The right of foreigners to remove their property from the territory of a nation is provided for by Article 336.

By the treaty between the United States and

Bolivia,

May 13, 1858, Art. XXVIII., 12 U. S. Stat. at L.,(Tr.,) 1003.

XXV., 10 Id., (Tr.,) 1.

XXVII., 10 Id., (Tr.,) 71,

San Salvador, Jan. 2, 1850, the right of the members of either nation residing within the territory of the other, at the commencement of the war between the nations, to continue their residence and vocation, is secured only to persons of other occupation than that of merchant.

If it be thought desirable to reserve to a belligerent the right to send away passive enemies, the following provision may be thought sufficient Members of one nation, being within the territory of another, who do not, before the expiration of six months after the commencement or declaration of war between the two, remove therefrom or become naturalized therein, and members of one of several belligerent nations, who come within the territory of the hostile nation to reside, with the knowledge of the existence of war between such nations, may be treated thereafter and during the war as enemies, active or passive, as the case may be, or be required forthwith to leave the country. Grotius, de Jure Belli ac Pacis, III., c. 2, § 7.

In the Franco-Prussian war, the French government first, in effect, forbid Germans capable of military service from leaving France without special leave, and subsequently commanded all Germans to leave.

Safe conducts.

917. A belligerent must give safe conducts to the agents of international intercourse of neutral powers, who cannot conveniently reach their destination without passing through its territory or military lines, and to persons sent out of its territory under article 911 or 916.

Lieber's Instructions, ¶ 87. See Articles 137 and 138 of this Code.

Effect of safe-conducts.

918. A safe-conduct, unless otherwise expressed, is subject to the following rules:

1. If giving license to go to a place, license to return is implied, in case that be a part of the purpose for which it was granted;

2. If giving license to leave a place, protection, dur

ing the journey to cross the boundaries of the territory or military occupation, is implied;

3. If granted to a particular person it is not transferable, and does not include his family, but includes necessary attendants and equipage, according to rank or position;

4. If granted to a class, such as clergy or military persons, it includes all persons of the class of whatever degree, such as bishops, or commanders;

5. It extends to all places on land or at sea within the territorial jurisdiction, or the range of hostilities of the belligerent granting it; and,

6. .It is not terminated by the death or removal of the person by whom it was granted.

These rules are suggested by Grotius, as quoted by Wildman, Intern. Law, vol. 2, p. 29.

Passports.

919. A belligerent may require passports from the members of other nations, whether belligerent or neutral, voluntarily seeking to enter or leave its territory or military lines.

Interdiction of interior traffic.

920. A belligerent may, within its territorial limits, or within the district actually occupied by its armies, prohibit or otherwise restrict the exportation or transit of, or traffic in, anything needed for its own military purposes, or intended to promote the purposes of the enemy.

Other Articles declare the inviolability of private property; but this Article secures the control necessary for military purposes; so that all property may be taken and held on making compensation.

Ships of a neutral may as freely as in peace traffic to and fro between any unblockaded place in a belligerent's territory, and any other such place, or any place in neutral territory. Goods on board such ships, are free from capture, whatever may be their ownership, unless contraband, or the property of the hostile nation.

Treaty between France and Peru, March, 9, 1861, Art., XX., 8 De Clercq, 200.

Intercourse across lines of military occupation. 921. All civil intercourse whatever, between the districts actually occupied by opposing belligerent armies is unlawful,' whether forbidden by proclamation or not; except such as is expressly authorized by this Code,' or by agreement of the belligerent nations, or by the military authority having command of the frontier. But if the permission be given by one belligerent only, the intercourse is lawful as to him, but not as to the other.

Bluntschli, Droit Intern. Codifié, § 674; Lieber's Instructions,

86.

1 Hennan v. Gilman, 20 Louisiana Annual Rep., 241; see also Graham v. Mervill, 5 Coldwell, (Tennessee,) Rep., 622; Bank of Tennessee v. Woodson, 5 Id., 176.

The exception of contracts for ransom which might be important, if the prohibition of intercourse were extended beyond the lines of military occupation need not be preserved, if the principles of the following Articles are adopted.

? A declaration of hostilities carries with it an interdiction of all commercial intercourse with the enemy, on the part of the subjects of the belligerent nation, without express license. Lawrence's Wheaton, Elem. of Intern. Law, pp. 544, 551, § 13; Dana's Wheaton, §§ 309, 315; Barrick v. Buber, 2 Common Bench Rep. N. S., 563; Esposito v. Bowden, 7 Ellis & Blackburn's Rep., 763; Philips v. Hatch, 1 Dillon's U. S. Circ. Ct. Rep., 191.

Heffter, (§§ 122, 123,) suggests, that a declaration of war does not of itself prohibit commercial intercourse, but that such intercourse may go on, unless specially prohibited, and so far as not so prohibited: which seems to be an opinion rather than a statement of law. For precedent and practice, and the opinions of jurists are the other way. Dana's Wheaton, note 158, p. 400.

See for instance Articles 922 and 923.

4 Under the existing rule, forbidding all trading with enemies, the license must be an express license granted or ratified by the highest authority in the government. The Hope, 1 Dodson's Rep., 226. It must come ultimately from sovereign authority. Halleck, Intern. Law and Laws of War, 675-690; Manning, Law of Nations, § 123; Wildman, Intern. Law, II., 245-266; 1 Kent's Commentaries, 163; 1 Duer on Insurance, 594-619; Hautefeuille, tom. I., p. 19; Woolsey's Intern. Law, § 147; Phillimore's Intern. Law, III., 249, 613.

5 A license to trade with the enemy must be issued by competent authority without material misrepresentation, whether intentional or not, on the part of the receiver, and must be used in good faith, strictly ac cording to its terms. Dana's Wheaton, note 198, p. 504. See also Leevin

v. Cormac, 4 Taunton's Rep., 483, n.; Freise v. Thompson, 1 Id., 121; Van Dyck v. Whitmore, 1 East Rep., 475.

By the rules hitherto in force, it is cause of capture for a private ship of one belligerent to sail under a special license or safe-conduct of the other, even where the voyage was to a neutral port, and there was no direct communication with the enemy in the whole course of the voyage. Thus in the war between Great Britain and the United States in 1812, the former power being also with its allies, at war in Spain and Portugal, sold licenses to American vessels, to trade between America and Spain or Portugal, in order to favor the forwarding thither of supplies for the allied armies. But American vessels trading under such licenses were held lawful prize by American cruisers. The Julia, 8 Cranch's U. S. Supr. Ct. Rep., p. 181; and cases following, pp. 203, 444. So too, the illegality of sailing under an enemy's license is held proper cause for the forfeiture of a neutral vessel. The Alliance, Blatchford's Prize Cases, (U. S. Dist. Ct.,) p. 262.

It is competent for the government to permit commercial intercourse, in so far at least, that transactions had pursuant to such permission are held valid in the courts of such government. Woods v. Wilder, 43 New York Rep., 164.

In the Crimean war, the British government resolved to issue no li censes, but to allow trade to be carried on with the enemy, even by British subjects, provided it was carried on in neutral ships. "The example," says Lushington's Naval Prize Law, Intro., p. xi., “ will in all probability be followed in future."

In the war of France and Great Britain against China, the French government allowed French and English subjects to continue their commercial intercourse with the Chinese, even on Chinese soil, and reciprocally the Chinese to continue such intercourse with French and English, even on French or English soil. 8 De Clercq, 353.

It has been claimed in England, and as strongly denied in the United States, that a country which, during peace, confines the trade of its colonies to its own subjects, cannot, during war, open such trade to a neutral. See Mr. Justice DUER's essay on this subject, 1 Duer on Insurance, 698– 725. For the English rule, see The Emmanuel, 1 Robinson's Adm. Rep., 296; The Providentia, 2 Id., 142; The Ebenezer, 6 Id., 250; The Thomyris, Edw., 17. In support of the American rule, see Mr. MONROE's letter to Lord MULGRAVE, Sept. 23, 1805; Mr. MADISON's letter to Messrs. MONROE and PINCKNEY, May 17, 1806; and the memorials of the merchants of Baltimore, New York, Boston and Salem, 5 American State Papers, 330-355, 367-379; 2 Parsons on Contracts, 398.

The liability of neutral ships to detention, for carrying on the coast ing trade of the enemy," may be taken to have been silently repealed," says Lushington, writing of the English rule, "by the advance of free trade." See also the provisions of BOOK FIRST in respect to equality of commercial privileges.

Private ships surprised by war.

922. Subject to articles 863 and 920, concerning contraband and the prohibition of exports, private ships bearing the national character of a belligerent, being, at the commencement of hostilities or the declaration of war, in ports where they would be subject to detention or confiscation under articles 921 and 929, or lawfully coming there' afterwards, are free from capture and detention, and may discharge cargo; and may take in any cargo already engaged, and depart within thirty days' after the declaration of war or the commencement of hostilities. In case of a ship coming into port after such time, the intervening period is not to be computed.

This seems a reasonable extension of the rule contended for by Vattel, (Droit des Gens, L. III., c. 4, § 63,) and approved by Twiss, (Law of Nations, Part II., p. 101, § 54, opposing in this the harsh doctrine of STORY, J.) Modern usages sanction the principle that the belligerent can neither detain the persons nor the property of those subjects of the enemy who are within his dominions at the time of the declaration, because they came into them upon the public faith. The above Article is of course so stated as to constitute an exception to the interdiction of intercourse with ports within the military occupation. Other ports are, by Article 891, open during war.

1 See Articles 913 and 915.

2 In the Franco-Prussian war, 1870-1, the German notification allowed six weeks; the French, thirty days.

On the commencement of the Crimean war, each belligerent allowed the enemy's merchant vessels within its ports, &c., a reasonable time to load and depart; (six weeks were allowed by Great Britain,) and those which had sailed bound to such ports were allowed to enter, discharge and depart. This," says Twiss, (Law of Nations, Part II., p. 117,) "marks an epoch in the practice of nations in the exercise of belligerent rights at the immediate outbreak of war." He suggests, however, that the precedent, since it arose in the case of a war commenced for the protection of an ally, does not apply to cases of denial of redress for injuries received, and in which the property of members of one nation is liable to be confiscated for indemnity. Later precedents do not sustain this qualification.

Voyages commenced.

923. Subject to articles 863 and 920, concerning contraband and the prohibition of exports, private