Unfortunately for the honor of human nature, Spencer was not the only American who co-operated with the Costa Ricans for the purpose of robbing the naturalized Nicaraguans of the rights they had in Central America. As to Spencer’s immediate employers their conduct need not excite surprise; for gain is the god of their idolatry, and at Ephesus they would have persecuted the Apostle to the Gentiles for teaching a religion which destroyed their trade in shrines. From such as these he is but a fool who expects aught high in principle or unselfish in action. But we are entitled to expect loftier sentiment and nobler actions from the men who aspire to govern states and control policies. As Spencer’s operations closed the American transit across Nicaragua, it is not unimportant to ascertain if any public persons besides the Moras of Costa Rica and their Allies in Central America are directly or remotely responsible for the act. Especially is this becoming in view of the fact that no less a person than the President of the United States[5] has, in a grave annual message to the Houses of Congress, declared with most indecent inaccuracy that the Transit was closed in February, 1856, by the revocation of the charters of the Ship Canal and of the Accessory Transit Companies. As early as the month of April, 1856, the American Secretary of State, Mr. Marcy, had been advised by the Costa Rican government that it meditated the seizure of the river and lake steamers and the consequent destruction of the Transit. At that time Mr. Marcy replied such an act would not be regarded with indifference by the United States. The language of the Secretary implied that the American government would deem it a duty to prevent such acts. And such a position was worthy of an American Minister. Undoubtedly Costa Rica, at war with Nicaragua, had a right not only to prevent the latter from using the property of neutrals for the purpose of transporting military persons and stores; and she might also take possession of such property and use it, as lawfully as Nicaragua, for the conveyance of her own troops and military equipments. But this did not involve the right of Costa Rica to confiscate the property of neutrals used by her enemy for purposes of transportation. Neutral ships at sea are liable to capture by a belligerent if they are found having aboard military stores or persons belonging to the enemy; for at sea, such an act on the part of a neutral is one of choice and not of compulsion. But on land, or within the territory of a country at war, where the property of neutrals is entirely under the control of the belligerent sovereign, the involuntary act of the neutral certainly cannot subject him to the loss of his property. Hence Mr. Marcy was right when he told Costa Rica, to all intents and purposes, that the use of American property by Nicaragua did not make it forfeit if taken by the enemy; and still less could it justify the destruction of a franchise,