine when belligerency shall be recognized and its action must be accepted according to the terms and intentions expressed.5 Where the Government has not recognized a state of war existing between two factions, the fitting out of a vessel with intent to enter the service of one or the other is not within the scope of the neutrality laws. An expedition proceeding in different parts to a rendezvous on the high seas and proceeding thence to Hayti for the aid of insurgents is a violation of the neutrality laws as if it had been completed on one single vessel. Where a vessel is used to transport arms and ammunition but is not equipped, fitted out or armed as a war vessel, the act cannot be held indictable under this statute. The words "colony, district or people" mean a body of persons whom it was impracticable to recognize politically. To constitute a conspiracy under this statute the scheme must be organized within, started from, and carried out from the United States.10 Where the evidence 3 United States v. The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1, 49 L. ed. 897, 17 S. C. 495. 4 United States v. The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1, 41 L. ed. 897, 17 S. C. 495. 5 United States V. The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1, 41 L. ed. 897, 17 S. C. 495; Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. (U.S.) 246, 324, 4 L. ed. 381; United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 610, 635, 4 L. ed. 471; Kennett v. Chambers, 14 How. 38, 14 L. ed. 316, Whart. Int. Law Dig. pp. 551, 552; The Ambrose Light, 25 Fed. 408; United States v. The Three Friends, 78 Fed. 175. 6 The Conserva, 38 Fed. 431; The Carondelet, 37 Fed. 799, 800; The Itata, 56 Fed. 505, 512, 5 C. C. A. 608 (9th Cir.); The Three Friends, 78 Fed. 175. 7 United States v. The Mary N. 8 Hogan, 18 Fed. 529; United States v. 214 Boxes of Arms, etc., 20 Fed. 50; United States v. Quincy, 6 Peters (U. S.), 445, 8 L. ed. 458; United States v. Gooding, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 460, 472; 6 L. ed. 693, but see The Robert and Winnie, 47 Fed. 84. 8 United States v. Trumbull, et al., 48 Fed. 99; United States v. The Itata, 49 Fed. 646; United States v. The Itata, 56 Fed. 505, 5 C. C. A. 608 (9th Cir.); United States v. O'Brien, et al., 75 Fed. 900. 9 United States v. The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1, 41 L. ed. 897, 17 S. C. 495; United States v. The Lucy H., 235 Fed. 610; United States v. The Itata, 56 Fed. 505, 511, 5 C. C. A. 608 (9th Cir.); United States v. Quincy, 6 Peters (U. S.), 445, 467, 8 L. ed. 458. 10 United States v. Trumbull, et al., 48 Fed. 99; United States v. tends to show that acts of hostility are intended and contemplated, within the United States, and the vessel sails with that purpose, although no overt act of placing arms or ammunition on a vessel has been committed, it is in violation of the neutrality laws of the United States." The intention with respect to the employment of a vessel, if a hostile one, must be formed within the United States and must be a fixed intention to violate the neutrality laws.12 A vessel seized in violation of the neutrality laws may or may not be released on bond at the discretion of the court.13 Where a vessel proceeds on a peaceful purpose and later through fraud or compulsion is forced to a belligerent mission, it is held not to violate the neutrality laws of the United States.14 Where the transaction is an official one in behalf of an independent government with which our own government is at peace, it does not fall within the meaning of the neutrality laws.15 A consul of an overthrown government cannot be compelled to testify as a witness for the United States in a proceeding against certain persons for the violation of the neutrality laws where these persons represent or represented the new government which has been recognized by the United States.16 Intervention by a consul in the interest of his government is proper.17 It is not an offense against the neutrality laws of the United States to transport persons intending to enlist in a foreign military service, and arms and munitions of war on the same ship, provided they are Fed. 983, 39 C. C. A. 374 (3d Cir.). The Itata, 49 Fed. 646; United "The City of Mexico, 28 Fed. 148; United States v. Hart, 74 Fed. 724. 12 United States v. The City of Mexico, 24 Fed. 33; United States v. Quincy, 6 Peters (U. S.), 445, 8 L. ed. 458; United States v. The City of Mexico, 28 Fed. 148; United States v. The Conserva, 38 Fed. 431, 438; United States v. The Itata, 56 Fed. 505, 5 C. C. A. 608 (9th Cir.); United States v. Hart, 74 Fed. 724; United States v. The Laurada, 89 13 United States v. The Mary N. Hogan, 17 Fed. 813, but see United States v. The Three Friends, 78 Fed. 173. 14 United States v. The City of Mexico, 24 Fed. 33. 15 United States v. The Carondelet, 37 Fed. 799. 16 United States v. Trumbull, et al., 48 Fed. 94. 17 United States v. The Conserva, 38 Fed. 431; United States v. The Bello Corrunes, 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 152, 5 L. ed. 229; Vujic v. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, 220 Fed. 390. |