Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

general law, and upon grounds apparently not unreasonable, that if a merchant expatriates himself as a merchant to carry on the trade of another country, exporting its produce, paying its taxes, employing its people, and expending his spirit, his industry, and his capital in its service, he is to be deemed a merchant of that country, notwithstanding he may, in some respects, be less favored in that country than one of its native subjects. Our own country, which is charged with holding the doctrine of unextinguishable allegiance more tenaciously than others, is no stranger to this rule. Its highest tribunals which adjudicate the national character of property taken in war apply it universally. They privilege persons residing in a neutral country to trade as freely with the enemies of Great Britain in war as the native subject of that neutral country, although our own resident merchants cannot without special permission of the crown."

The "Ann Green," 1 Gallison, 274.-In this case it was held that a British subject domiciled in the United States, though temporarily absent in a British island, is as to purposes of trade, an American merchant, but that, if pending a known war between the United States and Great Britain, he makes a shipment to a British port, in his character as a British subject, that shipment is affected with a hostile character, if war breaks out during the voyage.

Exception.

The San José Indiano," 2 Gallison, 268.-In this case it was held that if there be a house of trade established in the enemy's country, the property of all of the partners in the house is condemnable as prize, notwithstanding some of them have a neutral residence, but that such connection with the house of trade will not affect the other separate property of the partners having a neutral residence.

Exception-Produce of enemy soil.

Benson v. Boyle, 9 Cranch, 191.-This was a case of seizure of produce raised upon the plantation of a neutral situated on British territory. It appeared that about the time of the seizure the owner of the plantation removed to the United States.

The court sustained the condemnation and said that personal property might follow the owner but that land is fixed, and, wherever the owner may reside, that land is hostile or friendly according to the condition of the country in which it is situated.

Extension of rule.

In the case of The "Venus," 9 Crunch, 255, the Court said: "The converse of this rule inevitably applies to the subject of a belligerent state, domiciled in a neutral country; he is deemed a neutral by both belligerents, with reference to the trade which he carries on with the adverse belligerent, and with all the rest of the world."

Exception.

The "Antonia Johanna, 1 Wheaton, 159.-In this case it was held that the share of a partner in a neutral house is, by the laws of war, subject to confiscation, where his own domicile is in a hostile country.

Exception.

Laurent's Case, American and British Claims Commission, 1855. Report of Decisions, p. 120.-Claimants, who were British subjects

who had resided in Mexico, as merchants, for twenty-five years, presented a claim for money confiscated by the American Commander, during war with Mexico, as the property of the Mexican government. The Umpire of the Commission decided that. inasmuch as the claimants had long been residents of Mexico, had a fixed home there, with apparently every intention of continuing so to reside, they were for the purposes of the commission, Mexican citizens and not British subjects, and that the Commissioners did not form a tribunal competent to entertain their claims.

Exception.

The "Friendschaft," 4 Wheaton, 105.-In this case a seizure had been made of goods shipped by an English firm and claim was made for the exemption of the share of one partner because he had a neutral domicile.

Held, that the neutral domicile of one of the partners will not protect that partner's property from condemnation because the trade of an enemy firm is essentially a hostile trade.

United States v. Guillem, 11 How., 47.-In this case it was held that a neutral, who resided in an enemy's country, resumes his neutral rights as soon as he puts himself and his family in itinere to return home to reside, and has a right to take with him money he has earned, as the means of support for himself and his family. Such property, it was further held, is not forfeited by a breach of blockade by the vessel on board of which he has taken passage if he personally is in no fault.

Exception.

The "Cheshire," 3 Wall., 231.-In this case it was held that the property of a commercial house, established in the enemy's country, is subject to condemnation; though some of the partners have a neutral domicile.

Exception.

With respect to cases arising during the American Civil War, the courts of the United States held that all persons, whether foreigners or not, who resided within the territory of the enemy were liable to be regarded as enemies.

The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635; The Venice, 2 Wall., 258; The William Bagaley, 5 Wall., 377; The Gray Jacket, 5 Wall., 342; The Pioneer, Blatchf. Prize Cas., 61; The Prince Leopold, id., 89; The Lilla, 2 Sprague, 177.

Visiting vessel subject to martial law.

United States v. Diekelman, 92 U. S., 50.—In this case it was held that a merchant vessel of one country visiting for the purpose of trade, a port of another country where martial law has been established, under belligerent right, subjects herself to that law while she is in such port.

See, to the same effect, Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, to Baron von Gerolt. Prussian minister, October 11, 1862, Moore's Digest, vol. vii, p. 277.

Withdrawal from commercial domicile abroad, on outbreak of war.

The English courts hold that a person doing business in a land in which he is not naturalized is allowed, on the outbreak of war, a reasonable time to leave such land and dissolve his business relations. The Gerasimo, 11 Moore, P. C. 88; The Ariel, id, 119.

It seems that the courts of the United States take the same view of the law on this point.

The William Bagaley, 5 Wall., 377; The Gray Jacket, id., 342.

Exception.

The "Johanna Emilie" Spinks Prize Cases, 12.-The court said: "There is no principle. I apprehend, so well laid down-no principle so generally followed as this, that whatever country a gentleman may belong to, if he is resident in and carries on trade for a period of time in another country, he must be taken for the purposes of trade, to belong to that other country, and not to his original domicile."

See, to the same effect, The Abo, Spinks Prize Cases, 42.

Exception.

The "Aina," I Spinks, A, and E. Rep. 313.-This was the case of a capture of a Russian vessel, a one-third interest in which was claimed by a neutral, residing in Russia.

Held, that the claimant must be considered as an enemy, since, after the commencement of the war, he had resided in the enemy's country for purposes of trade, and thereby had adhered to the enemy.

Acquisition of national character.

The "Ernest Merck." Spinks Prize Cases, 98.-The court said: "With respect to the national character of the master.-a Prussian by birth, a Russian by national character up to the 4th of April, 1854, it may be as well to say a few words on the doctrine so strongly insisted on by the learned counsel for the claimants, and which I think is founded on sound principles. It is this, that a national character, acquired by occupation only, may be changed with greater facility than a national character arising from birth or from long domicile; but though I admit this to be true, yet I hold that it is also true that a national character, acquired by occupation, must remain until another is bona fide acquired. How has such domicile been acquired in the present case? By a residence of two days afterwards, and the payment of a few dollars. It must be observed, moreover, that this was not a return to the national character of origin. but the acquisition of a new national character in a state to which the master was altogether a stranger.

"The master is said to have been naturalized on the 4th of April, to have been made a burgher on the 5th of April, and to have had four shares transferred to him on the 6th of April, on which day, also, the passport is dated: he admits that he was resident in Schwerin for two days, not before, but afterwards: he acquired, therefore, his right, if indeed he acquired any, to a citizenship at Mecklenburg by purchase, and not by residence. If this be a legitimate mode of changing a national character, then such change may take place in twenty-four hours."

Acquisition of new national character.

The "Baltica" Spinks Prize Cases, 264.-The court said: “I have considered all the authorities on this subject, and I think the fair result is, with respect to a mercantile national character, that the party becomes clothed with a new character from the period when he first takes steps animo removendi to abandon his former domicile, and animo manendi to acquire a new one."

HOW NEUTRAL CHARACTER MAY BE LOST-TREATMENT OF OFFENDING PERSON.

A neutral cannot avail himself of his neutrality: (a) If he commits hostile acts against a belligerent; (b) If he commits acts in favour of a belligerent, particularly if he voluntarily enlists in the ranks of the armed force of one of the parties.

In such a case, the neutral shall not be more severely treated by the belligerent as against whom he has abandoned his neutrality than a national of the other belligerent State could be for the same act.-Hague Convention V, 1907, Article 17.

If the neutral state fail to fulfill the obligations of neutrality, it cannot claim the privileges and exemptions incident to that condition. The rule is equally applicable to the citizens and subjects of a neutral state. So long as they faithfully perform the duties of neutrality, they are entitled to the rights and immunities of that condition. But for every violation of neutral duties, they are liable to the punishment of being treated in their persons or property as public enemies of the offended belligerent.

Halleck, pp. 628–629.

When a person belonging to a neutral state takes permanent civil or military service with a foreign state he identifies himself so fully with it that he becomes the enemy of its enemies for every purpose. Hall, p. 521.

[If a neutral individual] makes a specific bargain to carry despatches or persons in the service of the belligerent for belligerent purposes; he thus personally enters the service of the belligerent, he contracts as a servant to perform acts intended to affect the issue of the war, and he makes himself in effect the enemy of the other belligerent. ** Hence the belligerent is allowed to protect himself by means analogous to those which he uses in the suppression of contraband trade. He stops the trade by force, and inflicts a penalty on the neutral individual.

Hall, pp. 697, 698.

The position of an individual who leaves his country in order to enter belligerent service is similar, the other belligerent being entitled to treat him as an unprotected enemy.

Westlake, vol. 2, p. 195.

** **

First among those individuals who may be regarded as enemies we must place persons found in the military or naval service of the

enemy state. These are enemies to the fullest extent. They may be killed or wounded in fair fight according to the laws of war, and. if captured, may be held as prisoners of war. Their nationality makes no difference in this respect. If any of them are neutral subjects, they can claim no immunities on that account. As was definitely stated in the fifth Convention of the last Hague Conference, they are free from special severities, but subject to the ordinary risks and incidents of civilized warfare. Enrolment in the public armed forces of a belligerent puts them as regards the enemy in the same position as their comrades who are subjects of the state for which they are fighting.

Lawrence, pp. 366-367.

** * *

There are acts sometimes performed by neutrals which involve an entry for the time being into the service of a belligerent, and the doing for him what is of direct advantage to him in his war. They are not mere commercial ventures, like carrying contraband goods to a neutral market, and therefore the law of contraband does not apply to them. Its formulae deal with ships and destinations, goods and cargoes. They can not be made to apply to such acts as the transport of noxious persons and the transmission of warlike intelligence. which are two of the chief of the forbidden services. Firstly, there is a difference in the character of the acts themselves. What takes place in cases of contraband is done purely as a matter of trade. Its subjects are commodities and its object gain. In unneutral service the acts are not acts of ordinary commerce. Their predominant attributes are warlike rather than mercantile. It is true that they are generally done for reward; but they involve entering for a time into the service of a belligerent, and doing for him something so helpful in his war that neutrals ought not to do it. What Sir William Scott said in the case of the Atalanta of carrying warlike despatches applies equally well to all other forms of the offence we are considering. He who does such things "under the privilege of an ostensibly neutral character does in fact place himself in the service of the enemy state, and is justly to be considered in that character.”

Lawrence, pp. 724-725; 4 C. Rob. 440.

*

* *

*

neutral individuals can, however, lose their neutral and acquire enemy character in several cases if they enter the armed forces of a belligerent, or if they commit other acts in his favour, or commit hostile acts against a belligerent, they acquire enemy character.

Oppenheim, vol. 2. pp. 108-109.

Since Great Britain has entered a reservation against articles 16, 17, and 18 of Convention V. she is not bound by them. It is, however, of importance to state that articles 16, 17, and only such rules as were always customarily recognized.

Oppenheim, vol. 2, p. 109 (note).

*

enact

All measures that are allowed during war against enemy subjects are likewise allowed against such subjects of neutral Powers as have thus acquired enemy character. For instance, during the late South

« ZurückWeiter »