acts, it is usual to provide in the treaty itself the periods at which hostilities are to cease in different places. Grotius intimates an opinion that individuals are not responsible, even civiliter, for hostilities thus continued after the conclusion of peace, so long as they are ignorant of the fact, although it is the duty of the state to make restitution wherever the property has not been actually lost or destroyed. But the better opinion seems to be that wherever a capture takes place at sea, after the signature of the treaty of peace, mere ignorance of the fact will not protect the captor from civil responsibility in damages; and that, if he acted in good faith, his own government must protect him and save him harmless. When a place or country is exempted from hostility by articles of peace, it is the duty of the state to give its subjects timely notice of the fact; and it is bound in justice to indemnify its officers and subjects, who act in ignorance of the fact. In such a case it is the actual wrong-doer who is made responsible to the injured party, and not the superior commanding officer of the fleet, unless he be on the spot, and actually participating in the transaction. Nor will damages be decreed by the prize court, even against the actual wrong-doer, after the lapse of a great length of time."

When the treaty of peace contains an express stipulation that hostilities are to cease in a given place at a certain time, and a capture is made previous to the expiration of the period limited, but with a knowledge of the peace on the part of the captor, the capture is still invalid: for since constructive knowledge of the peace, after the periods limited in the dif ferent parts of the world, renders the capture void, much more ought actual knowledge of the peace to produce that effect. It may, however, be questionable whether any thing short of an official notification from his own government would be sufficient in such a case to affect the captor with the legal consequences of actual knowledge. And where a capture was made by an American cruiser of a British vessel,

7 Robinson's Adm. Rep. vol. i. p. 121. The Mentor,

before the period fixed for the cessation of hostilities by the treaty of Ghent in 1814, and in ignorance of the fact,—but the prize had not been carried infra præsidia and condemned, and while at sea was recaptured by a British ship of war after the period fixed for the cessation of hostilities, but without knowledge of the peace,-it was judicially determined that the possession of the vessel by the American cruiser was a lawful possession, and that the British recaptor could not after the peace lawfully use force to devest this lawful possession. The restoration of peace put an end from the time limited to all force; and then the general principle applied, that things acquired in war remain, as to title and possession, precisely as they stood when the peace took place. The uti possidetis is the basis of every treaty of peace, unless the contrary be expressly stipulated. Peace gives a final and perfect title to captures without condemnation, and as it forbids all force, it destroys all hope of recovery as much as if the captured vessel was carried infra præsidia and judicially condemned.

8

§ 6, In what condition

taken are

Things stipulated to be restored by the treaty are to be restored in the condition in which they were first taken, unless there be an express provision to the contrary; but this things does not refer to alterations which have been the natural to be re effect of time, or of the operations of war. A fortress or town stored, is to be restored as it was when taken, so far as it still remains in that condition when the peace is concluded. There is no obligation to repair, as well as restore a dismantled fortress, or a ravaged territory. The peace extinguishes all claim for damages done in war, or arising from the operations of war. Things are to be restored in the condition in which the peace found them; and to dismantle a fortification or waste a country after the conclusion of peace, and previously to the surrender, would be an act of perfidy. If the con

8 Valin, Traité des Prises, ch. iv. §§ 4, 5. Emérigon, Traité d'Assurance, ch. 12, § 19. Merlin, Répértoire de Jurisprudence, tom. ix. tit. Prise Maritime, § 5. Kent's Comment. vol. i. p. 173,

§7.

the treaty.

queror has repaired the fortifications, and re-established the place in the state it was in before the siege, he is bound to restore it in the same condition. But if he has constructed new works, he may demolish them: and, in general in order to avoid disputes, it is advisable to stipulate in the treaty precisely in what condition the places occupied by the enemy are to restored.9

The violation of any one article of the treaty is a violation Breach of of the whole treaty; for all the articles are dependent on each other, and one is to be deemed a condition of the other. A violation of any single article abrogates the whole treaty, if the injured party elects so to consider it. This may, however, be prevented by an express stipulation, that if one article be broken, the others shall nevertheless continue in full force. If the treaty is violated by one of the contracting parties, either by proceedings incompatible with its general spirit, or by a specific breach of any one of its articles, it becomes not absolutely void, but voidable at the election of the injured party. If he prefers not to come to a rupture, the treaty remains valid and obligatory. He may waive or remit the infraction committed, or he may demand a just satisfaction.10

§ 8.

its breach,

how adjusted.

Treaties of peace are to be interpreted by the same rules Disputes with other treaties. Disputes respecting their meaning or respecting alleged infraction may be adjusted by amicable negotiation between the contracting parties, by the mediation of friendly powers, or by reference to the arbitration of some one power selected by the parties. This latter office has recently been assumed, in several instances, by the five great powers of Europe, with the view of preventing the disturbance of the general peace by a partial infraction of the territorial arrangements stipulated by the treaties of Vienna, in conseVattel, Droit des Gens, liv. iv. ch. 3, § 31.

10 Grotius, de Jur. Bel. ac Pac. lib. ii. cap. 15, § 15; lib. iii. cap. 19, § 14. Vattel, liv. iv. ch. 4, §§ 47, 48, 54.

quence of the internal revolutions which have taken place in some of the states constituted by those treaties. Such are the protocols of the conference of London, by which a suspension of hostilities between Holland and Belgium has been enforced, and terms of separation between the two countries proposed, which, when accepted by both, are to form the basis of a permanent peace. The objections to this species of interference, and the difficulty of reconciling it with the independence of the smaller powers, are obvious; but it is clearly distinguishable from that general right of superintendence over the internal affairs of other states, asserted by the powers who were the original parties to the Holy Alliance, for the purpose of preventing changes in their municipal constitutions not proceeding from the voluntary concession of the reigning sovereign, or supposed in their consequences, immediate or remote, to threaten the social order of Europe. The proceedings of the conference treat the revolution, by which the union between Holland and Belgium established by the congress of Vienna, had been dissolved, as an irrevocable event, and confirm the independence, neutrality, and state of territorial possessions of Belgium, upon the conditions contained in the treaty of the 15th November, 1831, between the five powers and that kingdom, subject to such modifications as may ultimately be the result of direct negotiations between the North Netherlands and Belgium.

THE END.