plied to partnerships and other business arrangements. Shares in the public stocks of either state, which are held in the territory of the other, are not confiscated or forfeited. Interest ceases to be paid at the outbreak of hostilities, but is resumed at the establishment of peace, the interest accrued during the war becoming payable at its close.'

Citizens of one belligerent power in the territory of the other at the declaration of war may be required to depart, or may be permitted to remain, at the discretion of the state in whose territory they are resident.' The latter course has been pursued in most recent wars, and is the one most in accordance with the dictates of humanity. This question has frequently been made the subject of treaty stipulation. It is now generally recognized, however, that such persons are not to be made prisoners of war, and, if ordered to depart, they are to be given a reasonable time for removal with their property and effects. Subjects of the enemy who are permitted to remain in a belligerent state may be subjected to such special police regulation and supervision as may be deemed necessary by the government for its security. For reasonable cause they may be required to depart, or may be forcibly expelled. If they give aid or information to the enemy, or to their own government, they become subject to the laws of war, and may be treated, according to the nature of their offence, as prisoners of war, or as traitors or spies, and may be punished accordingly.

The Property of Enemy's Subjects. The property of enemy's subjects found within the territory of a state at the out

'Manning, pp. 175, 176; Vattel, liv. iii. chap. v. § 77: Brown vs. U. S. 8 Cranch, 140; III Phillimore, $$ 87-89; IV Calvo, §§ 1916-1924; II Twiss, § 58; Dana's Wheaton, § 308, note 157.

Boyd's Wheaton, § 304a, note. For a discussion of the right of the sovereign power of a country to require the services of all its citizens in time of war, see The Joseph, I

Gallison, p. 545. The duty of a citizen, when war breaks out, if it be a foreign war, and he is abroad, is to return without delay; and if it be a civil war, and he is a resident in the rebellious section, he should leave it as soon as practicable.The William Bagaley, 5 Wallace, 377; IV Calvo, §§ 1912-1914; Hall,

126; I Halleck, pp. 483-487; Manning, pp. 170-175.

2

break of war is not confiscable.' Debts due an enemy's subject are suspended during the war, but resume their obligatory character at its termination. "The right of the original creditor to sue for the recovery of his debt is not extinguished by the war, and revives in full force on the restoration of peace. "The debts due by American citizens to British subjects before the war of the Revolution, and not actually confiscated, were judicially considered as revived, together with the right to sue for their recovery, on the restoration of peace between the two countries. The confiscation of private debts of any sort, besides exposing the state doing so to retaliation, only cripples the enemy in a very indirect way. It has no effect at all on the military or naval operations of the war, and cannot, therefore, be justified on any principle.

Enemy Merchant Ships. The international practice for nearly a century has been to allow merchant ships which are in an enemy's port at the outbreak of war to depart freely, taking with them their cargoes if not contraband of war, and to proceed without molestation to their respective ports of destination. The rules adopted by the Second Peace Conference at The Hague purport to recognize this immunity from capture, and to extend it so as to include the date of arrival at a home port, or at

1 Walker, Manual, § 48; the Sarah Starr, Blatch. Prize Cases, 650; Manning, pp. 171-175; I Halleck, pp. 485-497; III Phill. pp. 130-145; Hall, pp. 387-393; Boyd's Wheaton, §§ 298-304a; Lawrence, Int. Law, §§ 195-198; III Dig. Int. Law, § 337

2 Boyd's Wheaton, § 305; I Halleck, pp. 487-491; Dana's Wheaton, 308, note 157. See also Parliamentary Papers, 1862, "Correspondence Relating to the Civil War," p. 108. Enemy property found in the United States, on land, at the commencement of hostilities, cannot be condemned without a legislative act authorizing its confiscation. An act declar

ing war is not such an act.-Brown vs. United States, 8 Cranch, 110.

3

Boyd's Wheaton, § 308a; see also authorities cited in note 1, page 283. In the case of the William Bagaley it was held by the Supreme Court of the United States that personal property left in a hostile country by an owner who abandons such country in order to go to the other belligerent, and so to return to his proper allegiance and soil, becomes, unless an effort is made with promptitude to remove it from such country, impressed with its character, and as such liable to the consequences attaching to enemy's property.-The William Bagaley,

a neutral port, after which the right of capture, as to both ship and cargo, is revived. But the immunity accorded by the convention is coupled with the condition that the privilege does not apply to a ship which has been officially notified of the existence of war. As all merchant ships are now chargeable with such knowledge, due to the existence of modern means of telegraphic communication, the immunity conferred by the treaty is so illusory that the United States has declined to become a party to its operation. The terms of the convention do not apply to a ship which indicates, by its construction, that it was intended for conversion into a public armed vessel.1

Effect of War upon Treaties of Alliance, Guarantee, and Subsidy. Treaties of alliance, of subsidy, and of guarantee, made in anticipation of war, come into effect the moment war is declared by, or against, one of the allied states. Each state which is a party to a treaty of alliance must decide for itself whether the case contemplated by the treaty exists or not. If its decision be affirmative, its obligations as an ally go into effect immediately. If it decides in the negative, its action cannot be constrained by any method short of reprisals or war. The other allies, however, may look upon its failure as a violation of treaty stipulation, which they may regard as a just cause for war. A treaty of subsidy obliges a state to grant certain aid, troops, supplies, or money, either on formal notification, or when a particular state of affairs exists which was contemplated by the treaty. In this case, as in that of an alliance, each contracting party decides for itself whether the case exists which is contemplated by the treaty, and each is fully responsible for its decision. The aid agreed upon is furnished strictly in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of subsidy, and the obligation incurred is fulfilled when the stipulated duty has been performed.

5 Wallace, 377- The presumption of the law of nations is against an owner who suffers such property to continue in the hostile

country for a considerable length of time.-Ibid.

1 For text of this agreement, see Appendix F, Convention No. 6.

If the assistance proves inadequate to the purpose, or if it be impossible of fulfilment, no obligation rests upon the subsidizing state to render other or further service of the same kind.

Treaties of guarantee, in so far as they relate to war, usually consist in an obligation, assumed by one or more states, to enforce respect for the neutrality of a third state, or to assure the existence of such a state within certain territorial limits. They become effective when the neutrality of the protected state is threatened from any quarter, or when the guaranteed territory is invaded, or menaced with invasion. Subsidiary treaties may also exist, providing in detail for interference in either of these cases. If such treaties exist, they must be strictly observed in making good the guarantee.'

The effect of war upon treaties generally has already been discussed."

THE LAWS OF WAR

Character and Tendency of the Laws of War. That department of international law which treats of the manner in which war shall be carried on by belligerents, on land and sea, is called the Laws of War. These laws are undergoing constant modification, to adapt them to the ever-changing conditions of modern warfare. The tendency of these changes is, and always has been, in the direction of greater humanity and liberality. Harsh usages are modified, cruel practices become

of territorial and other national rights are at most suspended during war and revive at peace, unless they are waived by the parties, or new and repugnant stipulations are made. Society, etc. vs. New Haven, 8 Wheaton, 464; Walker, Manual, 46; III Phillimore, pp. 792-811; I Halleck, p. 497; Woolsey, § 160; Boyd's Wheaton, § 275; Lawrence, Int. Law, §§ 166, 167, 168: II Dig. Int. Law, § 135; III Ibid. §§ 336-337a.

obsolete, or are abandoned by treaty or general consent, and new methods are constantly suggested for diminishing the inevitable hardships of war. This improvement is observable in many directions; it is most remarkable, however, in the treatment of individuals, combatant and non-combatant, in the theatre of war, and in the greater consideration shown to the wounded and prisoners of war.' There has been the least progress in the rules relating to private property on land and sea. The Declaration of Paris restrains the states who were parties to it from capturing private property at sea, except enemy goods in enemy ships and contraband of war. The practice of privateering has declined, probably never to be revived. In war on land pillage is sternly forbidden, but private property may still be taken by way of requisition. Contributions are still recognized, and certain kinds of property may be captured and destroyed, or regarded as booty.

There are no indications, at present, that belligerents will voluntarily surrender any of the rights which they now exercise over private property on land. In the few instances in which such property has been exempted from capture or requisition its immunity has been due to the fact that, in those instances, rapidity of movement was an essential condition of success, which could not have been attained had the force employed, in the particular undertakings, been compelled to depend for its subsistence upon the slow and uncertain methods of requisitioning supplies from an unwilling or hostile population. The recommendations of the conferences at Brussels and St. Petersburg illustrate these tendencies. The declarations on the subject of combatants and non-combatants, the

III Ferguson, § 169; III Phill. pp. 77-84; Creasy, pp. 375, 376; Manning, pp. 196-206; Woolsey, §§ 130, 131; Lawrence, Int. Law, § 184.

For histories of the laws of war, see vol. xxi. Revue de Droit International, 385. For attempts to codify the laws of war, see Dr. Lieber's Instructions to Armies of

the United States, Appendix A; see also vol. xxv. Revue de Droit International, pp. 321-338; xxvi. Ibid. pp. 586-605; VI Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 2651, 2652. For the Laws and Usages of War on Land, adopted by the Peace Conference at The Hague on October 18, 1907, see Appendix F.