[Sidenote:  Neutral Territory protected.]

The Rights of War can be exercised only within the territory of the belligerent powers, upon the high seas, or in a territory belonging to no one.  To make use of neutral territory for the proximate purposes of war cannot be allowed, although it is to be understood that the prohibition does not extend to remote objects and uses, such as procuring provisions, and other innocent articles.[143]

The sanctity of a claim of territory is very high.  When the fact is established, it overrules every other consideration; the property taken must be restored, notwithstanding that it belongs to the enemy; and if the captors should have erred wilfully, and not merely through ignorance, he would be subject to further punishment.  It is however, a point on which foreign states are very likely to be misinformed and abused, by the interested representations of those who are anxious to catch at their protection.  The claim of territory is, therefore, to be taken according to the letter of the law, and to be made out by clear and unimpeached evidence.  The right of seizing the property of the enemy is a right which extends, generally speaking, universally, wherever that property is found.  The protection of neutral territory is an exception only to the rule; it is not therefore to be considered disrespectful to any government that the fact, on which such claims are founded, should be accurately examined.[144]

The neutral territory is supposed to extend three English miles from the shore.[145]

[Sidenote:  Property of Belligerents in Neutral Territory.]

But the general inviolability of neutral character goes further than merely the protection of neutral property.  It protects the property of belligerents within the neutral territory.  Thus, if the enemy be attacked, or any capture made under neutral protection, the neutral is bound to redress the injury, and effect restitution.  As for example, in 1793, the English ship Grange was captured in Delaware Bay, by a French frigate, and upon due complaint, the American Government caused the British ship to be promptly restored.  Similarly, in the case of the Anna, restoration was made of property captured by a British cruizer near the mouth of the Mississippi, and within the jurisdiction of the United States.[146]

An armed ship has no right to lie in a neutral harbour, in order to make it an habitual station for her captures, as that would be a continuous direct infringement on neutral trade with the enemy; but if she is accidentally in a neutral port, and sees an enemy coming, she may go out and fight, or take her, beyond the range of neutral ground.[147] Nor ought captors to station themselves at the mouth of a neutral river for exercising the rights of war from that river, much less in the very river itself.[148]