Delaware State journal and statesman., 1861-05-03

The prospect Of hOstitie1 between the United
States Government and the confederate States
renders some inquiry into the law of nations on
this subject appropriate and interesting. What
arc the legal consequences, and what the pian-
teal bearing Of u state of war upon the indivi-
dual rights vi citizens of the two Coulederncies
having dealing with each other, ore questions
which should be clearly understood. As Il con
tribution from standard authority To the
general stock of knowledge on the subject, we
quote some extracts from Kents Commentaries,
rs found in Lecture 81, on the Law of Nations,
VOL
iNrERnicTioN OF COMMERCIAL IELIRcouRsH.
One of the immediate and important eonse-
quences of the decarntion of war is the absolute
interruption and introduction of all commercial
correspondence, intercourse, and dealing he
tween the subjects of the two countries. The
idea that any commercial intercourse or pacific
dealing can lawfully subsist between the people
of the Powers Mt war, except under the clear and
express sanction of tile Government and without
special license, is utterly Inconsistent with the
new class of duties growing out of q state of war.
The Introduction flows necessarily, fram the prin-
ciple already stated, that state Of war puts nil
the members of the two nations respectively in
hostility to each other and to suffer individuals
to carry on friendly or commercial intercourse,
while the two Governments were at war, would
be placing the acts Of individuals 10 cOntradc-
ton of each other. 1t would cOunteract the
operations OF war, and throw obstacles in tho
way of public effort, and lead to disorder, i'm
becility, aud treason.
Trading supposes the existence of civil con-
tracts and relations, aud II reference to courts Of
| Justice aud it is therefore, necessarily CON
Trajectory in state Of war. 1t affords aid to
an enemy in Hn eitectual manner, by enabling
tue merchants of an enemy country To support
their Government, aud it facilitates the means
of conveying intelligence and carrying on u
| traitorous correspondence with the enemy
| These considerations apply with peculiar force
| to the maritime States, where the principle OBJ
ject is to destroy the marine and commerce OF
| the enemy in order to force them 10 peace. 1t
il well settled doctrine in the English Courts
and with the English jurists that there cannot
| exist ut the same time, war of arms and a
| prace for commerce. The war puts an end at
once to all dealings and all communications with
each other, and places every individual OF the
respective Governments, us well as the Govern
ments themselves, in state Of hostility, This
| is equally the doctrine of all the authoritative
writer's on the law of nations, and OF the mari
time ordinances of all the great Powers Of Europe
1t Is equally the received law Of this country,
and was SO decided frequently by the Congress
of tho United States during the Revolutionary
War, and again by the Supreme Court Of the
United States during the course of the last war !;
| Jnr,r;na mara decniv or pxtcnsivlev rooted in
| liz General mnratimc lnw of Eurone and in the
,,,iysrsoi and immemnrinl usage If tbe whole
co,nmun;tv Of Tho rivilized world
II fnllnSs as "A necessary consequences of the
doctrine of the Illegally of all intercourse or
| traffic, without express permission, that oil com
tracts with the enemy during the war are utter
| il, vail The insurance of fine enemy's pronetty is
an illegal contract beeause il ia n species of
s.ai, sn1 iutarconrsa viii tho anemv The
'in,s;n,, If a XII nfnvchangs hv an niien enemy.
ut""ls ~, - H. a. ~, ,laaoi
oli b" ". Wv . ~ -
anu 'u'i uun'"N ~ "'etu1 ~ - "
anu oon'iau' LUZ pui su"ss "a p'..9 "" ~,
enemy evun'9, VI W, M MI Vs.,
OF iunu7 thute, 10 "n" ~
because II in"y ue ulS'.snis .i.o 'esuwre's "n,
renewing 'lo Mai''s u wv Iii, ni,. -
s,ou VI iun!a' ~" Sr,. J',olo.
ia every communication. direct or circuitous
An endeavors to trade with the enemy by tht
intervention of third persons, or by partner
chips, have equally failed, and no artifce ha
succeeded to legaliae the trade without the ex
press permission Of the Government.
Every relaxation of the rule tends to corrup
the allegiance OF the subject, and prevents tn
, war from fulfilling its end. The only exception
; to this strict aud rigorous rule of internatona
I jurisprudence is the case of ransom bills, an
they are contracts of necessity, founded on
state Of war, and engendered by its violence.
is also further consequence of the inability O
the subjects of the two States to commune O
carry on correspondence or business togethe
s that all commercial partnerships, existing bt