Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:20:12.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Treatment of Enemy Private Property in the United States before the World War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Edgar Turlington
Edgar Turlington*
Affiliation:
United States Agency, United States-Mexican Claims Commission
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

According to the theory accepted by the American and English courts, and by nearly all the American and English writers on international law, war between nations is war between their individual citizens. It makes of the citizens or subjects of one belligerent, enemies of the citizens or subjects of the other. The whole nation is embarked in one common bottom and must be reconciled to submit to one common fate. The government at war is the representative of the will of all the people and acts for the whole society. According to the rival theory, which, though first put forward by Rousseau merely as a philosophical principle, has been accepted by a large number of Continental jurists as a fundamental principle of international law, war is a relation between states in which individuals are enemies only accidentally, not as men nor even as citizens, but simply as soldiers. Under the Anglo-American theory, the private property of the nationals of each belligerent, on land or sea, is in principle subject to capture and confiscation by the other belligerent.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , April 1928 , pp. 270 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1928

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Sutherland v. Mayer, 70 L. Ed. 574 (1925).

2 Herrera v. United States, 222 U. S. 558 (1911).

3 The Rapid, 8 Cranch, 155 (1814).

4 Kent, Commentaries, Abdy's ed., p. 174.

5 Rousseau, Du Contrat Social, I, c. 4; Cobbett Pitt, Leading Cases on International Law, 3d ed., 2, p. 16.

6 Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cranch, 620 (1813); Miller v. United States, 11 Wall. 268 (1871);Herrera v. United States, 222 U. S. 558 (1911).

7 Pitt Cobbett, op. cil., p. 16; Hall, International Law, p. 64 et seq.; Holland, War on Land, p. 12.

8 Latifi, Effects of War on Property, p. 49.270

9 3 Secret Journals of Congress, 6,18, 27.

10 EX Journals 971; cited by J. Reuben Clark, Emergency Legislation, p. 212.

11 1 American State Papers, 201-237.

12 32 Congressional Globe, 1715.

13 3 Secret Journals of Congress, 206.

14 3 Dali. 199 (1796).

15 3 Secret Journals, 484.

16 4 Secret Journals, 208.

17 Annals of Congress, Vol. 4, 3d Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 535-556.

18 2 American State Papers, 171

19 8 Cranch, 110.

20 Cf. Wheaton, Dana's ed., p. 389.

21 28 Federal Cases, No. 17039.

22 31 Congressional Globe, 414

23 32 Congressional Globe, 2191

24 11 Wall. 268, 20 L. Ed. 135.

25 William E. Barton, The Life of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 2, p. 245

26 McPherson, Political History of the United States during the Great Rebellion (4th ed.), p. 198.Google Scholar

27 Herrera v. United States, 222 U. S. 558 (l91l).