The Immediate Effects of War.

For some months the state of war that has been impending between Russia, and the Allied Powers, England, France, and Turkey, has now become actual; and though there have been many acts of preparation and precaution on the part of England and France, we have not been, up to the present crisis, engaged in what is termed by international writers, Public and Solemn War; such a position of affairs has at last arrived.

The War then, that England has entered into, is of the most Public and Solemn kind. Public War is divided into Perfect and Imperfect. The former is more usually called Solemn. Grotius defines Public or Solemn War to be such Public War as is declared or proclaimed.

Imperfect Wars between nations, that is such wars as nations carry on one against the other, without declaring or proclaiming them, though they are Public Wars, are seldom called wars at all; they are more usually known by the name of reprisals, or acts of hostility. It has often been important to determine, on the re-settlement of peace, what time war commenced, and when reprisals ceased.

According to the Law of Nations, two things are required for a Solemn War; first, it must be a Public War; that is, the contending parties must be two nations, or two parties of allied nations, contending by force under the direction of a supreme executive; and secondly, it must be proclaimed, notified, or declared. And probably it must be general in its character, and not simply local or defensive. Presuming that the coming contest will be of the widest character, I shall proceed to examine its legal effects on Commerce, on that supposition.

Declarations have existed from the most ancient times, having been borrowed by modern nations from the manners and customs of the Romans. But in present times, (although they may be very properly put forward,) they are not necessary to a state of actual war, or as it is technically termed, to legalize hostilities. A Declaration of War is not a matter of international right. Acts of hostilities, without such an instrument, cannot be denounced as irregular or piratical, unless committed in manifest bad faith. But though war may lawfully commence without an actual declaration, yet a declaration is of sufficient force to create a state of war, without any mutual attack. It is not a mere challenge from one country to another, to be accepted or refused at pleasure by the other. It proves the existence of actual hostilities on one side at least, and puts the other party also in a state of war, though, he may, perhaps, think proper to act on the defensive only.

War now generally commences by Actual Hostilities, by the Recal or Dismissal of an Ambassador or Minister, or by a Manifesto published by one belligerent power to its own subjects.

Manifestoes are issued to fix the date of the commencement of hostilities; for as a state of war has many various effects on commercial transactions, such as the 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 England, Magna Charta itself, which prescribes, that at the commencement of a war the enemy’s merchants shall be kept and treated as our own merchants are treated in their country."

This species of reprisal is termed a Hostile Embargo. It cannot well be distinguished from the practice of seizing property found within the territory upon the declaration of war. It is undoubtedly against the spirit of modern liberality, and has been but too justly reprobated as destroying that protection to property which the rule of faith and justice gives it, when brought into the country in the course of trade, and in the confidence of peace.

It is not, however, as Wheaton states, peculiar to England, but common to modern Europe, except that England does not, in practice, appear to be influenced by the corresponding conduct of the enemy in that respect.

But with relation to Debts Due to an Enemy, previous to hostilities, English law follows a wiser principle.

On the outbreak of war between Denmark and this country in 1807, the Danish Government, as a measure of retaliation for the seizure of their ships in our ports, issued an ordinance sequestrating all debts due from Danish to British subjects, causing them to be paid into the Danish Royal Treasury.

The Court of King’s Bench decided that this was not a legal defence to a suit in England for the debt, and that the ordinance was not conformable to the Law to Nations. It was observed by the Court, that the right of confiscating debts (contended for on the authority of Vattel,) was not recognised by Grotius, and was impugned by Puffendorf and others; and that no instance had occurred of the exercise of the right, (except the ordinance in question,) for upwards of a century. This is undoubtedly the law in England, although it may be doubted if this rule still holds so strongly in the United States.

One of the most immediate consequences of the outbreak of hostilities is the complete interruption of Commercial Intercourse between the subjects of the countries at war, even to the extent of holding it unlawful, after war has begun, except under special licence of the government, to send a vessel to the enemy’s country to bring home, with their permission, one’s own property, when war has broken out.

There cannot exist at the same time a war for arms and a peace for commerce; from the very nature of war all commercial intercourse ceases between enemies. This interdiction of intercourse is the result of the mere operation of war; for declarations of war generally enjoin on every subject the duty of attack on the subjects of the hostile state, of seizing their goods, and doing them every harm in their power.

From the very nature of war itself, all commercial intercourse ceases between enemies. The utility, however, of merchants, and the mutual wants of nations, have almost got the better of the law of war as to commerce. Hence, commerce is alternately permitted and forbidden in time of war, as princes think it most for the interest of their subjects. A commercial nation is anxious to trade, and accommodate the laws of war to the greater or lesser want that it may have for the goods of the other. Thus sometimes a mutual commerce is permitted generally; sometimes as to certain merchandizes only, while others are prohibited; and sometimes it is prohibited altogether. In this manner there is partly peace and partly war, between subjects of both countries.

In the case of the Hoop, Sir Wm. Scott says,

“By the law and constitution of Great Britain, the Sovereign alone has the power of declaring War and Peace. He alone, therefore, who has the power of entirely removing the state of war, has the power of removing it in part, by permitting, when he sees proper, that commercial intercourse, which is a partial suspension of the war. There may be occasions on which such an intercourse may be highly expedient; but it is not for individuals to determine on the expediency of such occasions, on their own notions of commerce only, and possibly on grounds of private advantage not very reconcilable with the general interests of the state. It is for the state alone, on more enlarged views of policy, and of all circumstances that may be connected with such an intercourse, to determine when it shall be permitted, and under what regulations. No principle ought to be held more sacred than that this intercourse cannot subsist on any other footing than that of the direct permission of the state. Who can be insensible to the consequences that might follow, if every person in time of war had a right to carry on a commercial intercourse with the enemy; and under colour of that, had the means of carrying on any other species of intercourse he might think fit? The inconvenience to the public might be extreme; and where is the inconvenience on the other side, that the merchants should be compelled, in such a situation of the two countries, to carry on his trade between them, (if necessary,) under the eye and control of the Government charged with the care of public safety?”

Sir William then goes on to say,

“another principle of law, of a less politic nature, but equally general in its reception and direct in its application, forbids this sort of communication as fundamentally inconsistent with the relation at the time existing between the two countries, and that is the total inability to sustain any contract by an appeal to the tribunals of the one country, on the part of the subjects of the other. In the law of almost every country, the character of an Alien Enemy carries with it a disability to sue, or to sustain, in the language of the civilians, a persona standi in judicio. The peculiar law of our own country applies this principle with great rigour the same principle is received in our Courts of the Law of nations; they are so far British courts, that no man can sue therein who is a subject of the Enemy, unless under particular circumstances that pro hac vice discharge him from the character of an Enemy, such as his coming under a flag of truce, a cartel, or a pass, or some other act of public authority that puts him in the Queen’s peace pro hac vice. But otherwise he is totally Ex lex! Even in the case of ransom bills which were contracts, but contracts arising out of the laws of war, and tolerated as such, the Enemy was not permitted to sue in his own person, for the payment of the ransom bill; the payment was enforced by an action brought by the imprisoned hostage in the courts of his own country, for the recovery of his freedom. A state in which contracts cannot be enforced is not a state of legal commerce.”

“Upon these and similar grounds, it has been the established rule of this court, confirmed by the judgment of the supreme court, that a trading with the enemy, except under a Royal Licence, subjects the property to confiscation.

“Where the Government has authorised, under sanction of an Act of Parliament, a homeward trade from the enemy’s possessions, but has not specifically protected an outward trade to the same, though intimately connected with that homeward trade, and almost necessary to its existence, the rule has been enforced, where strong claim not merely of convenience, but almost of necessity, excused it on behalf of the individual.

“It has been enforced, where cargoes have been laden before the war, but where the parties have not used all possible diligence to countermand the voyage after the first notice of hostilities.

“In the last war between England and America, a case occurred in which an American citizen had purchased a quantity of goods within the British territory, a long time previous to the war, and had deposited them upon an island near the frontier; upon the breaking out of hostilities, his agents had hired a vessel to proceed to the spot, to bring away the goods; on her return she was captured, and with the cargo, condemned as prize of war."

So also, where goods were purchased, some time before the war, by the agent of an American citizen in Great Britain, but not shipped until nearly a year after the declaration of hostilities, they were pronounced liable to confiscation.

Where property is to be withdrawn from the country of the enemy, it is the more satisfactory and guarded proceeding on the part of the British merchant to apply to his own Government for the special importation of the article; it is indeed the only safe way in which parties can proceed.

During a Conjoint War no Subject of an Ally can trade with the common enemy without liability to forfeiture in the prize courts of the Ally, of all his property engaged in such trade. As the former rule can be relaxed only by permission of the Sovran power of the state, so this can be relaxed only by the permission of the allied nations, according to their mutual consent.

On similar principles, all Contracts made with the Enemy during War are utterly void. This applies to Insurances on the enemy’s property and trade; to the drawing and négociation of Bills of Exchange, whether the subject of this country or of the alien enemy be the acceptor; to the sending of Money or Bills to the enemy’s country; to Commercial Partnerships. All endeavours to trade by third persons are equally illegal.

Thus also all Contracts made in contemplation of War, and which never could have existed at all, but as an insurance against the pressure of war, and with a view to evade the rights that arise out of war, and in fraud of the belligerent, are illegal, even though made by neutrals.

The municipal or common law of every state declares all Insurances to be void, by which ships or merchandize of the enemy are sought to be protected. Also all Insurances by or on behalf of alien enemies are wholly illegal and void, although effected before the breaking out of hostilities; but if both the policy had been effected and the loss accrued before the war, the remedy is only suspended during the war.

The general principle is that the contract of assurance is vacated and annulled ab initio; wherever an insurance is made on a voyage expressly prohibited by the common, statute, or maritime law of the country; the policy is of no effect.

Thus, if a ship, though neutral, be insured on a voyage prohibited by an embargo laid on in time of war, by the prince of the country in whose ports the ships happen to be, such an insurance is void.

Similarly, all Insurances to protect the interests of British subjects trading without licence with the enemy are absolutely void.

So also, if a Licence is not strictly pursued, so that the voyage becomes illegal, the insurance is void.

I have said that all Insurances will be void which are designed to protect voyages or trading to hostile ports. But, for this purpose, it must be clearly made out, not only that the port into which the ship sails is hostile, but also, that she was bound with a distinct hostile destination at the time of loss. Thus a policy to “ports in the Baltic,” is legal, as some may be hostile, and some not, and it is not certain that she was sailing to a hostile port.

The general principle by which the validity of a policy is to be tested, is by the voyage, that it is a voyage prohibited by law, on some ground of public policy. The will, therefore, of the parties is of no account, as the prohibition is for public, and not private benefit. So that if the underwriter is told that the voyage is illicit he is not more bound than if he were not told so.

It is Insurances upon voyages generally prohibited by law, such as to an enemy’s garrison, or upon a voyage directly contrary to an express act of parliament, or to royal proclamation in time of War, that are absolutely void and null; therefore, on neutral vessels, or the vessels of British subjects possessing neutral rights and sailing from neutral ports to enemies ports are not void.

Similarly, with respect to Insurances on neutral vessels carrying contraband goods, for it is not the voyage, but the cargo, that is illegal in that case.

Insurances are good on Neutral Vessels engaged in the Colonial Trade of the Enemy, and which was closed to the Neutral in time of peace, It must be observed, that if a voyage is illegal, and voids the policy for that voyage, it does not follow that it voids the voyage in the opposite direction, and even the goods purchased by the proceeds of a former illegal voyage, may be the subject of Insurance.

It has been stated above that all Bills drawn or negociated with the enemy, whether a British subject or the alien enemy be the acceptor, are null and void; during the last war, however, attempts were often made to draw and negociate bills that should pass muster in our courts of law, as for example:

An alien enemy, during war, drew upon a British subject resident in England, and who had funds of the alien in his hands; the drawer then indorsed the bill to an English-born subject, resident in the hostile country; such a bill cannot be enforced even after the restoration of peace, for otherwise it would enable alien enemies to take the benefit of all their property in this country, by allowing them to pay debts out of such funds, by the instrumentality of bills.

The principle seems to be, that it is not every bill that bears the name of an alien enemy upon it that is void, but such bills only that are instrumental in assisting in communication with an alien enemy; and a liberal application of this principle has been made use of to open a way for English prisoners to make use of their property at home for their support in the country of their captivity. Thus, where one of two Englishmen, detained in France on the breaking out of hostilities, drew in favour of the other, upon a subject here, it was held that he might legally draw such a bill for his subsistence, and that he might indorse it to an alien enemy, an inhabitant of the hostile country; for he could not avail himself of the bill except by négociation; and to whom could he negociate it, except to the inhabitants of the country in which he resided?

Bills, like other contracts, are only void by the policy of war; but the law still recognizes some extent of obligation between the parties, so that bills void in their concoction (as instruments of trade with the enemy,) are not so far void that they may not constitute the basis of a promise by which a party may bind himself on the return of peace.

On the very important question of the effect of a declaration on Contracts with the subjects or the enemy, entered into previous to the War, the rule is, that if the performance of the contract be rendered unlawful by the Government of the country, the contract is dissolved on both sides.

Thus the contract of Affreightment is dissolved when the voyage becomes unlawful, by the commencement of war, or the interdiction of commerce; and this whether the interdiction is complete as to the ship, or partial as to the receiving of goods.

Similarly, if the voyage be broken up by Capture on the passage, so as to cause a complete defeat of the undertaking, the contract is dissolved, notwithstanding a recapture.

A Blockade of the port of destination, that renders the delivery of the cargo impossible, and obliges the ship to return to its port of destination, dissolves the contract.

A temporary interruption of the voyage does not put an end to the agreement. Embargoes, hostile blockades, and investments of the port of departure are held to be temporary impediments only.

But in the case of an Embargo imposed by the government of the country, of which the merchant is a subject, in the nature of reprisals and partial hostility, against the enemy to which the ship belongs, the merchant may put an end to the contract, if the object of the voyage is likely to be defeated thereby; as if, for example, the cargo were of a perishable nature.

A Public War operates as a positive dissolution of Partnerships between subjects of the contending nations. Every Partnership is dissolved by the extinction of the business for which it was formed. By a declaration of War, the respective subjects of each country become positive enemies to each other. They can carry on no commercial or other intercourse with each other; they can make no valid contracts with each other; they can institute no suits in the courts of either country; they can, properly speaking, hold no communication of an amicable nature, with each other; and their property is mutually liable to capture and confiscation by the subjects of the other country. The whole objects and ends of the Partnership, the application of the joint funds, skill, labour, and enterprize of all the Partners of the common business, can no longer be attained.

Thus a Partnership between alien friends, is at once defeated when they become alien enemies.

This dissolution, however, only has respect to the future. The parties remain bound for all antecedent engagements. The partnership may be said to continue as to everything that is past, and until all pre-existing matters are wound up and settled. With regard to things past, the partnership continues, and must always continue.

No notice is necessary to the world to complete the dissolution of the association. Notice is requisite when a partnership is dissolved by the act of the parties, but it is not necessary when the dissolution takes place by the act of law. All mankind are bound to take notice of the War, and its consequences. Besides, any special notice would be useless unless joint, and as the partners could hold no lawful intercourse, a lawful joint notice is impossible.

It must not be supposed that peace will have any healing effect, to restore the parties to their rights; the co-partnership being once dissolved by the war, it was extinguished for ever, except as to matters existing prior to the war.

With regard to the effect of war upon partnerships, where the partners are severally subjects of the belligerent powers. According to Mr. Justice Story,

“this point does not seem to have been discussed in our courts of justice until a recent period; yet it would seem to be a necessary result of principles of public law, well established and defined. By a declaration of war, the respective subjects of each country become positive enemies of each other. They can carry on no commercial or other intercourse with each other; they can make no valid contracts with each other; they can institute no suits in the courts of either country; they can, properly speaking, hold no communication of an amicable nature with each other; and their property is mutually liable to capture and confiscation, by the subjects of either country. Now, it is obvious from these considerations, that the whole ends and objects of the partnership, the application of the joint funds, skill, labours, and enterprize, of all the partners in the common business thereof, can no longer be attained. The conclusion therefore, would seem to be absolutely that this mutual supervening capacity, must, upon the very principles applied to all analagous cases, amount to a positive dissolution of the partnership."

The law of nations has not even stopped at the points already stated; it proceeds further. The question of enemy or no enemy, depends not upon the natural allegiance of the partners, but upon their domicile.

If a partnership is established, and as it were domiciled, in a neutral country, and all the partners reside there, it is treated as a neutral establishment, and is entitled to protection accordingly. But if one or more of the partners is domiciled in an enemy’s country, he or they are treated personally as enemies, and his share of the partnership property is liable to capture and condemnation accordingly, even though the partnership establishment is in the neutral country. The inference from these considerations is, that in all these cases there is an utter incompatibility from operation of law between the partners, as to their respective rights, duties, and obligations, both public and private; and therefore, that a dissolution must necessarily result therefrom, independent of the will or acts of the parties.

And, as a general rule, therefore, it may be laid down, that if the performance of a covenant be rendered unlawful by the Government of this country entering into war, the contract will be dissolved on both sides, and the offending party, as he has been compelled to abandon his contract, will be excused from the payment of damages for its non-performance; but it is otherwise, if the non-performance is prevented only by the prohibition of a foreign country.

In such cases, the remedy only is suspended; and other cases may occur on these principles, where, from other circumstances, the remedy only is suspended until the termination of the war; as for example, in most cases of executed contracts.

Trading with the Enemy, was at an early period an indictable offence in the English Court of Admiralty. And in the time of King William, it was held to be a misdemeanor at common law, to carry corn to an enemy.

The law, as I have faintly sketched it out, is founded to some extent on American authorities, where the question has been as fully discussed as in the reports of this country; but there can be little doubt that the law is the same in this country: although a doubt was once thrown on it, by the strong political opinion of Lord Mansfield, as to the policy of allowing trade with an enemy, or assuring an enemy’s property. The lustre of his talents, and his ascendancy in the Court of King’s Bench, were calculated to continue the delusion. During his time, the question as to the legality of such insurances was never mooted; for he frowned on every attempt to set up such a defence, as dishonest and against good faith.

The strict rule of interdicted intercourse has been carried so far in the British Admiralty, as to prohibit supplies to a British Colony during its partial subjection to the enemy, and when the Colony was in want of provisions.

The same interdiction to trade applies to Cartel Ships, or Ships of Truce, that is, to Ships sent to recover prisoners of war; and there is but one exception to this rigorous rule of International Law; the case of Ransom Bills, which are contracts of necessity, founded on a state of war.