tract, written or oral, that such vessel shall be delivered to a belligerent nation, or to an agent, officer, or citizen of such nation, or with reasonable cause to believe that the said vessel shall or will be employed in the service of any such belligerent nation after its departure from the jurisdiction of the United States. Sec. 3, title V, act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat. 222). 2919. Augmenting the force of an armed vessel of a foreign government.— Whoever, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, increases or augments, or procures to be increased or augmented, or knowingly is concerned in increasing or augmenting, the force of any ship of war, cruiser, or other armed vessel which, at the time of her arrival within the United States, was a ship of war, or cruiser, or armed vessel, in the service of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, or belonging to the subjects or citizens of any such prince or state, colony, district, or people, the same being at war with any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace, by adding to the number of the guns of such vessel, or by changing those on board of her for guns of a larger caliber, or by adding thereto any equipment solely applicable to war, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars and imprisoned not more than one year. Sec. 12, Criminal Code, act of March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. 1090). Notes of Decisions. See, also, notes under 2921, post. Augmenting force in general. The substitution of new for old gun carriages is not such an illegal augmentation of the forces of a foreign vessel as will forfeit her right to a prize subsequently captured from a belligerent power at peace with the United States. Geyer v. Michel (1796), 3 U. S. (3 Dall.) 285, 1 L. Ed. 605. In case of an illegal augmentation of the force of a belligerent cruiser in our ports by enlisting men, it is incumbent on a claimant to show that the persons enlisted were subjects of the belligerent state or belonging to its service, and then transiently within the United States. The Santissima Trinidad (1822), 20 U. S. (7 Wheat.) 283, 5 L. Ed. 454. Raising or lowering gun carriages on a vessel of war, or replacing rotten with sound timbers, is an offense, within sec. 4, act of June 5, 1794. U. S. v. Grassin (C. C. 1811), Fed. Cas. No. 15,248. The repair of Mexican war steamers in the port of New York, together with the augmenting of their force by adding to the number of their guns, or by changing those originally on board for those of larger caliber, or by the addition of any equipment solely applicable to war, is a violation of the statute. (1844) 4 Op. Atty. Gen. 336. But the repair of their bottoms, copper, etc., does not constitute any increase or augmentation of force within the meaning of the act, and the steamers themselves are not subject to seizure by any judicial process under it. Id. Liability of officers of vessels of other nations. Commanders and officers of vessels of other nations found to have violated the statute in question are amenable to the criminal jurisdiction of our courts, and may be prosecuted. (1844) 4 Op. Atty. Gen. 336. Restitution of prize because of augmenting force.-Under act of June, 1794, relating to the enlistment within the territory of the United States of persons to serve as soldiers and marines on board vessels of war, the district courts of the United States have jurisdiction to restore to the original Spanish owner (in amity with the United States) his property captured by a French vessel, whose force has been increased in the United States if the prize be brought intra præsidia. The Alerta v. Moran (1815), 9 Cranch, 359, 365, 3 L. Ed. 758. Where restitution of captured property is claimed on the ground that the force of the cruiser making the capture was augmented within the United States by enlisting men, the burden of proving such enlistment is on the claimant, and, that fact being proved, it is incumbent on the captors to show by proof that the persons so enlisting were subjects or citizens of the prince or state under whose flag the cruiser sails, transiently within the United States, in order to bring the case within the provision of sec. 2 of act of June 5, 1794, and of act of Apr. 20, 1818. The Estrella (1819), 4 Wheat. 298, 305, 4 L. Ed. 574. An augmentation of force in our ports is a breach of neutrality, and of the law of nations, and of the United States; and will occasion a restitution of the prize if brought within our jurisdiction. British Consul r. The Nancy (D. C. 1799), Fed. Cas. No. 1898. Prizes made by armed vessels, either equipped originally, or whose force has been augmented, in the United States, will be restored if brought within their jurisdiction. Juando . Taylor (D. C. 1818), Fed. Cas. No. 7,558. 2920. Detention of armed vessels.-During a war in which the United States is a neutral nation, the President, or any person thereunto authorized by him, may detain any armed vessel owned wholly or in part by American citizens, or any vessel, domestic or foreign (other than one which has entered the ports of the United States as a public vessel), which is manifestly built for warlike purposes or has been converted or adapted from a private vessel to one suitable for warlike use, until the owner or master, or person having charge of such vessel, shall furnish proof satisfactory to the President, or to the person duly authorized by him, that the vessel will not be employed by the said owners, or master, or person having charge thereof, to cruise against or commit or attempt to commit hostilities upon the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with which the United States is at peace, and that the said vessel will not be sold or delivered to any belligerent nation, or to an agent, officer, or citizen of such nation, by them or any of them, within the jurisdiction of the United States, or, having left that jurisdiction, upon the high seas. Sec. 2, title V, act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat. 221). 2921. Enterprises against foreign states to be prevented by armed forces.-The district courts shall take cognizance of all complaints, by whomsoever instituted, in cases of captures made within the waters of the United States, or within a marine league of the coasts or shores thereof. In every case in which a vessel is fitted out and armed, or attempted to be fitted out and armed, or in which the force of any vessel of war, cruiser, or other armed vessel is increased or augmented, or in which any military expedition or enterprise is begun or set on foot, contrary to the provisions and prohibitions of this chapter; and in every case of the capture of a vessel within the jurisdiction or protection of the United States as before defined; and in every case in which any process issuing out of any court of the United States is disobeyed or resisted by any person having the custody of any vessel of war, cruiser, or other armed vessel of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, or of any subjects or citizens of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, it shall be lawful for the President, or such other person as he shall have empowered for that purpose, to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia thereof, for the purpose of taking possession of and detaining any such vessel, with her prizes, if any, in order to enforce the execution of the prohibitions and penalties of this chapter, and the restoring of such prizes in the cases in which restoration shall be adjudged; and also for the purpose of preventing the carrying on of any such expedition or enterprise from the territory or jurisdiction of the United States against the territory or dominion of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States are at peace. Sec. 14, Criminal Code, act of March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. 1090). That the President may employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States as he may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this title. Sec. 9, title V, act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat. 223). Notes of Decisions. Arrest and incarceration of Mexican by military authorities.-An order directing the arrest of a Mexican alien by the military authorities in the United States and his incarceration without trial, while an attempt was being made to secure evidence that he was endeavoring to violate the neutrality laws, held void, and that he was entitled to his discharge on habeas corpus. Ex parte Orozco (D. C. 1912), 201 Fed. 106. Seizure of vessel or property by military officers.-Property may be seized by the commanding officer of a military force ordered out to prevent the violation of the neutrality act of 1838, with a view to detaining the same until it should be proceeded against in the manner directed by law. Stoughton v. Dimick (C. C. 1855), Fed. Cas. No. 13,500. An officer in the Army, with orders to execute the neutrality act of Mar. 10, 1838, has authority to arrest a vessel containing arms and munitions of war intended to be carried to insurgent subjects of Great Britain, although the vessel itself is not about to pass the frontier. Stoughton v. Dimick (1855), 29 Vt. (3 Williams) 535. Plea justifying seizure.-A plea justifying a seizure under the President's instructions must aver that the naval or military force was employed for that purpose, and that the seizor belonged to the force. Gelston v. Hoyt (1818), 3 Wheat. 246, 330, 4 L. Ed. 381. Interference with judiciary in proceedings under statute. The executive has no right to interfere with the judiciary in proceedings against persons charged with being concerned in hostile expeditions against friendly nations. (1893) 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 267. Determination on preliminary examination of question as to military expedition.-The question whether a military expedition against a nation with which the United States was at peace was really to depend upon war being declared will not be determined upon a preliminary examination. U. S. v. Burr (C. C. 1807), Fed. Cas. No. 14,694a. Affidavit as justifying commitment for setting expedition on foot.-Sufficiency of affidavit giving translation of letter and cipher, taken in connection with declarations of accused to justify commitment for setting on foot a military expedition against a nation with which the United States was at peace. U. S. v. Burr (C. C. 1807), Fed, Cas. No. 14,692a. Evidence of breach of neutrality by arrested vessel.-Evidence to acquit or con demn, in the case of a vessel arrested for breach of the neutrality laws, must, in the first instance, come from the vessel taken, the persons on board, and the examination on oath of the officers. Moodie v. The Betty Cartheart (D. C. 1795), Fed. Cas. No. 9,742. Restoration of captured property.-The district courts of the United States have jurisdiction to restore to the original Spanish owners, in amity with the United States, property captured by a French vessel whose force was increased in the United States in violation of the neutrality of the United States, if the prize be brought infra præsidia; it being the duty of the neutral nation in such case to restore the property to its owner. The Alerta v. Blas Moran (1815), 13 U. S. (9 Cranch) 359, 3 L. Ed. 758. In absence of an act of Congress on the subject, the Federal courts would have authority under the general law of nations to decree restitution of property captured in violation of their neutrality, under a commission issued within the United States or under an armament or augmentation of the armament or crew of the captured vessel within the same. The Estrella (1819), 17 U. S. 298, 311, 4 L. Ed. 574. Where restitution of captured property is claimed upon the ground that the force of the cruiser making the capture has been augmented within the United States, by enlisting men, the burden of proving such enlistment is thrown upon the claimant; and, that fact being proved, it is incumbent on the captors to show by proof that the persons so enlisted were subjects or citizens of the prince or state under whose flag the cruiser sails, transiently within the United States, in order to bring the case within the provisɔ of section 2, act of June 5, 1794, and of act of Apr. 20, 1818. Id. Whenever a capture is made by any belligerent in violation of our neutrality, if the prize come voluntarily within our jurisdiction, it shall be restored to the original owners, but jurisdiction in cases of violation of neutrality is not carried beyond authority to decree restoration of the specific property, with costs and expenses, during the pending of the judicial proceedings. Amistad de Rues (1820), 18 U. S. (5 Wheat.) 385, 389, 5 L. Ed. 115. La A vessel captured by an armed vessel fitted out in a port of the United States, in violation of our neutrality, will be restored to the original owners, and the claim of an alleged bona fide purchaser in a foreign port rejected. The La Conception (1821), 19 U. S. (6 Wheat.) 235, 5 L. Ed. 249; The Fanny (1824), 22 U. S. (9 Wheat.) 658, 6 L. Ed. 184. Prizes made by armed vessels, which have violated the statutes for preserving the neutrality of the United States, will be restored if brought into our ports. The Santissima Trinidad (1822), 20 U. S. (7 Wheat.) 283, 5 L. Ed. 454; The Gran Para (1822), 20 U. S. (7 Wheat.) 471, 5 L. Ed. 501. The United States, having captured a vessel for alleged violation of neutrality laws, delayed bringing her in for condemnation for 175 days, and continued to use her in military and naval service under a charter party which stipulated that it should be void if the vessel was confiscated, and by which the United States agreed to pay $200 a day for the use of her. Held, upon a decree of restitution, that, the United States having submitted to the jurisdiction, a judgment for damages for demurrage could properly be rendered against it, and that claimant was fairly entitled to $200 per diem from the seizure until the vessel was actually surrendered for adjudication, and also to her value in money, with interest to the decree of restitution. U. S. v. The Nuestra Senora De Regla (1883), 108 U. S. 92, 2 Sup. Ct. 287, 27 L. Ed. 662. Though the question of prize or no prize belongs exclusively to the courts of the captor, a neutral will restore a prize wrongfully taken by one of the belligerents in violation of the rights of the neutral, Chacon v. Eighty-Nine Bales of Cochineal (C. C. 1821), Fed. Cas. No. 2,568. Authority to arrest and detain suspected person. This section held not to authorize the President to use the military power in time of peace to arrest without a warrant and imprison without the benefit of a trial a person within the United States merely suspected of intention to organize an expedition in aid of a revolution in his own country with which the United States is at peace. Ex parte Orozco (D. C. 1912), 201 Fed. 106. 2922. Enterprises against a foreign nation furthered by aliens.-The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to extend to any subject or citizen of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people who is transiently within the United States and enlists or enters himself on board of any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, which at the time of its arrival within the United States was fitted and equipped as such, or hires or retains another subject or citizen of the same foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people who is transiently within the United States to enlist or enter himself to serve such foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people on board such vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, if the United States shall then be at peace with such foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people. Nor shall they be construed to prevent the prosecution or punishment of treason, or of any piracy defined by the laws of the United States. Scc. 18, Criminal Code, act of March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. 1091). 2923. Departure and detention of foreign vessels.-It shall be lawful for the President to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia thereof, as he may deem necessary to compel any foreign vessel to depart from the United States or any of its possessions in all cases in which, by the law of nations or the treaties of the United States, it ought not to remain, and to detain or prevent any foreign vessel from so departing in all cases in which, by the law of nations or the treaties of the United States, it is not entitled to depart. Sec. 15, Criminal Code, act of March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. 1991), as amended by sec. 10, title V, act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat. 223), 2924. Export of arms or munitions of war.-That whenever the President shall find that in any American country conditions of domestic violence exist which are promoted by the use of arms or munitions of war procured from the United States, and shall make proclamation thereof, it shall be unlawful to export except under such limitations and exceptions as the President shall prescribe any arms or munitions of war from any place in the United States to such country until otherwise ordered by the President or by Congress. Sec. 1, Joint Res. 25, April 22, 1898 (30 Stat. 739), as amended by Joint Res. 10, March 14, 1912 (37 Stat. 630). That any shipment of material hereby declared unlawful after such a proclamation shall be punishable by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both. Sec. 2, Joint Res. 25, April 22, 1898 (30 Stat. 739), as amended by Joint Res. 10, March 14, 1912 (37 Stat. 630). Notes of Decisions. Validity.-Joint Resolution No. 10, Mar. 14. 1912 (37 Stat. 630), prohibiting the exportation of arms or munitions of war to an American country in which the Presi dent has proclaimed the existence of domestic violence promoted by the use of arms or munitions of war imported from the United States held valid. Talbott v. U. S. (1913), 208 Fed. 144, 125 C. C. A. 360. Exportation.-The act of sending from the United States to a foreig and prohibited country, without reference to the completion of such act by the landing or delivery of the merchandise at its destination, is condemned by this section and the section following. U. S. v. Chavez (1913), 33 Sup. Ct. 595, 228 U. S. 525, 57 L. Ed. 950, reversing judgment (D. C. 1912), 199 Fed. 518. Resort to personal carriage to move prohibited articles from the United States to a foreign and prohibited country will not render inapplicable the prohibitions of this section and the section following. Id. Articles prohibited.-The words "arms or munitions of war," within the meaning of this section, embrace weapons used for the destruction of life, together with ammunition and equipment useful in connection with them, and explosives and other equipment of a military character, or articles used for the construction of such equipment. (1912) 29 Op. Atty. Gen. 375. Foodstuffs, ordinary clothing, and ordinary articles of peaceful commerce are not included in the prohibition. Id. The exportation of saddles, bridles, canteens, and carbine scabbards by mer chants in the United States to other merchants in Mexico falls within the purview of the President's proclamation of Mar. 14, 1912, prohibiting the export of arms munitions of war to that country. (1912) 29 Op. Atty. Gen. 394. or Gun grease is within the prohibition of the President's proclamation of Mar. 14, 1912, issued pursuant to the joint resolu tion of the same date, forbidding the exportation of arms or munitions of ar to Mexico. (1912) 29 Op. Atty. Gen. 414. Paper caps for toy cap pistols could hardly be considered within the prohibition of the President's proclamation of Mar. 14, 1912, issued pursuant to the joint resolution of the same date, forbidding the exportation of arms and munitions of war to Mexico, whereas air rifles might well be regarded within the prohibition. The question, however, is one of fact, dependent upon the character of the articles sought to be imported. (1912) 29 Op. Atty. Gen. 570. Clothes and provisions are not munitions of war within the meaning of the amended joint resolution of Mar. 14, 1912 (37 Stat. 630), prohibiting the export of arms or munitions of war to any American country in which, according to the President's proclamation, conditions of domestic violence exist which are promoted by the use of such materials. (1913) 30 Op. Atty. Gen. 213. Ordinary empty cars belonging to Mexican railways are not "munitions of war" within the meaning of the President's proclamation of Oct. 19, 1915, prohibiting the exportation of such munitions into Mexico. Coal and coke are not included in the term "munitions of war" as used in the President's proclamation of Oct. 19, 1915. There is no authority of law (other than the quarantine act) forbidding the importation of cattle and other live stock from Mexican territory occupied by the revolutionists, the proceeds of which would be used to continue revolutionary activities. (1915) 30 Op. Atty. Gen. 467. Proclamation.-The President's proclama. tion of Oct. 14, 1905 (34 Stat. 3183), prohibiting the export of arms, ammunition, and munitions of war to the Dominican Republic, pursuant to a joint resolution of Apr. 22, 1898 (30 Stat. 739), is still operative under this section. (1912) 29 Op. Atty. Gen. 387. 2925. Seizure by the United States of arms and other unlawful exports.-Whenever an attempt is made to export or ship from or take out of the United States, any arms or munitions of war, or other articles, in violation of law, or whenever there shall be known or probable cause to believe that any such |