Marey,  then  Secretary  of  State,  in  answer  to  the  claim,  holds  the  follow-
ing language :  '  The  undersigned  is  not  aware  that  the  principle  that
foreigners  domiciled  in  a  belligerent  country  must  share  with  the  citi-
z«»ns  of  that  country  in  the  fortunes  of  war  has  ever  been  seriously  con-
troverted or  departed  from  in  practice.'

"I  have  therefore  to  repeat  that  I  am  of  opinion  no  ground  is  laid  for
the  intervention  of  the  United  States  in  favor  of  these  parties."

12  Op.,  21,  Stanbery,  Aug.  31,  1866.
As  to  exertions  of  the  Government  to  prevent  filibnstermg  expedition  from  Key

West  to  Caba  in  1884,  see  Mr.  Frelinghuysen,  Sec.  of  State,  to  Mr.  Reed,

Apr.  30, 1884.    MSS.  Inst.,  Spain.
'^  I  recommend  that  the  scope  of  the  neutrality  laws  of  the  United
States  be  so  enlarged  as  to  cover  all  patent  acts  of  hostility  committed
in  our  territory  and  aimed  against  the  peace  of  a  friendly  nation.  Ex-
isting statutes  prohibit  the  fitting  out  of  armed  expeditious  and  restrict
the  shipment  of  explosives,  though  the  enactments  in  the  latter  respect
were  not  framed  with  regard  to  international  obligations,  but  simply
for  the  protection  of  passenger  travel.  All  the  statutes  were  intended
to  meet  special  emergencies  that  had  already  arisen.  Other  emergen-
cies have  arisen  since,  and  modern  ingenuity  supplies  means  for  the

C21


§  402.]  NEUTRALITY.  [CHAP.  XXL

organization  of  hostilities  without  open  resort  to  armed  vessels  or  to
filibnsteriDg  parties.
"  I  see  no  reason  why  overt  preparations  in  this  country  for  the  com-
mission of  criminal  acts,  such  as  are  here  under  consideration,  should
not  be  alike  punishable,  whether  such  acts  are  intended  to  be  com-
mitted in  our  own  country  or  in  a  foreign  country  with  which  we  are  at
peace.
