By Robert Granville Campbell
1908
Contents
Preface
Chapter I. The neutrality of the United States
Chapter II The neutrality of European powers
Chapter III Contraband of war and neutral ports
Chapter IV Trading with the enemy
Preface
This essay
is the outgrowth of work done in the Political Science Seminary of the Johns
Hopkins University and is a portion of a larger study dealing with the
causes of the Anglo-Boer War and the questions of international law arising
during that conflict.
At the beginning of the war the
English Government was inclined to view the contest as one which would not
make it necessary to call into operation the neutrality laws of third
parties. It was soon realized, however, that the condition of insurgency was
not broad enough to sustain the relations between the two Governments.
Toward the close of November Great Britain's declaration with a retroactive
effect put the contest upon a distinctly belligerent basis and accepted the
date of the Transvaal's ultimatum, 5 p.m., October 11, 1899, as the
commencement of the war.
Other Powers which had awaited this
announcement with some anxiety at once declared their attitude toward the
war. Among the first to assume this neutral position was the United States
with the announcement that its attitude would be in accordance with the
requirements of the strictest neutrality.
It is the purpose of the first
chapter to inquire how far these obligations were fulfilled by the United
States Government, and in the second chapter the attitude of European
Governments is considered. In the third chapter the rights and obligations
of belligerents and neutrals are discussed with regard to neutral commerce.
Under this topic the wide divergence of English practice from Continental as
well as from American opinion on points of international law cannot fail to
be noticed.
The chief sources of information used
in the preparation of the present paper have been the British Blue Books;
the Foreign Relations of the United States; the House and Senate Documents
not included in the Foreign Relations; the Congressional Record, Debates in
Congress, Resolutions and Reports in answer to requests for information.
Other sources and authorities are indicated in the footnotes.
I wish to express my gratitude to Dr.
W.W. Willoughby, not only for his careful criticism of this study during its
preparation, and for the helpful suggestions by which he has attempted to
correct some of its obvious deficiencies, but especially for his kindly
inspiration at all times.
