The Placer herald., 1861-06-15
The Laws of War among Nations.

TWO COnIeueTacleS having uedllUSS WitH ed'il
other, are questions which should be clearly
understood. AS contribution from stan
dard authority to the general stock of knowl'
edge on the subject, we quote some extracts
from kent's Commentaries. as found IN Lee
ture third of the Law of Nations, vol. |:
Lnterdiction of Commercial Htercourse.-
One of the immediate and important conse-
quences of the declaration of war is the alb
soute interruption and interdiction of all
commercial correspondence, intercourse and
dealing between the subjects of the two
countries. The idea that any commercial
intercourse or pacific dealing can lawfully
subsist between the people of the powers at
war, except under the clear and express sane
ton Of the Government, and without a
special license, is utterly inconsistent with the
new class of duties growing out of a state
of war. The interdction flows, necessarily,
from the principle already stated, that a
state of war puts all the memIers Of the
two nations respectively in hostility to each
other and to suffer individuals to carry on
a friendly or commercial intercourse, while
the two Governments were at war would be
placing the acts of Governments and the
acts of individuals in contradiction to each
other 1t would counteiact the operations
of war, and throw obstacles in the way of
the public efforts, and lead to disorder i'm.
becily and treason.
1t follows as u necessary consequence of
the doctrine of the illeUa ty of all inter
course or trafli., without express permission,
that all contracts with the enemy made dur
INC the war are utterly void The insur-
ance of an enemy's property is an illegal
contract, because it is species of trade and
intercourse with the enemy. The drawing
of bill Of exchange, by an alien enemy,
or a subject Of the adverse country, is an
Illegal and void contract because it is a
communication and contract. The purchase
of bills on the encmy's country, or the re
mission and deposit If funds there, is a
dangerous aud Illegal act, because it may be
cherishng the resources and relieving the
waits of the enemy The remission Of
funds, in money or bills to subjects Of the
enemy is unlawful. The inhibition reaches
to every comnunc ton, direct or clrcuitons
a il endeavors to trade with the enemy, 10y
the intervention of third person, or by
partnerships have equally failed, and no ar
t.fice has Succeeded to legaze the trade
without the express permission of the Gov
ernment.
Trading supposes the existence Of civil
contracts and relations, an! a reference to
coults Of justice; and it is, therefore, neces
sarily contradictory in a state of war; 1t
affords aid to an enemy in AN etfectual man
ner by enabling the merchants of the enc
my's country to support their government,
and it facilitates the means o conveying in
lelligence and carrying on a tratoiouS cor
respondence with the enemy. These consid
erations apply with peculiar force to mari
time States, where the pr ncipal object is to
destroy the marine and commerce of the
enemy, il order to force them to peace. 1t
is well settled doctrine in the English
uriss, that there cannot exist, at one and
the same time, a war of arms and a peace
for commerce.
The war puts an end at once to all deal.
ING and communication with each other
and places every individual Of the respective
Governments, As well as the Governments
themselves, in state of hostility. This is
equally the doctrine of all the authoritative
writers on the law of nations, and Of the
maritime ordinances of all the great pow
ers Of Europe. 1t is equally the received
law of this country, and was so decided
frequently 10y the Congress Of the United
States during the Revolutionary War, and
again by the Supreme Court Of the Uni
and it is difficult to conceive of a point of
doctrine more deeply or ex ensively rooted
in the general maritime law Of Europe, aud
in the universal and immemorial usages of
the who's community of the civilized world
Every relaxation Of the rule tends to cor
rupt the allegiance Of the subject, and pre-
vents the war tr, IN fulfilling its end. The
only exception to this strict and rigorous
rule of international Jurisprudence in the
case of ransom bills, and they are contracts
of necessity, founded on a state of war, and
engendered by its violence 1t is also fur
ther consequence of the inability of the
subjects of the two States to commune or
carry on any correspondence or business to-
gether that all commercial partnerships, ex-
isting between the subjects of the two par
ties prior to the war, are dissolved 10y the
mere force and act Of the war itself, though
other contracts, existing prior to the war,
are not exlinguished, but the remedy is only
suspended, and is from the inability of an
alien enemy to sue or to sustain, in the Ian
guage of the civilians, persona standi IN
judicio.
The whole Of this doctrine respecting the
illega'iy Of any commercial intercourse be
tween the Inhabitants of the two nations AT
war, was extensively reviewed, and the prin'
cpal authorities, ancient and modem, for
eign and domestic, were accurately examined,
and the ositons which have been laid down
established in the case Of Griswold vs.. Wad
dington, decided in the Supreme Court Of