Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1861-08-11
and Friendly intercourse
Interdicted between Nations at

Interdicted between Nations at
War.
We commend the following extracts from
sKENr's COMMENTARIES, volume 1, Lecture 8,
on the Law of Nations. to our readers
One of the immediate aud important con
sequences of the declaration OF war is the abb
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 aud express sanction
of the Government, and without = 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
tions respectively in hostility to each other;
and to suffer individuals 20 carry ON a friend
ly or Commercial intercourse, while the two
Governments were at war, would be placing
the acts of Governments and the acts of indi-
viduals in contradiction to each other. 1t
would counterfeit the operations OF war, and
throw obstacles in the way of public 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. liz affords
aid to an enemy in an effectual manner, by
enabling the merchants of the enemy's cOun-
| try to support their Government, and it 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 exists, at the same
| time, war for arms and peace for COM
merce. The war puts an end at once to all
dealing, and all communication with each
other, and places every individual of the re-
spective governments, as well as the govern
meuts themselves, in a state Of hostility.
Thisis equally the doctrine of all the authori-
tative writers on the laws of nations, and of
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, necessary consequence OF
the doctrine of the illegality of all inter
course or traffic, without express permission,
that all contracts with the enemy made dur
ing war are utterly void The insurance of
eDemy's property is an illegal contract, be-
cause it is species of trade and intercourse
with the enemy. The drawing OF bill o. ex-
change by an alien enemy, on subject of the
adverse country, is an illegal and void con-
tract. The purchase of bills on the enemy's
country, or the remission and deposit of
funds there, is a dangerous and illegal act,
because it may beScherishing the resources
and relieving the wants OF the enemy. The
remission OF funds, in money or bills, to sub
jects of the enemy is unlawful. The inhibition
reaches to every communication, direct crcous.
All endeavors to trade with the enemy, by
the Intervention of third persons. or by part
nerships, have equally failed, and no artifice
has succeeded to legalize the trade without
the express permission of the Government.
Every relaxation of the rule tends to corrupt
the allegiance of the subject, and prevents
the war frem fulfilling its end. The only ex-
ception to this strict and rigorous rule of in
ternational Jurisprudence is the case of ran
som bills, and they are contracts of necessity,
founded on state of war, and engendered
by its violence. 1t is also a further conse-
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, ex-
| listing prior to the war, are not extinguished,
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, persona
standi IN jtldicio. The whole of this doctrine,
| respecting the illegality of any commercial
| intercourse between the Inhabitants of two
| nations at war, was extensively reviewed,
| and the principal authorities, ancient and
modern, foreign and domestic, were accurate
| ly examined, and the positions which have
! been laid down established, in the Case of
| Griswold VS.. Washington, decided in the Su-
preme Court of this State, and afterward al
| irmed on error.