Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1863-12-30
IFrom the Boston Daily Advertiser. Dec ls.l (
Are the Rebels "Alien Enemies ?''
---What the United States Su-
Preme Court Decided In the
Prize GAUGES. .1

| sssNvMAt tMe OmlueU SLHtcS Su
Preme Court Decided I'm tn,
Prize Causes
Mr.. William Beach Lawrence, In his eff
forts to sustain the right of secession, Ina!
furnished an article to q foreign journal (tht
Lao Magazine, London, Nov. 1862 In which
he says that the Supreme Court of the
United States, in deciding the Prize causes
last winter" recognized the war as made
by the States in their political capacities
and, as corollary thereto, declared all the
Inhabitants of the seeded States, by reason
of their residence, alien enemies"
This is an entire mistake. The Supreme
Court decided nothing of the kind. It made
no such recognition, followed no such corol-
larry, made no such declaration and arrived
at no such result. tt%-
. This mistake is not confined to Mr. Law
renee and the advocates of the right of Sc
cession. Men Of prominence, advocating
far different doctrines, seem to have regard
ed the prize decisions in the same light.
think, therefore, it is not superfuous task,
on an issue so vital and pressing, to endeav-
or to explain the prize decisions, on that
point, to persons who may not have studied
the principles upon which they rest.
The Supreme Court decided that the estd6-
lished rule Of International aodr respecting SEN
en,yS property" is applicable to such an Internal
contest as zoe are aoao engaged in. That was
the extent of the decision on that point, and
ON that the Court was unanimous.
What is the rule of international war re-
specting encmy's property? It's sufficient
for thespresent purpose to state it thus: If
person is domiciled in enemy's territory,
his, property, found on the high seas, is sub
ject to capture. 1t is immaterial what may
be the civil or political status of that person,
as regards the government of the capturing
Power. He may be an alien enemy. He
may be neutral-peihaps Consul of a
neutral Power. He may be a loyal citizen
of the capturing Power, with an involun-
tary domicil in the enemy's territory
When the Court condemns his property, it
is because of the situation or predicament
of the property, and not because of the
moral animuS or political status of its owner.
1t is called ''enemy's property" but that is
a technical phrase of Prize Law. 1t does
not imply anything as to the legal, political
status OF the owner. One of the earliest
condemnations of "enemy's property in
the war of 1872, was of the property of an
American citizen, who happened to be DOM
iciled in Liverpool for commercial purposes
when the war broke out and the capture
made. A student of international law can
easily suppose cases where the property
even of the President himself, in that war,
might have been condemned as ''enemy's
property" ~ H
1t may be useful, in this connection, to
refer to the reasons upon which this rule
rests. The reasons are that property, in
certain situations, is so placed that the hos
tile power, whom the war is intended to CO.
cree, has an interest in its existence, transit
or arrival, and the capturing power cor
responding interest to deprive the enemy of
that advantage. In this conflict of inter-
ests, the consent of nations authorizes the
strongest to take, the, property, if it is found
at sea. One of the facts which puts prop
erty in this predicamellt is that the owner
of it is himself domciled in the enemy's
territory, and therefore he and his property
are subject to the unlimited power of the
enemy, to his taxation, his eXactions, his
confiscations, forced contributions and use
of all kinds, with or without compensation.
AS the power of the enemy over the prop
erty of the inhabitants Of his territory does
not depend on their political status, and
may even be increased by their being hos
tile to him, so neither does the right of the
belligerent to intercept and take such prop
erty depend on those considerations. 1t is
at the discretion of the political power to
forego the condemnation, if the owner is
known to be loyal subject, having an in
voluntary domicil with the enemy, or to
condemn the property and remunerate the
owner after the war is over, or to make no
remuheration. As judicial question, the
Prize Court can only decide that it is law
fulprize. z .,-r..es. s
The Supreme Court applied this rule to
our present war. They held that the
nf
territory was subject to capture, as ques-
ton of law, it being political question
whether that right Of capture should be en-
forced. 1t was immaterial, in, domestic war
as in foreign war, whether the owner so
domiciled, be rebel citizen or loyal citi-
zen, foreigner aiding the rebellion volun-
tarily or involuntarily, or loyal citizen
having involuntary domicil there. The
Court decided absolutely nothing as to the
legal or political status of the owner in re-
lation to our own Government To guard
against mistake which might arise from
the use Of the term ''enemy's property" the
Court expressly says that "'enemy's proper
ty" is "a technical term peculiar to prize
law" AS Chief Justice Marshall said, it is
ga. hostile character impressed on the
property" from its predicament or situation,
that gives it that name. 9.'' = ne
1t is further necessary to inquire how the
Court treated the question of "enemy's ter
ritory," residence of the owner in which
renders the property at sea liable to capture.
Here, again, they simply applied to our con-
test the admitted rule of International law.
What is that rule? 1t is sufficient for the
present purpose to say that certain kind
and degree OF, possession by the enemy, and
the exercise of de fdcto jurisdiction over a
rooiOr, randarc II foy mo 91,,rnoeae nf ,r1r nnI