The Laws of War, Affecting Commerce and Shipping | Page 5

confiscation of certain property, and the
dissolution of certain contracts, it is very necessary that such a date
should be accurately known. When a Manifesto or Declaration is issued,
it is said to legalize hostilities, that is to say,--to make all acts done, and
all breaches committed, under pressure of war, good and lawful acts
and breaches.
I have given this explanation, because it is a popular notion that a
declaration always precedes war; but in reality, in modern times, few
wars are solemnly declared;--they begin most often with general
hostilities; thus the first Dutch War began upon general Letters of
Marque, and the War with Spain, that commenced by the attempted
invasion of the Armada in 1588, was not declared or proclaimed
between the two crowns.[6]
[Sidenote: Contents of Declaration.]
The Manifesto not only announces the commencement Contents of and
existence of hostilities, but also states the reasons of, and attempts the
justification of the war; and it is necessary for the instruction and
direction of the subjects of the belligerent state, with respect to their
intercourse with the foe; it also apprizes neutral nations of the fact, and
enables them to conform their conduct to the rights belonging to the
new state of things.[7]
Without such an official act, it might be difficult to distinguish, in a
Treaty of Peace, those acts which are to be accounted lawful effects of
war, from those which either nation may consider as naked wrongs, and
for which they may, under certain circumstances, claim reparation.
When war is duly declared, it is not merely a war between one

government and another, but between nation and nation, between every
individual of the one state with each and every individual of the other.
The subjects of one country are all, and every one of them, the foes of
every subject of the other, and from this principle flow many important
consequences.[8]
[Sidenote: Property of Subjects of Belligerent States in the Enemy's
Country.]
On the commencement of hostilities a natural expectation will arise that
the Property, (if not the Persons) of the Belligerent State, found in the
Enemy's Territory, will become liable to seizure and confiscation,
especially as no declaration or notice of war is now necessary to
legalize hostilities. According to strict authority, the Persons and
Property of Subjects of the Enemy found in the belligerent state are
liable to detention and confiscation; but even on this point diversity of
opinion has arisen among institutional writers; and modern usage
seems to exempt the Persons and Property of the Enemy found in either
territory at the outbreak of the war, from its operations.
Without entering on the long arguments that have been produced on
this subject, and which it is not the intention of this treatise to
reproduce, the rule may be stated very nearly as follows.[9]
That though, on principle, the property of the enemy is liable to seizure
and confiscation, yet it is now an established international usage that
such property found within the territory of the belligerent state, or debts
due to its subjects by the government or individuals, at the
commencement of hostilities, are not liable to be seized and confiscated
as prize of war.
This rule is often enforced by treaty, but unless thus enforced it cannot
be considered as an inflexible, though established, rule. This rule is a
guide which the Sovran of the belligerent state follows or abandons at
will, and although it cannot be disregarded by him without obloquy, yet
it may be disregarded. It is not an immutable rule, but depends on
considerations which continually vary.[10]
[Sidenote: Rule with respect to Immoveable Property.]
The rule is different with respect to Immoveable Things, such as
Landed Estates. He who declares war does not confiscate the
Immoveable Estate possessed in his country by the enemy, but the
Income may be sequestrated, to prevent its being remitted to the

enemy.[11]
[Sidenote: Public Funds.]
Public Funds, or in other words, debts due from the Sovran of the
hostile state to Private Persons, are always held protected from
confiscation, and there is only one instance in modern times where this
rule has been broken. It is a matter of public faith; and even during war,
no enquiry ought to be made whether any part of the public debt is due
to the subjects of the enemy.[12]
[Sidenote: Rule of Reciprocity.]
All these rules are, however, subject to the Rule of Reciprocity. This is
thus laid down by Sir William Scott, in the case of the Santa Cruz,
"that at the commencement of a war, it is the constant practice of this
country to condemn property seized before the war, if the enemy
condemns, and to restore if the enemy restores. It is a principle
sanctioned by that great foundation of the Law of