tended to sail for the Orient in spite of an announcement by Japan to the effect that she desired no foreign troops, and numerous applications are said to have been made by American citizens for permission to enter the military and naval service of Japan. It was also reported in February that a move ment was on foot at Atlanta to provi.le" warship for the service of Japan. At a mass meeting held in New York on February twelfth (at which the majority of those pres ent were Japanese, but which was also at tended by a number of American citizens— mostly Jews, it is said) a committee reported in favor of raising a Japanese war-fund of $5,000,000 by loans, gifts and contributions to the Red Cross Society. The question was raised as to whether American sympathizers could contribute to the Japanese war-fund without violating the neutrality laws of the United States or the obligations of Inter national Law. The Japanese Consul Gen eral, M. Uchida, is reported to have said that he thought this point had not been definitely settled, although he declared that he should be ready to receive contributions; but he was of the opinion that there could be no legal objection to the purchase of Japanese war bonds as an investment, and he said that there was no question but that Americans could donate as much as they liked to the Japanese Red Cross Society.1 The recent successful floating of a large Japanese war loan in England and the United States, as also the successful floating of a still larger Russian loan in France, also raises the ques tion as to the legality of such loans. In respect to the legality of foreign en listment, it may be said that «uch enlistment is entirely and explicitly forbidden by the United States Neutrality Act of 1818 and by the British Foreign Enlistment Act of For a report of this meeting, see New York Times, for Feb. 13. 1004. M. Takahira. the Jap anese minister at Washington, is said to have re ceived numerous offers of large contributions to the Japanese war fund from Americans. It is not known whether these were accepted.
1870, and, we presume, by laws or by procla mations of neutrality in most countries. Our own law prohibits all American citizens not only from enlisting or entering the military or naval service of either belligerent, but also from hiring another to enlist or from hiring another to go beyond the jurisdiction of the United States with intent to enlist.2 The levying of troops within the borders of a neutral State or "anything like recruiting on a large scale" 3 is distinctly forbidden in modern times by the law of nations, and the failure to prevent these things would constitute a serious breach of neutrality. But on the other hand "a State is not expected to take precautions against the commission of microscopic injuries." 4 "It is not implied for a moment that the Government of a neutral country is obliged to keep watch over each unit of its population, and (that it) can be made responsible if a man here and an other there crosses its frontier for the pur pose of taking service with a belligerent."* Besides although there is no right of ex patriation known to International Law, it is always open to any individual to renounce his nationality and enroll himself as a citizen or to enter the service of another State. The failure of the United States Government to prevent the departure of a certain number of her citizens for the Orient and the enlist ment of these in the Japanese army could not be made a serious ground for complaint on the part of Russia, although such con duct on the part of our citizens would be a 1 It should, however, be remembered in this connection that the municipal laws of a State arc not necessarily the measure or standard of its international obligations. "It is not the duty of a neutral government to prohibit the enlistment of its subjects in the service of a foreign belliger ent, such service taking place beyond its terri torial jurisdiction. The neutral ruler way puiish by municipal nenalty a subject so engaging, but. in default of treaty stipulation, he is under no international obligation so to do." Walker, The Science of International Lou1, p. 446. 1 Lawrence, Principles, p. 533. 4 Hall, Treatise, p. 601. s Lawrence, of>. cit., p. 533.
