Year: 1861

The near prospect Of hostilities between
the Abolition Government and the Confede
rate States, renders some inquiry into the
law of nations, on this subject, appropriate
and interesting. What are the legal con
sequences, and what the practical bearing
of state of war upon the individual rights
of citizens of the two Confederaces having
dealings with each other, are question:
which should be clearly understood. As {
contribution from a standard authority tt
the general stock of knowledge on the sub
ject, we quote, somewhat at length, some
extracts from Kent's Commentaries.


We quote, first, from Lecture Sd, on tht
Law of Nations, VOL L:


INTRODUCTION OF COMMERCIAL INTER


COURSE.


"One of the immediate and importan
consequences of the declaration of war, il
the absolute interruption and Introduction
IF all commercial correspondence, inter
course, and dealing between the subjects O
the two countries. The idea that any com
mercial intercourse or pacific dealing car
lawfully exist between the people of the
powers at war, except under the clear anc
express sanction of the Government, ano
without a special license, is utterly iucon
sistent with the new class of duties grow
ing out of state of war. The Introduction
flows, necessarily, from the principle al
ready stated, that state of war puts al
the members of the two nations respective
ly in hostility to each other; and to suffer
individuals to carry on friendly or com
mercial intercourse, while the TWO Govern
ments were at war, would be placing the
act Of Government and the acts of individ
uals in. contradiction to each other. Il
would counteract the operations of war, and
throw obstacles in the way of the public
efforts, and lead to disorder, imbecility aud
treason. Trading supposes the existence
of civil contracts and relations, and ref
erence to courts of justice and it is, there
fore, necessarily contradictory to state u
war. 1t affords aid to the enemy in an eff
fectual manner, by enabling the merchants
of the enemy's country to support their
Government, and it facilitates the means Of
conveying intelligence and carrying on a
traitorous correspondence with the enemy
These considerations apply with peculiar
force to maritime States, where the princi
pal object is to destroy the marine and com.
merce of the enemy in order to force them
to peace. 1t is we'll settled doctrine in
the English courts, and with the English
jurists, that there cannot exist, 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
respective Governments, as we'll as the
Government themselves, in state of hos
tility. This is equally the doctrine of all
the authoritative writer's on the law of ma,
tions, and of the maritime ordinances Of
all the great powers of Europe. 1t is
equally the received law of this country,
and was so decided frequently by tie Con.
gress of the United States during the Rev.
olutionary 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 doctrine more deeply
or extensively rooted in the general mari
time law of Europe, and of the universal
and immemorial usage of the whole COM
munity of the civilized world.


cit follows, as necessary consequence
of the doctrine of the illegality of all inter-
course or traffic, without express permission,
that all contracts with the enemy, made
during the war, are utterly void. The in,
surance Of enemys 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,
on a subject of the adverse country, is an
illegal and void contract, because it is a
communication and contract The pur-
chase of bills on the enemy's country, or
the remission and deposit of funds there,
is a dangerous and illegal act, because it
may be cherishing the resources and reliev-