"It is conceded that the fund seized was intended to be used for promoting the insurrection and that the insurgents sought to utilize the bank as a means of transfer for said funds.

"Under the laws and usages of war the United States may lawfully seize and retain such funds, and to that end may compel the person having such funds in his possession to pay over the same to the military authorities.

"The most favorable view of the conduct of the bank in attempting to perform the service rendered the insurgents herein, is to consider the obligation assumed by the bank as creating an indebtedness to the persons associated in the insurrection and the draft as an evidence thereof. Such indebtedness may properly be collected by the United States as a military measure calculated to weaken the insurrection.

"The real question involved appears to be as to the legality of said enforced collection, when the United States was not in possession of the written evidence of the indebtedness and therefore unable to surrender said writing to the debtor. Upon authority of the determination made of such question in the instance of the debts due the elector of Hesse-Cassel and collected by Napoleon, it may confidently be asserted that the action of the United States was lawful.

"The elector of Hesse-Cassel was accustomed to sell the valor of his soldiers (Hessians) to other sovereigns. The money he received therefor he loaned to his subjects and to citizens of other German States on notes secured by real estate mortgages, payable to himself. After the battle of Jena he was forced to leave his principality, and on doing so carried away these notes and mortgages and thereafter retained possession of them. He entered the military service of Prussia, then at war with Napoleon. HesseCassel was governed by the laws of military occupation until it was incorporated into the kingdom of Westphalia, over which

eral commanding the insurgent troops of southern Luzon. Legaspi succeeded him as insurgent treasurer.

"The original draft is now in this city and will not be further negotiated. The party holding it has been informed that if he attempts to collect it or lets it pass out of his possession his house and lands will be confiscated to the United States, and he is thoroughly aware of this fact. The draft has already passed through the hands of several influential Filipinos, and it required some time to locate it."

Napoleon made his brother Jerome king, and remained a part of that kingdom until 1813. During this period the Bonapartes, both Napoleon and Jerome, collected the amounts due on said notes and mortgages made payable to the elector, and carried away by him. This seizure was justified upon the ground that the property was that of a person remaining in arms against the legitimate sovereign of the State. The Bonapartes had no difficulty in collecting such of these debts as were due from their subjects; but where the debtors resided in other States force could not be resorted to. To induce voluntary payment a portion of the debt was remitted. Upon the elector being again installed as ruler over Hesse-Cassel, he attempted to compel a second payment of the debts so paid to the Bonapartes. The question was, Whether debts owing to the elector were validly discharged by a payment to Napoleon and receiving from him a quittance in full? question was finally determined in the affirmative." 1

This

(A condensed statement of facts, with extract from the report, as given in Magoon's Law of Civil Government under Military Occupation [Washington, 1903], pp. 261–63.)

THE DEVASTATION OF EAST PRUSSIA (1915)

"THE whole world knows that in consequence of the Russian barbarous manner of waging war, previously flourishing districts of East Prussia now present a picture of hopeless devastation; that entire villages have been burned down and laid waste; that the peaceful inhabitants have been compelled to flee in order to escape being robbed and murdered, leaving behind them all their belongings. According to official investigations thousands of men, women and children were dragged away, other thousands mur

1 The report cites the following authorities:

...

"They rejected the doctrine that because the prince had retained possession of the instruments containing the written acknowledgments of the debtors he therefore had constructive possession of the debts." (Phillimore, Int. Law, vol. II, p. 841.) "They rejected the consideration of the justice or injustice of the war, nor did they attach any importance to the fact that the prince had carried away with him and retained possession of the instruments containing the written acknowledgment of the debtor." (Halleck, Int. Law [3d ed.], chap. 34, sec. 29; see also Hall, Int. Law [4th ed.], p. 588; Snow, Cases in International Law, p. 381.)

dered, about 200,000 buildings were destroyed or burned during the first and second Russian invasion of East Prussia. During the second invasion alone 80,000 dwellings were plundered and desolated."

(Extract from English translation of the Memorial on Atrocities committed by Russian Troops upon German Inhabitants and German Prisoners of War, issued by the German Government at Berlin, March 25, 1915.)

§ 10. OCCUPATION

(a) The nature of occupation

UNITED STATES v. RICE

The Supreme Court of the United States, 1819

DURING the latter part of the War of 1812, British forces occupied the port of Castine, in Maine, and remained in possession until the treaty of peace was ratified in February, 1815. The administration of the territory occupied passed to the military authorities and duties on imports were paid to a collector of customs appointed by the British Government. Under this régime certain goods were imported by a firm of American citizens doing business at Castine and duties paid upon them. On April 15, after the restoration of the port to the United States, the goods were purchased by the defendant, Rice, who was immediately called upon to pay or to secure to the United States the same duties "as though they had been imported into the said United States from a foreign port or place . . . in a ship or vessel not of the United States." The defendant pleaded previous payment by the importers to the regularly constituted authorities of the port at the time.

The Court held, in part, as follows, Judge Story delivering the opinion:

"Under these circumstances, we are of opinion, that the claim for duties cannot be sustained. By the conquest and military occupation of Castine, the enemy acquired that firm possession which enabled him to exercise the fullest rights of sovereignty over

that place. The sovereignty of the United States over the territory was, of course, suspended and the laws of the United States could no longer be rightfully enforced there, or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remained and submitted to the conquerors. By the surrender the inhabitants passed under a temporary allegiance to the British Government and were bound by such laws, and such only, as it chose to recognize and impose. From the nature of the case, no other laws could be obligatory upon them; for where there is no protection, or allegiance, or sovereignty, there can be no claim to obedience. Castine was, therefore, during this period, so far as respected our revenue laws, to be deemed a foreign port; and goods imported into it by the inhabitants, were subject to such duties only as the British Government chose to require. Such goods were, in no correct sense, imported into the United States. The subsequent evacuation by the enemy, and resumption of authority by the United States, did not, and could not, change the character of the previous transactions. The doctrines respecting the jus postliminii are wholly inapplicable to the case. The goods were liable to American duties, when imported, or not at all. That they are [were not] so liable at the time of importation, is clear from what has been already stated; and when, upon the return of peace, the jurisdiction of the United States was reassumed, they were in the same predicament as they would have been if Castine had been a foreign territory ceded by treaty to the United States, and the goods had been previously imported there. In the latter case, there would be no pretence to say that American duties could be demanded; and upon principles of public or municipal law, the cases are not distinguishable. The authorities cited at the bar would, if there were any doubt, be decisive of the question. But we think it too clear to require any aid from authority."

(Wheaton: United States Reports, vol. IV, pp. 246-55.)

THE EXEQUATURS OF CONSULS IN BELGIUM (1914)

AFTER the greater part of Belgium had been occupied, the German Government, in a note of November 30, 1914, stated its opinion that the exequaturs of the consuls formerly permitted to act

in the districts occupied had expired. Not considering it advisable to issue formal exequaturs, the German Government proposed to grant the consuls whose names should be communicated to the Foreign Office a "temporary recognition to enable them to act in their official capacity, . . ." Exception was made of those districts where military operations were still in course.

The Belgian Government made the following protest against this action:

[Enclosure 2 Translation]

Note Verbale

Germany claimed, in her communication of December 5, that the occupant of an invaded country had the right to regard as "annulled" all exequaturs previously issued to Consuls in office by the lawful power of that country.

The claim is untenable.

By reason of the character of the occupant's power which flows from mere possession and is in no wise final, Article 43 of the Fourth Convention of The Hague sanctions, in principle, the continuance of civil and administrative laws and, consequently, of existing conditions.

It is idle for Germany to invoke, in her note of January 3, military and administrative considerations. These both may justify the withdrawal of the exequatur of a consul who should indulge in hostile acts or behave in a manner inconsistent with the duties of his office. But they cannot warrant either a general right of cancellation as claimed by Germany nor her assuming to upset the whole Consular organization to reduce the number of consuls to three for each nation and to bar from consulates, on the sole ground that they are Belgians, men who have committed no act antagonistic to military interests and honestly acknowledged the occupant's rights as defined by the Hague Convention.

The German proposition, if accepted, would carry the consequence of throwing into a state of disastrous uncertainty the Consulates established in parts that are occupied one day and retaken the next.

The German Government, in a note of January 3, 1915, answered as follows: