Thus far has been had in view the private property of members of the hostile nations. In respect to the property of neutrals, the principles of the Treaty of Paris of 1856 are embodied in the provisions of this Code. * In the fourteenth century, the rule was to confiscate enemy's but not neutral property, and where neutral goods were found on an enemy's ship, or a neutral ship was taken bearing enemy's goods, the neutral goods or ship were restored, and only the enemy's ship or goods were confiscated. Twiss, Law of Nations, part II., p. 147, § 77. In the sixteenth century, the doctrine of hostile taint was adopted by France and Spain, and the neutral ship carrying enemy's goods, and neutral goods borne by an enemy's ship, were by them declared tainted with belligerency, and liable to confiscation. In the latter part of the eighteenth century, this doctrine was abandoned by France, and that which exempts neutral ships and goods, and even enemy's goods (except contraband), when found on neutral ships, was, with some qualifications and fluctuation, adopted. The rule established by the governments maintaining the armed neutrality of 1780, permitted the seizure of neutral ships only where the duties of neutrality had been unquestionably violated. And in the same year the French government forbade the molestation of neutrals, even though apparently destined to enemy's ports, and directed that in no case should neutral vessels be captured, unless they had cargoes contraband of war, or were engaged in the transport of English troops, or harbored Englishmen under a neutral flag. Katchenovsky's Prize Law, by Pratt, p. 63, and note (p.) In the seventeenth century, Holland made several treaties, among pied the town as a stronghold, and expelled the inhabitants, including the American representative. The Paraguayans afterwards abandoned it, and the Brazilian forces entered and took possession; and the property contained in the building which had been occupied by the American Legation, fell into their hands. The government of the United States demanded of the Brazilian government the restoration of the property of the American representative and of the American citizens; and suggested also that the property of the Paraguayan women should be treated by analogy to enemy's property found on a neutral vessel, and also restored. And the Brazilian government, without expressing any opinion on this analogy, directed all the property which fell into their hands in the Legation, without distinction of ownership, to be restored to the representative of the United States. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1871, pp. 49, 50. * Those rules are that, "A neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war." "Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag." They are not stated in this form, because other exceptions than contraband need to be expressly recognized; and the Article protecting private property of members of the hostile nation supersedes the necessity of a distinct provision as to neutral property. them one with France, recognizing more or less fully the doctrine that the national character of the ship should determine the fate of the goods. These are the principal conflicting rules recognized on this point down to 1856, when the Treaty of Paris adopted the liberal rule that a free ship makes free goods, but an enemy's ship does not forfeit neutral goods. This rule has now been so generally adopted, that it needs no further discussion here. * *The original parties to the Declaration of Paris of 1856, were Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey. The following powers have since given their adhesion to all the Articles. (Twiss, Law of Nations, Part II., p. 167, note 55.) In the war of France and Great Britain against China, the principles of the Declaration of Paris, of 1856, were in substance adopted by both France and Great Britain, as a rule of action towards all nations, even those who had never acceded to that declaration. 8 De Clercq, 35. That free ships make free goods; that is to say, that the goods belonging to subjects or citizens of a power or state at war, are free from capture or confiscation when found on board neutral vessels, with the exception of articles contraband of war, is recognized by the treaty between the United States and That the property of neutrals on board of an enemy's vessel is not subject to confiscation, unless the same be contraband of war, is recog nized by the treaty between the United States and Feb. 8, 1867, Art. XV., 15 U. S. Stat. at L.,(Tr.,) 167. Bolivia, In many of their treaties the United States of America have inserted the following clause: What property may be seized. 835. Subject to the provisions of this Book, a belligerent, for the purpose of compelling the submission of the hostile nation, may seize and hold :' 1. The territory of the hostile nation;' 2. Its public armed ships, except in the cases provided for by article 845; 3 3. Other ships, public or private, bearing its national character, in the cases expressly provided for in this Book, and no others; 4. Other public property of the hostile nation, except such as may be within the territory of the belligerent by its own wrongful act,' and except such as is exempted from the jurisdiction of either nation by the provisions of Title III. of this Code, entitled INTERCOURSE OF NATIONS,' and of Chapter LXI., entitled MEDICAL SERVICE; and of Chapter LXII., concerning RELIGIOUS SERVICE; 5. All contraband of war, and all ships and goods involved in contraband traffic, in the cases and to the extent defined by Chapter LXV., entitled CONTRABAND OF WAR; and, "Stipulations, declaring that the flag shall cover the property, shall be understood as applying to those powers only who recognize this principle; but if either of the two contracting parties shall be at war with a third, and the other neutral, the flag of the neutral shall cover the prop erty of enemies whose governments acknowledge this principle, and not of others." Katchenovsky's Prize Law, by Pratt, p. 117, note (f.) By the treaty between France and Peru, March 9, 1861, Art. XX., § 2, (8 De Clercq, 200,) property of members of either nation which remains neutral when the other is at war, are free from confiscation and detention even when on board an enemy's ship, unless contraband, or belonging to persons actually in the enemy's service, or destined to enter it. For discussions of belligerent rights, the capture of private property at sea, &c., see Transactions of the National Association for Promotion of Social Science, 1860, pp. 163, 279; Id., 1861, pp. 126, 748, 794; Id., 1862, pp. 89, 896, 899; Id., 1863, pp. 851, 878, 884; Id., 1864, pp. 596, 656; Id., 1868, pp. 167, 187; Vincens, Exposition raisonnée de la Legislation Commerciale, (Paris, 1821,) liv. XII., ch. 17, 18; Massé, Le Droit Commerciale, (Paris, 1844.) I., pp. 153–4, 162–3; Kaltenborn, Die Kaperie im Seekriege, s. 193-202, 216-228; Hautefeuille, Droits et Devoirs, I., 340-44; Martens, Essai sur les Armateurs, s. 45, who considers maritime capture contrary to the spirit of the present European private law. Heffter, (Volkerrecht, s. 130, 132, 139, 140, 175, 192,) takes an extended view of the subject, and seems to prove that by international law, war, at the present time, gives only actual possession, but not the legal property. 6. All personal property engaged in hostilities, or in intercourse which under the provisions of this Book is illegal.' 1 Article 971 forbids the commission of any hostilities in the territory of a neutral nation. 2 This includes the exercise of sovereignty over it. Triss, Law of Nations, pt. II., 122, § 64. To compel submission, a belligerent may take possession to an extent far beyond what would be a just indemnification, with the design of restoring the surplus by a treaty of peace. Id., pt. II., 122, § 64. The question of title by capture is a distinct one; see Articles 842, 843, and 896. These are cases of ships within the territorial waters at the breaking out of the war, &c. 4 These cases are resisting visitation and search, Article 871; hospital ships, Articles 796 and 797; and contraband, Article 854. Wildman's Intern. Law, vol. 2, p. 11, citing "Answer to Pruss. Mem.," 1 Coll. Jur., 157. 6 By the provisions here referred to, contained in Articles 139, 143, 183, and 184, the dwellings, archives, &c., of diplomatic and consular officers are exempt from the jurisdiction of the nation in which they are situated, with this qualification, that, by Article 109 the exemptions may be withdrawn in the case of an emergency affecting the existence of the nation. The exemption should continue through all ordinary vicissitudes of war. The right to send these officers and their movables out of the country in case of war, is reserved by Article 911. As to illegal hostilities, see Articles 741 and 742; and as to illegal intercourse, see Articles 920 and 921. What the belligerent may appropriate, and for what end. 836. Subject to the provisions of this Book,' all public property, which, according to the last article, can be seized, may be used, absolutely appropriated, or destroyed by the belligerent, so far as may be neces sary for the following purposes: 1. Overcoming the military power of the hostile nation;" 2. Retaking property, the withholding of which was the cause of the war; 3. Satisfaction for any other injury which was the cause of the war; 4. Reasonable security against future injuries; 5. Reimbursement of expenses incurred in pursuit of satisfaction, including the charges of the war, and the reparation of damages; and, 6. Infliction of a loss, appropriate as a punishment for resorting to arms without a plausible pretext,' or for a breach of the provisions of this Book, to the injury of the belligerent. 1 See the next Article, and Articles 893-896, which require judicial condemnation of contraband and of public property taken at sea not on armed ships. A seizure of property for the purpose of applying it to military uses, during the occupation, such as buildings, &c., taken posession of by the military forces, to employ the same for the accommodation of troops, is not necessarily a capture. Case of the Memphis Navy Yard Property, 12 Opinions of U. S. Attorneys-General, 125. * Woolsey's International Law, § 19, p. 34. In the exercise of the right of redress, it may be necessary to strip a wrongdoer of a portion of his territory; or in the exercise of the right of self-protection, and possibly of punishment, it may be lawful to deprive him of the means of doing evil. Id., § 21, p. 37. 3 Twiss, Law of Nations, pt. II., 120, §§ 62, 63; Vattel, Droit des Gens, III., c. 9, § 160. In the case of Miller v. The United States, 11 Wallace's U. S. Supr. Ct. Rep., 268, it was held, that the power of a government to confiscate property exists as fully in case of a civil war as it does when the war is foreign. Rebels in arms against the lawful government, or persons inhabiting the territory exclusively within the control of the rebel belligerents, may be treated as public enemies. So may adherents or aiders and abettors of such belligerents, though not resident within the enemy's territory. Moneys expended for the support of prisoners of war are to be reimbursed in concluding a peace. Halleck, Int. Law and Laws of War, p. 437, § 17. Destroying means of communication. 837. A belligerent, when necessary to prevent the passage of the enemy, or of contraband property, or the carrying on of illegal intercourse, may destroy or impair railways, bridges and other highways of either belligerent, doing as little permanent injury as possible. Destroying facilities of navigation. 838. A belligerent, for the purpose of self-preserva |