Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:28:23.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Law and the Spanish Civil War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Norman J. Padelford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Insurrections and civil wars in Spanish territories during the past century have uniformly been productive of international complications and problems of international law. The present disturbance in Spain has been no exception to the rule. It is not strange perhaps that these crises have had such results considering the strategic locations and economic values of the Spanish domains, the maritime frontiers, the sizable merchant marine and navy, and the passionate and reckless manner in which arms have always been employed.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 1937 , pp. 226 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 New York Times, July 15. Professor Garner dated the outbreak as the 17th in his editorial in the January issue of this JOURNAL (Vol. 31, p. 66). To the present writer the 14th appears to be a more correct date.

2 New York Times, July 18, July 19.

3 Ibid., July 23; Foreign Policy Association Bulletin, July 31.

4 New York Times, Aug. 10.

5 New York Times, Aug. 10, Aug. 12, Aug. 30.

6 The American S.S., Excambion Google Scholar; the German S.S., Kamerun; an unnamed Swedish steamer seeking to enter Cadiz; the British tanker Gibel Zerjon. See New York Times, Aug. 18, Aug. 20, Aug. 24, respectively, for accounts of interference. The protests of the Powers and the implications thereof will be considered belowGoogle Scholar.

7 Weisse, C., Droit International Applique Aux Guerres Civiles (Lausanne, 1898), p. 28 Google Scholar; Wilson G., G., Handbook of International Law (St. Paul, 1929), pp. 66–67 Google Scholar; Hall, Hall W., E., International Law (8th ed., Oxford, 1924), Sec. 5 Google Scholar; Hershey, A. S., Essentials of Public International Law (New York, 1929), p. 201; The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1 Google Scholar.

8 Rougier, A., Les Guerres Civiles et le Droit des Gens (Paris, 1903), pp. 29, 34–35, 167–168; Oppenheim, L., International Law (2d ed., London, 1912), Sec. 56Google Scholar; Weisse, op. cit., p. 1.

9 Fauchille, P., Traite De Droit International Public (8th ed., Paris, 1922), Pt. I, Sec. 199 2 Google Scholar; Rougier, , op. cit., p. 38 Google Scholar.

10 “ Moore, J. B., Digest of International Law (Washington, 1908), Vol. I, p. 194 Google Scholar; Oppenheim, , op. cit., Vol. II, Secs. 56, 59; Bluntschli in Rev. de Droit Int. et de Leg. Comp., Vol. II (1870), p. 455. See also President Grant’s Annual Message, Dec. 7, 1875 Google Scholar.

11 Oppenheim, , op. cit., Vol. II, Sec. 76 Google Scholar; Rougier, , op. cit., p. 372 ff.Google Scholar; Westlake, J., International Law (Cambridge, 1910), p. 51; The Prize Cases (1862), 2 Black, 635Google Scholar.

12 On admission of Insurgency, see especially Wilson, G. G., Lectures on Insurgency (Washington, 1901)Google Scholar; Wilson, Handbook, Sec. 19; same in 1902 Naval War College, International Law Situations (hereafter cited N.W.C.), 1902, pp. 57–83; id., 1904, pp. 26–62; id., 1907, pp. 127–137; id., 1912, pp. 10–62; Moore, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 242–243 et seq.

13 On recognition of belligerency, see especially Rougier, op. cit., p. 192 et seq.; Weisse, , op. cit., p. 11 et seq. Google Scholar; Moore, , Digest, Vol. I, p. 164 et seq. Google Scholar; Wilson, , Handbook, Sec. 21; Oppenheim, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 119 et seq. Google Scholar; Hall, , op. cit., pp. 36–46 Google Scholar; Hershey, , op. cit., pp. 203–206; Dana’s note 15 to Wheaton, Elements of International Law (1866)Google Scholar.

14 Weisse, , op. cit., p. 18 Google Scholar.

15 Rougier, , op. cit., pp. 22,273–278 Google Scholar.

16 Lorimer, H., Institutes of the Law of Nations (London, 1883), Vol. I, p. 147 Google Scholar.

17 Wilson, , Lectures on Insurgency, p. 11 Google Scholar; Rougier, , op. cit., pp. 192, 242 Google Scholar; Lorimer, , op. cit., Vol. I, p. 150 Google Scholar.

18 Rougier, , op. cit., pp. 234–237, 208–209 Google Scholar; Weisse, , op. cit., pp. 34, 76 Google Scholar; Hall, , op. cit., p. 43; British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. XXIII, pp. 912–13 Google Scholar.

19 Rougier, , op. cit., pp. 208–209; Dana’s Note 15 to Wheaton, pp. 34–39 Google Scholar.

20 Rougier, , op. cit., p. 197 Google Scholar; Weisse, , op. cit., p. 76 Google Scholar; Vattel, E., Law of Nations (Philadelphia, 1854)Google Scholar, Bk. III, Sec. 294; Martens G., F., Précis de droit des Gens (Paris, 1864)Google Scholar, Bk. VIII, Sec. 265; Pradier P., Fodéré, Traité de Droit International Pub& (Paris, 1885–1906)Google Scholar, Bk. VI, Sec. 2658; Calvo, C., Le Droit International (Paris, 1896)Google Scholar, Bk. IV, p. 25; Fauchille, , op. cit., Pt. I, p. 309 Google Scholar.

21 Phillimore, R., Commentaries on International Law (London, 1871), Vol. III, p. 168 Google Scholar; Hall, , op. cit., p.38 Google Scholar; Fauchille, , op. cit., Pt. V, p. 11 Google Scholar.

22 Rougier failed to find an instance of a de jure civil war carried on in a unitary state during the nineteenth century conducted according to the international rules of warfare. Op. cit., p. 41; also Weisse, , op. cit., p. 34. See Br. & For. St. Pap., Vol. XXIV, p. 396 ff., for situation in Spain in 1835. Ibid., Vol. XXVII, p. 1095 ff., for violations in Spain in 1837–1838 Google Scholar.

23 New York Times, Aug. 27.

24 Ibid., Aug. 21.

25 Ibid., Aug. 22. It may be observed that in the insurrections in Spain, Portugal, and South America prior to the Declaration of Paris, 1856, the British raised very little objection to blockades of the present nature, even though poorly enforced. An exception to the otherwise general procedure occurred in 1822 in connection with the ineffective Spanish blockade of Maracaibo, Br. & For. St. Pap., Vol. 100:85, pp. 942–945. After 1856 a different attitude was taken by all of the Powers. The stand of Britain regarding Lincoln’s attempted closure of the Southern ports by a decree giving the North belligerent rights but withholding them from the South is well known. Recognition of belligerency was forced. Just prior to the American Civil War, in 1858 Google Scholar, a Peruvian warship in time of insurrection there stopped an American vessel, Dorcas C. Jeaton, with nitrates for the rebels, whereupon the United States forced Peru to apologize and admit her error. In 1870 Spain was forced to accept liability for the seizure of the Virginius. In 1875 Britain forced Spain to release the Deerhound seized on the high seas with arms and volunteers for the Carlist rebels in Spain. In each of these instances a blockade was attempted but recognition of belligerency not accorded by the foreign states. See Weisse, op. cit., pp. 221–222; Rougier, , op. cit., pp. 309312; Wilson in this JOURNAL, Vol. 1 (1907)Google Scholar, p. 54; 1907 N.W.C., pp. 136–137; 1912 N.W.C., p. 21; U. S. Foreign Relations, 1902, pp. 310, 417, 877; ibid., 1903, p. 482; ibid., 1905,p. 405; ibid., 1907, Pt. I, p. 290.

26 “ New York Times, Aug. 22.

27 New York Times, Nov. 20, Nov. 24, Dec. 6, Dec. 14.

28 Moore, , Digest, Vol. I, Sec. 61; Hershey, op. cit., p. 204 Google Scholar; Fauchille, , op. cit., Pt. I, p. 311 Google Scholar.

29 Rougier, op. cit., pp. 403, 409; Weisse, , op. cit., p. 33 Google Scholar.

30 Wilson, , Handbook, p. 43 Google Scholar.

31 Professor Garner appears to incline toward this proposition in his editorial in the January number of this JOURNAL, Vol. 31 (1937), pp. 72, 73.

31a See negotiations between Spain and the United States re closure of ports in 1822. Br. & For. St. Pap., Vol. IX, pp. 787–790, 982–996.

32 Hansard, , Debates, Vol. CLXIII, p. 1646 Google Scholar.

33 State Papers, North America No. 1 (1862). See Weisse, op. cit., p. 225ff.; Rougier, , op. cit., pp. 298–302 Google Scholar; Moore, , Digest, Vol. VII, Sec. 1272Google Scholar; Hyde C., C. Google Scholar, International Law, Vol. II, p. 655; Dickinson E., D., “Closure of Ports in Control of Insurgents,” this JOURNAL, Vol. 24 (1930), p. 69 ff.Google Scholar

34 “London Times, Nov. 20; New York Times, Nov. 21. The London Daily Express, Nov. 19, listed in extenso the names and full details of the cargoes of war supplies of twelve Russian ships which passed through the Dardanelles en route to Barcelona between Oct. 20 and 31.

35 New York Times, Nov. 20. Cf. the instructions of the State Department regarding acceptance of a blockade as issued Aug. 25 in reference to the Madrid decree of Aug. 20. New York Times, Aug. 27.

36 London Times, Nov. 20.

37 “Quotations in London Times, and New York Times, Nov. 21. Franco failed to reply on the safe anchorage matter but said adequate warning would be given. London Times, Nov. 25.

38 Quotations from London Times, Nov. 24. Correspondence to the London Times mentioned that the Board of Trade had called the Franco notice to the attention of all British ships, that it had referred to the fact that British tramp ships were engaged in the traffic mentioned as well as foreign ships masquerading under the British flag. (Loc. cit., Nov. 24.) A dispatch to the New York Times emanating from the same source in the Government added that it would be improbable that the British would raise any fuss over the stoppage of vessels flying their flag either inside or outside the three-mile line. (Nov. 22).

39 New York Times, Nov. 25.

40 Ibid., Dec. 6. It appears that the British would have been ready to extend recognition of belligerency Nov. 22, but that the French. Government was unwilling to agree until Franco had produced a fleet and conducted an effective blockade (ibid., Nov. 23), although it was denied in London Nov. 21 that Franco had applied for recognition (ibid., Nov. 22).

41 This matter has been treated so extensively elsewhere it hardly justifies extension here. See 1902 N.W.C., pp. 79–83; 1907 N.W.C., pp. 136–137; this JOURNAL, Vol. 1 (1907), pp. 54–55; Moore, , Digest, Vol. II, pp. 1085–1086, 1089, 1112, 1118, and especially, pp. 1119–1120 Google Scholar; Weisse, op. cit., pp. 45, 61, 222; Wilson, , Handbook, p. 37 Google Scholar; Hershey, , op. cit., p. 203; Lawrence quoted in 1902 N.W.C., p. 66 Google Scholar; sHall, op. cit., Sec. 5a; Fauchille, op. cit., Pt. I, Sec. 203; Westlake, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 56; Moore J., B., International Arbitrations (Washington, 1898), Vol. II, p. 1615 Google Scholar; Ralston, J., International Arbitral Law and Procedure (Boston, 1910), pp. 192, 194 Google Scholar; Goebel, J., “The International Responsibility of States for Injuries Sustained by Miens on Account of Mob Violence, Insurrections, and Civil Wars,” this JOURNAL, Vol. 8 (1914), p. 849 Google Scholar.

42 The text of the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act, Dec. 3, 1936, is printed in Supplement to this JOURNAL, p. 100.42 Phillimore, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 45.

43 Phillimore, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 45.

44 London Gazette (1936), p. 5475. “

45 New York Times, Jan. 7, 1937.

46 “Joint Resolution, April 22, 1898, 30 Stat. 739, amended March 14, 1912, 37 Stat. 630; Jan. 31, 1922, 42 Stat. 381. See 1924 N.W.C., p. 21; also Convention on Rights and Duties of States in Case of Civil Strife, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 814. See also editorial comment in the January number of this JOURNAL, Vol. 31 (1937), pp. 74–81.

47 New York Times, Feb. 17, 1937.

48 33-34 Vict., c. 90.

49 Sec. 5282 of the Revised Statutes.

50 The Salvador. (1870), L. R. 3 P. C. 218; Opinion of the Law Officers, Aug. 14,1867, cited in Smith, H. A., Great Britain and the Law of Nations (London, 1932), Vol. II, pp. 262,264. “We have to observe, that, even without the issue of any such Proclamation (the question put was whether a 'Proclamation of Neutrality being issued under the Foreign Enlistment Act' would constitute recognition of belligerency of the Cretan rebels), Her Majesty’s Subjects cannot lawfully enlist themselves in the service of any Foreign State without the express permission of the Crown.“ While this opinion was rendered under the terms of the preceding British statute, there is no evidence to lead to the conclusion that a modification of the interpretation has taken place under the law of 1870. In fact, the High Court in the Salvador case ruled that the Foreign Enlistment Act applied to enlistment and aid in time of insurgency.

It is interesting to recall that in 1834-1835 Great Britain was not only ready to intervene in the Spanish civil war then in progress by means of the Quadruple Alliance (State Papers, Vol. XXII, pp. 124–140), but to permit British subjects to enlist in Spanish service by a special Order in Council expressly suspending the 59 Geo. I l l , c. 63, Non-Enlistment Act. Br. & For. St. Pap., Vol. XXIII, pp. 738–739, 949.

On the application of the American statute see Wibourg v. United States (1896), 163 U. S. 632; The Three Friends (1897), 166 U. S. 1; Gayon v. McCarthy (1920), 252 U. S. 171. In response to a notification to the State Department by the American Consul General at Barcelona early in January, 1937, that 76 American volunteers had recently passed through Barcelona en route for service in the Spanish civil war, the Acting Secretary of State telegraphed the Consul, Jan. 13, “We have had until now no information that Americans in any considerable number were taking part in the present civil strife in Spain. In the circumstances you may deem it advisable to bring the provisions of Section 5282 Revised Statutes of the United States and Section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1907, to the attention of such Americans as you may have reason to believe are contemplating entering the military service either of the Spanish Government or of the Spanish insurgents. You may point out to these persons also that the enlistment of American citizens in either of the opposing forces in Spain is unpatriotically inconsistent with the American Government’s policy of the most scrupulous non-intervention in Spanish internal affairs.“ State Department Press Releases, Jan. 16, 1937.

51 French writers say that the provisions of the Code Penal (84-85) relating to service in foreign armies are practically useless and do not apply to insurrections. Garraud, A. Google Scholar, Traite de Droit Pint Francais, (Paris, 1899), Vol. III, Sec. 841Google Scholar; Pradier, Fodere, op. cit., Vol. I, Sec. 238Google Scholar; H., Lauterpacht in this JOURNAL, Vol. 22 (1928), pp. 118–119 Google Scholar; Weisse, , op. cit., p. 142 Google Scholar.

52 Rougier, op. cit., pp. 417–418; Weisse, op. cit., p. 142; Moore, Digest, Vol. VII, pp. 881, 884.

53 Hershey, , op. cit., p. 204; Moore, Digest, Vol. I, Sec. 61; Westlake, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 57 Google Scholar.

54 Rougier, , op. cit., p. 418 n.; this JOURNAL, Vol. 22 (1928), p. 130 Google Scholar.

55 New York Times, Nov. 20.

56 Weisse, , op. cit., p. 32. Mr. Eden advised that the House of Commons distinguish carefully between the two forms, suggesting that the British Government did so. London Times, Nov. 21. Professor Garner holds the view that there was no double recognition. This JOURNAL, Vol. 31 (1937)Google Scholar, p. 72. Sir John Fischer, Williams’ letter to the London Times, Nov. 23,1936, is ambiguous in this connectionGoogle Scholar.

57 New York Times, Nov. 23, Nov. 28, Dec. 12; Hall, op. cit., p. 105; Wilson, Handbook, p. 42; Moore, Digest, Vol. I, p. 73; Oppenheim, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 119; Hyde, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 80; Fauchille, op. cit., Pt. I, p. 323.

58 Moore, , Digest, Vol. III, p. 48 ff.; Hershey, op. cit., pp. 208, 242; Hyde, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 129. Other instances of intervention without accompanying recognition of belligerency have been that of Austria in Piedmont and Naples, 1821; France in Spain, 1823; Britain in Portugal, 1840; the Powers in the Balkans, 1878. Rougier, op. cit., p. 363 et seq.; Weisse, op. cit., pp. 83–89 Google Scholar.

59 Professor Wilson says, “International law does not sanction the assumption by a foreign state of the right to judge as to the merits of a conflict in another state.” Handbook, p. 56. In a certain sense this may be true. In practice, however, states do “judge as to the merits of a conflict” not only by intervention, but by the much more common and accepted means of extending or refusing to extend belligerent rights; by recognizing or refusing to recognize the de facto government as the lawful one when it has acquired full jurisdiction over the state; by affording aid to the established government in an insurrection, or by stringently enforcing embargoes and international non-intervention agreements. Westlake, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 53. See the forceful statement of Senor del Vayo, Foreign Minister of Spain, in the League of Nations Assembly, Sept. 25, 1936, apropos the effect of the present nonintervention agreement. New York Times, Sept. 26.

60 New York Times, Jan. 2, 1937.

61 /bid., Nov. 18, Dec. 14, Jan. 8.

62 Ibid., Nov. 15, Nov. 19, Dec. 3, Dec. b.

63 Ibid., Nov. 18, Dec. 15.

64 It should be pointed out that the Russian aid in the form of propaganda, popular subscriptions, credit for gasoline and other provisions, was not prohibited by the international non-intervention agreement. New York Times, July 26, Aug. 4, Aug. 20, Aug. 22, Aug. 23, Sept. 2. Reference ought also to be made to the assertion by Stalin that absolutely no government aid was being afforded to Spain in violation of the international agreement. New York Times, Oct. 21. It is possible that the large quantities of prohibited articles which, nevertheless, appeared at Spanish ports in Russian ships (ibid., Oct. 26, Nov. 21, Dec. 7, Dec. 19), came indirectly through the channel of the Third Internationale, which it has been rumored Stalin hoped to export bag and baggage to Spain upon the victory of the Communist forces there.

65 New York Times, Dec. 25.

66 New York Times, Jan. 2.

67 Substance is lent to the German position by the report that at the time of apprehension the German vessel signaled a British destroyer which verified the fact that seizure took place outside of Spanish waters. Ibid., Dec. 25.

68 Jessup, P. C., Law of Territorial Waters (New York, 1927), p. 42; Masterson, W. E., Jurisdiction in Marginal Seas (New York, 1929), pp. 394, 257–263, 265–268; Fauchille, op. cit., Pt. I, p. 180. Spanish decrees closing ports or instituting blockades in time of civil war during the past century appear generally to assume absolute jurisdiction out to six miles. The special decree of Aug. 21, 1834, for example, provides in Article III, “Every vessel that shall be found laden with arms, warlike stores, ammunition, or other articles contraband of war, providing that such vessel shall approach the said coast within 6 miles, manifesting by that act alone, her intention and design to disembark the above-mentioned articles shall be considered to be suspected of the said hostile intention, and shall be detained, and the arms and warlike stores which she carries shall be embargoed until a further decision shall be adopted, according to the importance and circumstances of the case.” Br. & For. St. Pap., Vol. XXIII, p. 903. The British Government accepted this decree. Ibid., p. 904.

69 League of Nations Committee of Experts on Progressive Codification of International Law, “Territorial Waters.” This JOURNAL, Spl. Supp., Vol. 20 (1926), pp. 90–94; Jessup, op. cit., p. 119 ff.; Fauchille, op. cit., Pt. II, p. 1029 ff.; Westlake, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 193

70 New York Times, Dec. 24, Dec. 30. 71

71 Ibid., Jan. 2.

72 New York Times, Jan. 3.

73 Ibid., Jan. 5.

74 Ibid., Jan. 2. Wiesse agrees that third parties may regard such acts as piracy, and may seize vessels on the high seas or in territorial waters for satisfaction. Op. cit., pp. 128, 129.

75 New York Times, Jan. 6.

76 Madrid charged an “act of war,” “flagrant act of intervention,” and sent dossiers to the League of Nations and to the Non-Intervention Committee in London, neither of which took action. (New York Times, Jan. 3, Jan. 7. It is interesting to observe that in sending the information to Geneva, no remedial action was requested by the Spanish authorities.) See Hyde, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 179.

77 Wilson, , Handbook, p. 228; Hershey, op. cit., p. 538; Hindmarsh, Force in Peace (Cambridge, 1933), p. 106; Vattel, op. cit., Sec. 342; Moore, Digest, Vol. VII, Sec. 1095; Halleck, International Law (4th ed.), Vol. I, p. 517; Oppenheim, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 44; Rougier, op. cit., p. 370 Google Scholar.

78 Parliamentary Papers, Peru, No. 1, 1877; Hansard, 3d ser., Vol. CCXXXVI, pp. 787–802; Hall, op. cit., Sec. 82; Moore, Digest, Vol. II, p. 1086; Halleck, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 479, n. 2. See criticism in Calvo, op. cit., Bk. I, Sec. 504, p. 592, et seq.; Strupp, K., Worterbuch des Volkerrechts and der Diplomatie (Berlin, 1924), Vol. I, p. 540; Pitt Cobbett, Leading Cases on International Law (4th ed., London, 1922), Vol. I, pp. 299–300; 1904 N.W.C., p. 37.

79 See Parliamentary Papers, North America (1862), No. 5, pp. 19, 33, et seq.; Diplomatic Correspondence, U. S. (1862), pp. 14, 307, 445, 544, 595; Moore, Digest, Vol. VII, Sec. 1265; Wharton, Digest of International Law (Washington, 1887), Vol. III, Sec. 374; Hyde, op. cit., Vol. II, Sec. 818; Hall, op. cit., Sec. 253; Pitt Cobbett, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 596–600; Wilson, Handbook, p. 401; Fauchille, op. cit., Pt. V, Secs. 1587-1588; Brit. Year Bk. of Int. Law (1924), p. 66 ff.

80 Scott, , J. B., The Hague Reports, p. 341; Fauchille, op. cit., Pt. V, Sec. 1588 “Google Scholar.

81 Fauchille, P., Jurisprudence Francaize, pp. 19, 288; Garner, J. W., Prize Law, pp. 607–608; Hyde, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 640 n.; Fauchille, Traits, Pt. V, Sec. 158848.

82 U. S. For. Rel. 1915, Supp., pp. 744–749; Hyde, op. cit., Fauchille, op. cit.

83 S.U. For. Rel. 1916, Supp., pp. 632–678; ibid., 1917, Supp. I, pp. 528–532.

84 Ibid., 1916, Supp., pp. 639, 667.

85 Ibid., pp. 641, 667. 88

86 Ibid., p. 667.

87 Ibid., 1917, Supp. I, pp. 528–532.

88 U. S. For. Rel. 1917, Supp. I, pp. 531–532.

89 Moore, , Digest, Vol. II, p. 895 ff.; Westlake, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 180; Hall, op. cit., Sec. 82; Fauchille, Traite, Pt. I, Sec. 247 3 Google Scholar.

90 6 C. Rob. 430.

912 I, B. & C. P. C. 358.

92 German Supreme Prize Court, cited in Colombos, C. J., Law of Prize (London, 1926), p. 215.

93 See forceful statement regarding such seizures by Secretary of State Blaine, Nov. 27, 1889, For. Rel. 1889, p. 614.

94 See I Ops. Atty. Gen., p. 509. Force majeure might be argued by the Germans, for which see Hyde, op. cit., Vol. I, Sec. 224; Fauclaille, Traite, Pt. II, p. 1064 it The matter of asylum on merchant ships does not hold here, for the rebels did not seek such on the Palos, but were travelling as passengers. See, on this, Moore, Digest, Vol. II, Sec. 307; Fauchille, Trait, Pt. II, Secs. 624–631, especially p. 1072.

95 See Weisse, op. cit., pp. 69,221–222.

96 Moore, , Digest, Vol. II, Sec. 307Google Scholar.

97 Westlake, , op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 171–172 Google Scholar.

98 Westlake, , op. cit., Vol. I, p. 173; Fanellilie, Train, Pt. II, p. 1101 ffGoogle Scholar.

99 Moore, , Digest, Vol. II, p. 1087 Google Scholar.

100 U. S. For. Rel. 1893, pp. 51–52, 56, 66–68.

101 /bid., pp. 95–96.

102 Ibid., p. 98.

103 Ibid., p. 89.

104 London Times, Nov. 21, 1936.

105 U. S. For. Rel. 1893, p. 122.

106 Ibid., p. 117; 1902 N.W.C., p. 65; Fauchille, Traité, Pt. V, p. 957.

107 U. S. For. Rel. 1893, p. 98; 1902 N.W.C., p. 82 et seq.; and references supra regarding prevention of access of supplies.

108 London Times, Nov. 21, 1936.