portion of the region called Chiriqui, which is claimed by Mr. Ambrose W. Thompson, and which he offers as a site for such a colony, lies unquestionably within the territory of Costa Rica, while another portion lies within the unquestioned territory of New Granada, and still a third part is in dispute between the Government of Costa Rica and New Granada; and you extend your protest so as to make it cover not only the unquestioned territory of Costa Rica, but also that portion of Chiriqui which is claimed by Costa Rica. "I have now to inform your excellency that the acts of Congress, under which the colonization in question is proposed to be made, do not warrant the attempt to establish such a colony in any country without the previous consent of the Government thereof, and that your protest is accepted by the President as a denial of such consent on the part of the three states you so worthily represent." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Molina, Sept. 24, 1862; MSS. Notes, Cent. Am. The United States Government cannot purchase a grant of land in, or concession of right of way over, the territories of another nation, as could an individual or private corporation, since, by the law of nations, one Government cannot enter upon the territories of another, or claim any right whatever therein. 9 Op., 286, Black (1859). (2) RECRUITING IN FOREIGN STATE FORBIDDEN. § 12. "One other subject of discussion 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 towards 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's Third Annual Message, 1855. "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. MSS. 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 commissions 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. MSS. Inst., It is not lawful to enlist soldiers in foreign territory without the consent of its Government. 7 Op., 367, Cushing, 1855. The correspondence of the United States with Great Britain in 1856 relative to Other portions of the correspondence are given in British and Foreign State Bess. That a neutral is bound to prevent such enlisting, see infra, § 395. The correspondence relative to the dismissal of Mr. Crampton, British minister in the United States, for encouraging British recruiting in the United States, is given infra, § 84. It is not, however, a breach of neutrality to permit subjects on their own motion to go to a foreign land to enlist in the service of a belligerent. [Infra, § 392.] (3) PERMISSION REQUISITE FOR THF PASSAGE OF FOREIGN TROOPS. § 13. In September, 1790, General Washington having put the question to Mr. Adams, Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. Hamilton, "What should be the answer of the Executive of the United States to Lord Dorchester in case he should apply for permission to march troops through the territory of said States, from Detroit to the Mississippi," Mr. Adams advised a refusal of such a request (8 J. Adams's Works, 497). Mr. Jef. ferson was of the same opinion. Mr. Hamilton argued earnestly and at length for the granting of the request, even though the object of the movement of troops should be the attack on New Orleans and the Spanish possessions on the Mississippi. [4 Hamilt. Works (ed. 1885), 20.] Mr. Jefferson's opinion against the policy of permitting British troops to be transported over the territory of the United States, from Detroit to the Mississippi, is given 7 Jeff. Works, 508. The right of the United States to send troops across the Isthmus of Panama is guaranteed by the treaty with New Granada of 1846. Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Paredes, June 20, 1853; MSS. Notes Colomb.; same to same, Oct. 12, 1853. No belligerent army has the right of passage through, or entry into, neutral territory without the consent of its sovereign. 7 Op., 122, Cushing, 1855. See infra, § 397. "In January, 1862, the Secretary of State of the United States transmitted an order to the marshal, and all other Federal officers in Portland, directing that the agents of the British Government should have all proper facilities for landing and conveying to Canada, or else where, troops and munitions of war of every kind, without exception. The occasion of the order was the expected arrival of a steamer from England, bound to Quebec and Montreal with troops. "No foreign nation inimical to Great Britain is likely to complain of the United States for extending such a comity to that power. If, therefore, there be any danger to be apprehended from it, it must come in the form of direct hostility on the part of the British Government against the United States. The United States have not only studiously practiced the most perfect justice in their intercourse with Great Britain, but they have also cultivated on their part a spirit of friendship towards her as a kindred nation, bound by the peculiar ties of commerce. The Grand Trunk Railroad, a British highway extended through the territories of the United States to, perhaps, the finest seaport of our country, is a monument of their friendly disposition. The reciprocity treaty, favoring the productions of British North America in the markets of the United States is a similar monument of the same wise and benevolent policy.' Mr. Seward to the governor of Maine, January 17, 1862." Lawrence's Wheaton, ed. 1863, p. 195; see also 3 Lawrence, com. sur. droit. int., 434. In 1875 permission was granted to the governor of Canada by the Government of the United States to transport "through its territory certain supplies, designed for the use of three divisions of Canadian mounted police force." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Sir E. Thornton, May 5, 1875. MSS. Notes, Great Brit. In October, 1876, the President gave permission to Mexico "for the landing at Brazos Santiago, in Texas, of a small body of the troops of that Republic, supposed to be intended to aid in the defense of Matamoras," with the proviso that the stay be not unnecessarily long, and that the Mexican Government be held liable for any injury inflicted by the troops during their stay. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cameron, Oct. 20, 1876. MSS. Dom. Let. "On rare occasions the consent of a foreign government is asked, through diplomatic channels, for the passage of small bodies of troops, or for permission to do other acts which might otherwise be violation of territory; but in such cases, as the offense would be against the sovereignty of the government only, permission at times is accorded. It is seriously doubted, however, whether it is in the province of an officer of the army, in command on a distant station, to permit or sanction such violation. It is also extremely doubtful whether it is in any aspect competent to assume to permit a foreign power to transport persons in custody through the territory of the United States, maintaining over them while in transitu any authority or power. In such a case the rights of the individual are also involved." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cameron, December 7, 1876. MSS. Dom. Let. į Permission was given in February, 1881, by the governor-general of Canada for the passage of the "Spaulding Guards," of Buffalo, armed and equipped, over the Canada Southern Railway from Buffalo to Detroit. Mr. Hay, Asst. Sec. of State, to Mr. Sherman, February 24, 1881. MSS, Dom. A permission to a foreign government to transport its troops over the territory of the United States will be granted only in case of peaceful transfer devoid of any military object affecting the peace of any third state. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morgan, April 5, 1885. MSS. Instruc. Mex. As to arrangement between the United States and Mexico as to the right of troops to cross the border in pursuit of hostile Indians, see Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morgan, June 6, 1882. MSS. Instruc., Mex. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Jackson, October 6, 1885, ib. (See also infra, §§ 18,50e.) As to proposition to Mexico to allow the regular troops of both countries to cross the border in pursuit of marauders, see Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, May 4, 1875. MSS. Instruc., Mex. Infra, §§ 18, 506. That a neutral giving privileges of this kind to one belligerent becomes liable to the other belligerent, see infra, § 397. When the passage of troops is allowed, this bestows extraterrito. riality on the troops so passing. Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon; 7 Cranch, 116. As will hereafter be seen, when belligerent troops fly to neutral territory to escape a pursuing belligerent, they must lay down their arms. They are then, when in neutral territory, protected by the law of nations from their pursuers. Infra, § 398. (4) SEIZURE OF PERSON OR PROPERTY BY FOREIGN PRINCE FORBIDDEN. § 14. A seizure for the breach of the municipal laws of one nation cannot be made within the territory of another. The Apollon, 9 Wheaton, 362. It is an offense against the law of nations for any persons, whether citizens or foreigners, residing in the United States, to go into the territory of Spain to recover their property by force or in any manner other than its laws permit. 1 Op., 68, Lee, 1797. As to territorial waters, see infra §§ 27, 32. So long as Denmark tolerates slavery in her dominions it is an invasion of her sovereignty to take away from St. Croix by seduction, invitation, connivance, ignorance, or mistake, slaves from the possession |