[Footnote 57:  Moore, Digest of Int.  Law, Vol.  VII, p. 934-935.]

It was the duty of the central Government to prevent as far as possible any abuse of the privileges which the laws of war allowed to the belligerents.  “A Government is justly held responsible for the acts of its citizens,” said Justice McLean of the United States Supreme Court, speaking of the Canadian insurrection of 1838.  And he continued:  “If this Government be unable or unwilling to restrain our citizens from acts of hostility against a friendly power, such power may hold this nation answerable and declare war against it."[58]

Clearly the responsibility for the proper restraint rested upon the President with reference to the incidents which occurred around New Orleans.  The fact that forbidden acts committed within the jurisdiction of a State of the Union escape punishment within that State does not relieve the central government of responsibility to foreign governments for such acts.  In view of this fact the citizens of the separate States should remember the consequences which may result from their acts.  The warning of Justice McLean, speaking of the incident already cited, is to the point: 

[Footnote 58:  Citing Reg. v.  Recorder of Wolverhampton, 18 Law T. 395-398; see also H.R., Doc. 568, 57 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 17.]

“Every citizen is ... bound by the regard he has for his country, by the reverence he has for its laws, and by the calamitous consequences of war, to exert his influence in suppressing the unlawful enterprises of our citizens against any foreign and friendly power.”  And he concludes:  “History affords no example of a nation or people that uniformly took part in the internal commotions of other Governments which did not bring down ruin upon themselves.  These pregnant examples should guard us against a similar policy, which must lead to a similar result.”

In the end nothing came of the alleged unneutral conduct of the United States in the use which had been permitted of the port of New Orleans during the war.  Had the South African Republic gained an international status claims for indemnity would probably have lain against the United States for a violation of its neutral duties.  Had the Transvaal, recognized in war as a belligerent, become an independent State as the result of that war, such claims would doubtless have been honored and compensation been made upon equitable grounds.  Had the opponent of Great Britain in the war been one of the recognized powers of the world such a use of territorial waters could not have been permitted without an effective protest having been made by the State which was injured.  The Republics, however, were treated at the close of the war as conquered territory and their obligations taken over by the British Government.  Their rights as an independent State vanished when they failed to attain the end for which they fought.

The extreme generosity afterward displayed by Great Britain in the settlement of the claims of all citizens of the United States who had suffered by the war may possibly be explained by the benefits which the English forces were able to secure from the construction which was put upon American neutrality.