Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1861-04-28
what must be expected I'm a state OF
War.

4 war;
| Thu nrospect of bostilities between the
limited States Government and the Confed-
crate States, renders some inquiry into the
law of nations on this subject appropriate
quences, and what the practical bearing, of a
state of war upon the individual rights of
citizens of the two Confederacies having
| dealings with each other, are questions which
| should be clearly understood. As a cOntribu-
| rion from standard authority to the gener-
| quote some extracts from Kezlt's Commentaries.
as found in Lecture 3, on the Law OF Ma
| lions, volume /:
sISTERDrcTTON OF COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE.
One of the immediate and important con-
sequences of the declaration of war is the alb
solute interruption and Introduction of all
commercial correspondence, intercourse and
dealing between the subjects of the two
countries. The idea that any commercial in
tercourse or pacific dealing can lawfully sub
sist between the people of the powers at war,
except under the clear and express sanction
of the Government. and without a special Ii
cense, is utterly inconsistent with the new
classes of duties growing out of state of
war. The Introduction flows, necessarily,
from the principle already stated, that state
of war puts all the members of the two ma
tons respectively in hostility to each other;
and to suffer individuals 10 carry on friend
| ly or commercial intercourse, while the two
Governments were at war, would be placing
| the acts of Government and the acts OF lnd:-
viduals in contradiction to each other. 1t
would counterfeit the operations OF war. and
throw obstacles in the way OF pubic Efforts,
and lead to disorder. imbecility and treason.
| Trading supposes the existence OF civil con-
tracts and relations, and a reference to courts
| of justice; and it is, therefore, necessarily
contradictory in state of war. 1t affords
| aid to an enemy in an effectual manner, by
enabling the merchants of the enemy's coun-
| try to support their Government. and 1t IA
| cilitates the means of conveying intelligence
and carrying on traitorous correspondence
with the enemy. Three considerations apply
| with peculiar force to maritime States, where
| the principal object is to destroy the marine
| and commerce of the enemy in order to force
| them to peace. 1t is well settled doctrine
| in the English courts and with the English
| jurists that there can not exist, at the same
| time, a war for arms and a peace for COM
merce. The war puts an end at once to all
| dealing. aud all communication with each
| other, and places every individual OF the re-
| spective governments, as well as the govern
| ments themselves, in state OF hostility
This is equally the doctrine of all the authori-
| tative writers on the laws OF nations, and oil
the maritime ordinances of all the great
| Powers OF Europe. 1t is equally the receiv-
ed law of this country, and was so decided
frequently by the Congress of the United
States during the Revolutionary War, and
again by the Supreme Court of the United
States during the course of the last war, and
it is difficult to conceive of point OF doc
trine more deeply or extensively rooted in
the general maritime law of Europe, and in
the universal and immemorial usage of the
| whole community of the civilized world.
1T follows, as a necessary consequence OF
the doctrine of the illegality OF all intercourse
or traffic, without express permission, that all
| contracts with the enemy made during war
are utterly void. The insurance of enemy s
property is an illegal contract, because 1t is
| species of trade and intercourse with the
enemy. The drawing of a bill of exchange,
by an alien enemy, on a subject OF the ad-
| verse country, is an illegal and void contract,
/ because it is communication and contract.
| The purchase of bills on the enemy's country,
or the remission and deposit Offunds there, is
dangerous and illegal act, because it may
/ be cherishing the resources and relieving the
| wants of the enemy. The remission of funds,
| in money or bills, to subjects of the enemy is
| unlawful The inhibition reaches to every
I
/ deavOrs TO trade with the enemy, by the in
| teryention of third persons, or by partner
| ships, have equally failed, and no artifce has
| succeeded to legalize the trade without the
| express permission of the the Government.
| Every relaxation of the rule tends to corrupt
| the allegiance of the subject, and prevents
| the war from fulfilling its end. The only ex-
ceptiOu to this strict and rigorous rule of in
| teruatiOnal Jurisprudence is the case of ran
| som bills, and they are contracts of necessity,
| founded on d state Of war, and engendered
| by its violence. 1t is also a further cODse-
quence of the inability of the subjects of the
two States to commune or carry on any cor
respOndence or business together that all
commercial partnerships, existing between
the subjects of the two parties prior to the
war, are dissolved by the mere force and act
! of the war itself: though other contracts,
existing prior to the war, are not eXting1ish-
ed, but the remedy is only suspended, and is
| from the inability of an alien enemy TO sue
or to sustain, in the language of civilians, a
persona staHdi IN judicio- The whole of this
doctrine. respecting the illegality of any
commercial intercourse between the inhabi-
tants of two nations at war, was extensively
reviewed, and the principal authorities, an
cient and modern, foreign and domestic, were
accurately examined, and the positions which
have been laid down established, in the case
of GriswOld vs.. WaddingtOn, decided in the
Supreme Court of this State, and afterward
affirmed on error.