1 The awards of arbitral commissions and the practice of the United States have been used as principal sources.

2 Vattel, Chitty-Ingraham ed., sec. 232, p. 402; Bentwich, N., Private Property in War, London, 1907, 41–42; H. Rep. 386, 22nd Cong., 1st sess., pp. 9–10; Lawrence’s Report on Claims against Governments, H. Rep. 134, 43rd Cong., 2nd sess., 126; Nys (1912 ed.), III, ch. XI, 450–462.

3 Brèmond in article “Actes de gouvernement,” 5 Rev. Dr. Pub. (1896), 69, 227. As to Italian law to the same effect see H. Rep. 134, 43rd Cong., 2nd sess., 129, 135–191.

4 Oppenheim, 2nd ed., II, 319–321, 300. One of the best discussions of Art. 3 of Convention IV is to be found in a small work by Cuno Hofer, Der Schadenersatz im Landkriegsrecht, Tubingen, 1913. 91 p.

The Institute of International Law at its Oxford meeting of 1913, proposed to extend the principle of indemnity to naval warfare. Additional Article to Rules adopted, 15 Rev. Dr. Int. (1913), 677.

5 Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 127, 140. Upon the question whether war exists, the courts must follow the political departments of the Government. Gray v. U. S., 21 Ct. CI. 340; Cushing v. U. S., 22 Ct. CI. 1. See also G. G. Phillimore in V. 4 U. S. Journ. of the Soc. of Comp. Leg. (1902), 128–134.

6 The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 636, 670; Teresa Jeorg v. U. S., Spanish Treaty CI. Com., Briefs, V. 2, pp. 80, 81.

7 Hall, 31 and note. Prats (Mexico) v. U. S., July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 2886, 2888.

8 Span. Treaty CI. Com. Special Rep. of W. E. Fuller, 1907, 22. Sen. Doc. 308, 59th Cong., 1st sess. 26.

9 Gray v. U. S., 21 Ct. CI. 340; Cushing v. U. S., 22 Ct. CI. 1. The French Spoliation Claims, by Geo. A. King, Sen. Doc. 964, 62nd Cong., 3rd sess., 9.

10 Oppenheim, 329. Hall, 6th ed., 555. The decisions of arbitral and other courts, however, leave this question in much uncertainty. John (U. S.) v. Gt. Brit., Feb. 8, 1853, Moore’s Arb. 3793 (Government held liable for capture made after signing of treaty of peace, on ground of failure to notify the cessation of hostilities promptly). See also the John, 2 Dodson, 336 and the Mentor, 1 Rob. 183. The Japanese Government ordered the release of “all ships and their cargoes captured after Sept. 5, 1905” (the date of the treaty of peace with Russia). Imperial Ordinance No. 228, November, 1905. But see case of the Swineherd, captured by a French privateer after knowledge (though not official notification) of cessation of war. She was condemned by a French prize court. Hall, 556 criticizes the decision. See also Phillimore III, sec. 521. See also cases of Torres (Mexico) v. U. S., July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 3798; Ayama, ibid. 3804; Serrano, ibid. 3805 (where a claim was allowed) ; and Revilla, ibid. 3805.

11 Meng (France) v. U. S., Jan. 15, 1880, Moore’s Arb. 3689. Gumbes v. An award of the commissioners for liquidating the claims of British subjects on France (1834), 2 Knapp P. C. Rep. 369.

12 Martens, Recueil, 2nd series, V. 28, 66–90.

13 Oppenheim, II, sec. 436.

14 Ibid.; Liszt, 5th ed., 374; Gareis, 2nd ed., 258; Brusa in 4 R. G. D. I. P. (1897), 157–175, criticizing the Doelwyk decision; decision of Japanese Prize Court in Antiope case, MS. Dept. of State.

15 Hall, 740; Bentwich, 29. The rule that war makes subjects of one belligerent the enemies of the government and subjects of the other is admitted. It applies equally to civil and international war. See also U. S. v. Cooke (The Venice), 2 Wall. 258, 274; Mrs. Alexander’s Cotton, 2 Wall. 419; Jecker v. Montgomery, 18 How. 110; White v. Burnley, 20 How. 235, 249.

16 Whiting’s War Powers under the Constitution, 43rd ed., Boston, 1871, p. 341. Society v. Wheeler, 2 Gallison, 105. The rule that aliens entering or continuing to reside in enemy territory may be treated as enemies is found in Grotius, III, 4, sees. 6, 7.

17 Palmerston’s opinion in Greytown, Copenhagen and Uleaborg bombardments. Hansard’s Debates, 3rd series, V. 146, pp. 37, 49; Granville to Lord Lyons, Jan. 11, 1871 and Granville to Sackville West, March 1, 1871, Hale’s Rep., Appendix, For. Rel. 1873, V. 3, 368–370, 65 St. Pap. 458.

Mr. Cass, Sec’y of State, to Mr. Burns, April 26, 1858, Moore’s Dig. VI, 885; Mr. Seward to Mr. Wydenbruck, Nov. 16, 1885, ibid. 885; Mr. Fish, Sec’y of State, to Mr. Washburn, April 28, 1871, For. Rel. 1871, 335; Mr. Fish to Mr. Thornton, May 16, 1873, Moore’s Dig. VI, 890; Mr. Fish to Mr. Gibson, Dec. 30, 1875, ibid. 891; Mr. Bayard to Mr. O’Connor, Oct. 29, 1885, ibid. 891; Whiting’s War Powers, 352; 12 Op. Atty. Gen. 21; 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 315. See also Wharton’s Dig. III, sees. 352, 353.

Gallego, Mesa, et al. v. U. S., 43 Ct. CI. 444; Herrera v. U. S., 222 U. S. 558.

Cooke (U. S.) v. Mexico, Act of March 3, 1849, Moore’s Arb. 2659, 2661; Haggerty, ibid. 2665; Thompson, ibid. 2669; Castel (U. S.) v. Venezuela, Dec. 5, 1885, ibid. 3710; Foster (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, ibid. 3349; Costa (U. S.) v. Mexico, ibid. 3724; Brook (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, ibid. 3738. (Rule admitted, but award here made for property taken for military use, because loyal citizens had been granted compensation in similar cases. 16 Stat. L. 524.) Same rule in Henderson (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., ibid. 3727, Frazer dissenting in both cases, Hale’s Rep. 43, 44; Laurent (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., Feb. 8, 1853, ibid. 2671; Uhde, ibid., 2691; Bacigalupi (TJ. S.) ». Chile, May 24, 1897, Report, 1901, p. 151; Volkmar (U. S.) v. enezuela, Feb. 17, 1903, Ralston, 258, 259; Upton (U. S.) v. Venezuela, Feb. 17, 1903, Ralston, 72; Orr and Laubenheimer (TJ. S.) v. Nicaragua, For. Rel. 1900, 826; Tongue (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Moore’s Arb. 3675.

18 Jaragua Iron Co. v. U. S., 212 U. S. 297, 306; Page v. U. S., 11 Wall. 268; Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635; The William Bagahy, 5 Wall. 377; Green v. U. S., 10 Ct. CI. 466; Gooch v. V. S., 15 Ct. CI. 281; Brandon v. U. S., 46 Ct. CI. 559.

19 11 Op. Atty. Gen. 405; 12 ibid. 486, 488; Lawrence’s Wheaton, 565. In practice indemnities are often paid for such loyal citizen’s property as may have been used or destroyed by the citizen’s own State. See Southern Claims Commission, Act of March 3, 1871, 16 Stat. L. 524.

20 Hall, 741; Bentwich, 27; Oppenheim, sees. 364–367.

21 Fiore, III, sec. 1432 et seq.; Calvo, IV, sec. 1932 et seq.; Bonfils, sec. 1343 et seq.

21a The recent British Aliens Restriction (Consolidation) Order, 1914, § 31, and Trading with the Enemy Proclamation, No. 2, clauses 3 and 6 modify the general rules as to enemy character. See Schuster, E. J. Effect of War * * * on commercial transactions. 2nd ed. London, 1914, p. 3 et seq.

22 Bentwich, 142; Westlake, II, 140; Oppenheim, II, sees. 88, 90; Laurent (Gt. Brit.) v. U. 8., Feb. 8, 1853, Moore’s Arb. 2671; The Pizarro, 2 Wheaton, 246. Japan appears to have adhered to the principle of domicil in these matters.

23 Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 737.

24 Attention may be called to the peculiar rule of American prize law, according to which a partner’s residence in the enemy’s country will condemn his share in a house of trade established in neutral territory. The Antonia Johanna, 1 Wheat. 159.

26 Oppenheim, II, sec. 89; Westlake, II, 147. A reservation might, however, be made to the effect that the municipal law conferring the right to fly the national flag must not conflict with the rules of international law as to transfer of flag in time of war.

26 Westlake, II, 153; Oppenheim, II, sec. 89, sec. 406.

27 See Art. 17 of Convention V of the Second Hague Conference, and Oppenheim, II, sec. 88. The Industrie (German) and The Quang-nam, condemned by Japanese prize courts in Russo-Japanese war. Takahashi, S., International Law applied to the Russo-Japanese War, New York, 1908, pp. 732–738.

28 Articles 55, 56 and 60 of the Declaration of London; Oppenheim, II, sees. 91, 92. The former conflicting rules are discussed by Westlake, II, 148 et seq. See the Sophia Rickmers, 61 St. Pap. 1091. For the opinion of the State Department rendered during the present European War concerning the transfer of merchant ships during war, see Sen. Doc. 563, 63rd Cong., 2nd sess.

29 Art. 18 (a) of Convention V. See Dept. of State circular Aug. 15, 1914, “Neutrality—contraband—seizure of ships and cargo.” „.

30 Bentwich, 27.

31 Westlake, II, 119; Oppenheim, II, sees. 364, 365. Neutral cargo, even conditional contraband, not destined to enemy forces, has at times been requisitioned under payment of compensation.

32 Vattel, Bk. III, ch. XV, sec. 232, p. 402.

33 Wilson (U. S.) v. Spain, Feb. 12, 1871, Moore’s Arb. 3674; Blumenkron (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, ibid. 3669; Riggs (U. S.) v. Mexico, ibid. 3668; Castel (U. S.) v. Venezuela, Dec. 5, 1885, ibid. 3710; Padron (Spain) v. Venezuela, Feb. 13, 1903, Ralston, 923; Petrocelli (Italy) v. Venezuela, Feb. 13, 1903, ibid. 762; Bembelista (Netherlands) v. Venezuela, Feb. 28, 1903, ibid. 900; Rule 1 of the Mixed Claims Commission of Nicaragua, 1911, Managua, 1912. See also Amer. St. Pap. Claims, 199, Feb. 15, 1797.

34 Vattel, Bk. Ill, ch. 15, sec. 232; Oppenheim, II, sec. 151; U. S. v. Pacific R. R., 120 U. S. 233; Puerto Cabello Ry. (Gt. Brit.) v. Venezuela, Feb. 13, 1903, Ralston, 458; Bembelista (Neth.) v. Venezuela, ibid. 900; Rule 8 of Spanish Treaty Claims Commission, Final Report, May 2, 1910, pp. 4–5.

36 Dutch bombardment of Antwerp 1830, 30 St. Pap. 212 et seq. Numerous cases of bombardment, in which compensation by the bombarding belligerent was uniformly denied, are set out in Moore’s Dig. VI, sees. 1168–1170. See also Dutrieux (France) v. U. S., Jan. 15, 1880, Moore’s Arb. 3702; Cleworth (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, ibid. 3675; Tongue, ibid. 3675; Meng (France) v. U. S., Jan. 15, 1880, ibid. 3689, 3697; Perkins (Gt. Brit.) v. Chile, Trib. Anglo-Chileno, 1891, I, 34; Strobel’s report, Moore’s Arb. 4930–36, parag. 1 and 18, For. Rel. 1896, 35; Amer. Elec. L. and P. Co. (U. S.) v. Venezuela, Feb. 17, 1903, Ralston, 36; Bembelista (Neth.) v. Venezuela, Feb. 28, 1903, ibid. 901; Guerrieri (Italy) v. Venezuela, ibid. 753. See, however, the Colin case, Germany v. France, 1888, 15 Clunet, 241, For limitations of the rule, see notes 38 and 39, infra.

36 Schultz (Mex.) v. U. S., July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 2973; Wyman (U. S.) v. Mexico, ibid. 2978; Cleworth (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, ibid. 3675; Volkmar (U. S.) v. Venezuela, Feb. 17, 1903, Ralston, 258.

37 All destruction and damage to enemy property for purpose of offense and defense is considered necessary and hence lawful. Oppenheim, II, sec. 150.

Soldiers passing over land in belligerent area and injuring crops. Shattuck (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 3668; Cole (U. S.) v. Mexico, ibid. 3670; Sterling (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, ibid. 3686.

Cutting of timber to clear away obstructions, erection of fortifications, etc., in the enemy’s country. Barclay and other cases (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Hale’s Rep. 50, Moore’s Arb. 3678.

Seizure or destruction of property for the public welfare. Heflebower v. U. S., 21 Ct. CI. 229, 237. See also Sen. Doc. 318, 57th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 19, 36, 37; e. g., destruction of buildings as sanitary measure, Jaragua Iron Co. v. U. S., 212 U. S. 297, 306, and Hardman (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., Aug. 18, 1910, 7 A. J. I. L. 879. (The arbitral court suggested that voluntary payment might be made by U. S.) Seizure and detention of private enemy vessel after occupation of enemy port, for use of army—the doctrine of immunity of private property not followed. Herrera v. U. S., 222 U. S. 558, 572; Diaz v. U. S., 222 U. S. 574; Costa (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 3724.

Destruction of property useful to the enemy for military purposes. Cox (Gt. Brit.) and Smythe (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Moore’s Arb. 3678. See also Oppenheim, II, sec. 152; 11 Op. Atty. Gen. 378; U. S. v. Pacific R. R., 120 U. S. 227; Magoon’s Rep. 345 and 615; Cotton Claims (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., Moore’s Arb. 3679–82. See also Sen. Doc. 2, 42nd Cong., spec, sess.; Giles (U. S.) v. France, Jan. 15, 1880, Moore’s Arb. 3703 (dictum).

The owner of property seized and destroyed to prevent its falling into the hands of the enemy is not entitled to compensation if the danger was immediate and impending, and its capture by the enemy be reasonably certain. Sparhawk v. Respublica, 1 Dallas, 362; 1 Op. Atty. Gen. 255; Final Report of Spanish Treaty CI. Com. May 2, 1910, p. 12; Cotton Claims (Gt. Brit.) v. IT. S., Moore’s Arb. 3679. See H. Rep. 262, 43rd Cong., 1st sess., pp. 44 et seq. Cotton was seized in the Southern states during the Civil War by the Union troops, as constituting resources of the enemy, and liability denied. Moore’s Dig., VI, 895 and cases cited at p. 901. But where the danger does not appear immediate, the destruction is regarded merely as the appropriation of private property for public use for which an indemnity is due. Infra, note 50. The State may and often does waive its exemption from liability.

Seizure of money belonging to enemies on deposit in occupied territory in 1863 (probably unlawful to-day, except as legal contributions). New Orleans v. S. S. Co., 20 Wall. 394.

Other acts of military necessity. Killing of animals, opinion of Dec. 22, 1905 of Judge Advocate Gen. of the Army. Howland’s Digest, 250. See also ibid. 251, 253, 254 and paragraph 15, Gen. Orders 100. Burning of cane by Spanish forces in Cuba, Casanova (No. 33), Spanish Tr. CI. Com. Ibid., burning of buildings when a legitimate war measure, Sen. Ex. Doc. 85, 42nd Cong., 2nd sess.; Bacigalupi (U. S.) v. Chile, No. 42, May 24, 1897, Rep. of Commission, 1901, 151.

Property destroyed in preparation for attack or defense. Jardel (Prance) v. U. S., Jan. 15, 1880, Moore’s Arb. 3199; opinion of Judge Adv. Gen. May 1, 1906, Howland, 252; Parham v. Justices, 9 Georgia, 341.

38 Barletta (Italy) v. Venezuela, Feb. 13, 1903, Ralston, 754; Cuneo (Italy) v. Chile, Jan. 4, 1883, Moore’s Arb. 4929. See also obiter remarks in De Lemos (Gt. Brit.) v. Venezuela, Ralston, 304, 314 (counsel), 319, and in Guerrieri, ibid. 753 and Bembelista, ibid. 901; Perrin v. U. S., 12 Wall. 315, 4 Ct. CI. 543; Hall, 532; Samoan claims arising out of unlawful bombardment of Apia by Great Britain and United States, H. Doc. 1257, 62nd Cong., 3rd sess.

39 These rules are set out in Oppenheim, II, sees. 158, 212, 213. See also Rules of the Institute of International Law, adopted at Oxford, 1913, Arts. 25 and 27, 15 R. D. I. n. s. (1913), 677.

40 Failure of Turkey properly to notify neutral shipping of the laying of certain contact mines in the harbor of Smyrna is the principal ground of claim in the case of the Nevada (U. S.) and Senegal (France) v. Turkey. Most of the Powers have not yet agreed upon rules for the laying of submarine mines. It is reported that Austria has consented to compensate certain Italian subjects whose vessels were blown up recently by floating mines in the Adriatic. Neutral vessels injured by floating mines probably have just claims against powers which may be proved to have sowed mines in the open sea.

41 On war claims arising out of direct and indirect injuries to private property, see Lawrence’s Report on War Claims, etc., H. Rep. 262, 43rd Cong., 1st sess., and Feraud-Giraud, Becours á raison des dommages cause’s par la guerre, Paris, 1881, 85 p. Reprinted from La France Judiciaire, Pamphlets, Dept. of State, V. I; Rule 2 of Nicaraguan Mixed Claims Commission, 1911, MS. Dept. of State. Thus the following claims were disallowed as being accidents due to a state of war: burning of buildings as a ruse to deceive the enemy (Opin. of Judge Adv.-Gen., H. Rep. 262, supra, p. 57); private liens destroyed by capture of public movables Barrett (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Howard’s Rep. 60, Moore’s Arb. 2900; firing guns across private land (Peabody v. U. S., 43 Ct. CI. 5);’accidental destruction of innocent property involved in the destruction of public stores and works of the enemy. Various claims (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Moore’s Arb. 3677; claims before Anglo-Chilean Tribunal, 1893, Duncan, Reel. pres. al. Trib. Anglo-Chileno I, 536; Hubner, ibid. Ill, 20; Club Ingles, ibid. Ill, 47; Dawson, ibid. I l l , 55; Cesarino (Italy) v. Venezuela, Feb. 13, 1903, Ralston, 770.

Arrests and detentions on suspicion. Hannum (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 3243; Cramer (U. S.) v. Mexico, ibid. 3250; Forwood (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Hale’s Rep. 84; Gatter (U. S.) v. Mexico, Moore’s Arb. 3267; Jarman ei al. (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, ibid. 3308. Thus a state may temporarily restrain the departure of merchant vessels, to insure the secrecy of naval operations. But see Bailey (The Labuan), Gt. Brit. v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Hale’s Rep. 171, Moore’s Arb. 3791. Where the military detention is unnecessarily long or harsh, awards have been made. Berron (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 3960; Story (U. S.) v. Spain, Feb. 12, 1871, ibid, 3269; Bigland (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Hale’s Rep. 161.

Interference with business gives no right to compensation. Grant (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Hale’s Rep. 162; Kerford and Jenkins (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., Feb. 8, 1853, Moore’s Arb. 3788; Money (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Hale’s Rep. 168; Heny (U. S.) v. Venezuela, Feb. 17, 1903, Ralston 14, 25; Dix (U. S.) v. Venezuela, ibid. 7; Genovese (U. S.) v. Venezuela, ibid. 174; Martini (Italy) v. Venezuela, Feb. 13, 1903, ibid. 819. Workmen of claimants compelled to serve in national guard. Siempre Viva (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 3784; Cole (U. S.) v. Mexico, ibid. 3785, and similar awards there cited. Government may order suspension of traffic on railroad in war area. Great Venezuelan R. R. (Germany) v. Venezuela, Feb. 13, 1903, Ralston, 640. And prohibit traffic of certain residents with towns in insurrection. Longstroth (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 3784.

42 Antrey (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 3672; Dresch (U. S.) v. Mexico, ibid. 3669; Weil, ibid. 3671; Schlinger, ibid. 3671; Buentello (Mexico) v. U. S., ibid. 3670; Cole (U. S.) v. Mexico, ibid. 3670; Claims of Great Britain v. Chile, Sept. 26, 1893, La Fontaine, 455. Sen. Rep. 544, 55th Cong., 2nd sess. 6.

43 Rule 3 of Nicaraguan Mixed Claims Com. 1911; Barclay (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Moore’s Arb. 3678; burning of Columbia (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., ibid. 3675.

44 Weil (U. S.) v. Mexico, Moore’s Arb. 3671; Michel, ibid. 3670.

45 Oppenheim, II, sec. 143, sec. 213. See also Art. 7 of Convention IX of Second Hague Conference.

46 See Art. 14 of Hague Regulations and Oppenheim, II, sec. 181.

47 Rule 6 of Spanish Treaty Claims Commission. In Rules 7 and 8 the Commission prescribed definite limitations to concentration and devastation as legitimate war measures. Final Rep., p. 4. Award of the Commission in Tuinicú v. U. S., No. 240.

The opinion of the military authorities as to the necessity of a destruction is not ordinarily justiciable by the regular courts. Ex parte Marais (1902), A. C. 109. See also Wentworth v. U. S., 5 Ct. CI. 309.

48 Usually with respect to neutral’s property. Quotations from publicists and state papers in Moore’s Dig. VI, sec. 1037; Chourreau (France) v. U. S., Jan. 15, 1880, Moore’s Arb. 3705; Du Bois (U. S.) v. Chile, Aug. 7, 1892, ibid. 3712; Moss (U. S.) v. Chile, May 24, 1897 (extending 1892 commission) Report, 1901, No. 25; Rule 5 of Span. Tr. CI. Com.; S. B. Crandall-in 4 A. J. I. L. 820; Award of King Oscar on Samoan claims of Germany against Great Britain and United States, Convention Nov. 7, 1899, La Fontaine, 613, for unwarranted military action; Strobel’s Report, item V on British claims against Chile, For. Rel. 1896, 35 et seq., Moore’s Arb. 4930; Shrigley (U. S.) v. Chile, Aug. 7, 1892, Moore’s Arb. 3711–12; Peruvian Indemnity, Mar. 17, 1841, Moore’s Arb. 4591; Willet (U. S.) v. Venezuela, Dec. 5, 1885, ibid. 3743; Brooks (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, ibid. 3672; Johnston, ibid. 3673 (defendant government held to have burden of proving damage necessary); Jeannotat, ibid. 3673; H. Rep. 386, 22nd Cong., 1st sess. 14; Indus (TJ. S.) v. Mexico, Moore’s Arb. 3718 (violation of rules of war by selling captured vessel without determination of prize courts). For extracts dealing with liability for violations of rules of civilized warfare, see Wharton’s Digest, II, sec. 225. See Rule 18 of the Rules of the Institute of International Law on Naval Warfare adopted at Oxford, 1913.

49 Vattel, Bk. I l l , ch. XV, sec. 232.

50 Mason v. U. S., 14 Ct. CI. 59; Waters v. U. S., 4 Ct. CI. 299; Kimball v. U. S., 5 ibid. 252; Heflebower v. U. S., 21 ibid. 228, 237; Grant v. U. S., 1 ibid. 41, 43–44 (a leading case). Sen. Rep. 544, 55th Cong., 2nd sess. 6. The Court of Claims has proceeded on the theory of implied contract and intention to pay. The U. S. Supreme Court leans more toward a direct theory of eminent domain. Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 Howard, 113, 134; U. S. v. Russell, 13 Wall. 36.

Saulnier (U. S.) v. Mexico, March 3, 1849, Moore’s Arb. 3715; Hollenbeck (U. S.) v. Costa Rica, July 2, 1860, ibid. 3717 (building burned down in operations for defending town); Baker (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, ibid. 3668 (cattle and horses taken by Mexican army); Marks (TJ. S.) v. Mexico, ibid. 3722; Hall, ibid. 3722; Elliott, ibid. 3720; Bartlett, ibid. 3721; Cole, ibid. 3721; The Macedonian (U. S.) v. Chile, Nov. 10, 1858, ibid. 1465; cases cited in Hale’s Rep. 44, Moore’s Arb. 3688, Commission of May 8, 1871, and Henderson (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Moore’s Arb. 3728, Wilkinson, ibid. 3736; Braithwaite, ibid. 3737; Adlam, ibid. 2552. Means (France) v. U. S., Jan. 15, 1880, Moore’s Arb. 3706 (property destroyed in friendly territory to give better range to guns); Labrat (France) v. U. S., ibid. 3706; Shrigley (U. S.) v. Chile, Aug. 7, 1892, ibid. 3712; Dix (U. S.) v. Venezuela, Feb. 17, 1903, Ralston, 7; Kunhardt (U. S.) v. Venezuela, ibid. 63, 69; Spanish Treaty CI. Com. Final Rep., May 2, 1910, p. 12 (allowances for property used by Spanish authorities, regardless of the purpose); Reyes, No. 153; Del Valle, No. 222, No. 278; Izuaga, No. 279; Constancia, No. 196.

See Act of April 9, 1816, sec. 5 (3 Stat. L. 261); Act of July 4, 1864 (13 Stat. L. 381). The Act of Mar. 3, 1871 (16 Stat. L. 524) establishing Southern Claims Commission provided that “stores and supplies furnished by or taken from loyal citizens in the insurrectionary states should be paid for.” Conventions of July 4, 1868 with Mexico, May 8, 1871 with Great Britain, and Jan. 15, 1880 with France permitted of similar payments to subjects of those countries. But where the person or property was tainted with unneutral character no recovery was allowed. Davidson, No. 66, Hale’s Rep. 43. See House Doc. 460, 56th Cong., 1st sess. 9; order of Sec’y of War, June 22, 1862, Moore’s Arb. 1036; proclamation of the President, July 13, 1898; Sen. Doc. 318, 57th Cong., 1st sess., 19. See Abandoned or Captured Property Act, March 12, 1863 (12 Stat. L. 820), Moore’s Dig. VI, 901 and Moore’s Arb. 3745. See also Lawrence’s Rep. supra; Whiting’s War Powers under the Constitution, p. 340; article by Wm. King, War Claims for Property, 20 Amer. Law Reg. (1881) 227, 233. See also a few pertinent extracts in Moore’s Dig. VI, sec. 1034.

51 Oppenheim, II, p. 179 et seq. See the Bulgarian decree of Feb. 25, 1913 to the effect that private real property abandoned by its Mussulman owners would become the property of Bulgaria. This is contrary to Art. 46. 40 Clunet (1913), 1043.

52 The military occupant’s relation to public property is discussed by Oppenheim, II, sec. 134 et seq.

53 H. Ex. Doc. 124, 43rd Cong., 1st sess.; U. S. v. Speed, 8 Wall. 83; Armendariz (Mexico) v. U. S., July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 3722; Willet (U. S.) v. Venezuela, Dec. 5, 1885, ibid. 3743.

54 Crutchett (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Hale’s Rep. 46, Moore’s Arb. 3734. Other similar cases cited in Moore’s Arb. 3735.

55 German practice in Franco-Prussian War, Bentwich, 33. See also Gonzales (Mexico) v. U. S., July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 2824: Opin. of Judge Adv.-Gen., How land, 250 and 253. (In Civil War, residents in insurrectionary states had to prove their loyalty; in Philippines, government had to prove native’s disloyalty.)

56 Oppenheim, II, sees. 136, 140.

57 Putegnat’s Heirs (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 3718, 3720,—other cases cited p. 3720; Bowen (U. S.) v. Mexico, ibid. 3731; Willet (U. S.) v. Venezuela, Dec. 5, 1885, ibid. 3743; Amer. Elec. and Mfg. Co. (U. S.) v. Venezuela, Feb. 13, 1903, Ralston, 35; Petrocelli (Italy) v. Venezuela, Feb. 13, 1903, ibid. 762; Matamoras Fire Claims (Gt. Brit.) v. Mexico, 52 St. Pap. 281; H. Rep. 386, 22nd Cong., 1st sess. 3, 9, 12; 3 Stat. L. 263, sec. 9; 3 Stat. L. 397, sec. 1. See opinion of Judge Adv.-Gen. Sept. 4, 1902, contra, Howland, 253.

58 Grant v. U. S., 1 Ct. CI. 41; Wiggins v. U. S., 3 Ct. CI. 412; Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 Howard, 115; Turner (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Moore’s Arb. 3684; Anderson and Thompson (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, ibid. 2479; Barrington (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, ibid. 3674; Bertrand (France) v. U. S., Jan. 15, 1880, ibid. 3705; The Phare (France) v. Nicaragua, Award of French court of cassation, ibid. 4870 at 4873.

59 Atty. Gen. Griggs, 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 654.

60 See also Art. 5 of the U. S. Naval War Code.

61 See quotations and citations in Moore’s Dig. VI, 924–926 and H. Rep. 8, 57th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 1, 2, 5, 8 and S. Doc. 16, 58th Cong., 2nd sess., pp. 6, 10, 22, 23.

62 Oppenheim, II, sec. 214. See Rule 54 of the Rules of the Institute of International Law on naval warfare adopted at Oxford, 1913.

63 A somewhat similar clause is contained in Art. 7 of the treaty of 1828 with Brazil.

64 Macias (U. S.) v. Spain, Feb. 12, 1871, Moore’s Arb. 3775; Thompson, ibid. 3779; Rivas, ibid. 3780. The cases of embargo under the decree of 1869 in Cuba are discussed in Moore’s Arb. 3754 et seq. Indemnities for similar embargoes were provided for in the unratified Strobel-Figuera agreement of May 3, 1887. For the embargoes under decree of 1896 and the embargo claims arising out of the 1895–1898 Cuban insurrection, see Moore’s Dig. VI, 908–914 and cases of Hemsheim, No. 297, Bauriedel, No. 239, and Gato, No. 171, before the Spanish Treaty CI. Com. See also Rule 10 of that commission.

65 Oppenheim, II, sees. 40, 102a. See full discussion in Scott, Hague Conferences, 556–568. The United States is not a signatory of this convention. Contrary to the general practice, Turkey, which has not ratified Convention VI, seized some Italian vessels in Turkish ports at the outbreak of the Turko-Italian war of 1911. 15 R. D. I. (1913) 577.

66 Oppenheim, II, sec. 364; Westlake, II, 119; Hall, 741; U. S. Naval War Code, Art. 6.

67 Labuan (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Moore’s Arb. 3791; Ophir (U. S.) v. Mexico, April 11, 1839, ibid. 3045; Brig Splendid (U. S.) v. Mexico, ibid. 3714; Kidder U. S.) v. Mexico, March 3, 1849, Opin. 519 (not in Moore); Orr and Laubenheimer (U. S.) v. Nicaragua, March 22, 1900, For. Rel. 1900, 824, 829; The Moshona and the Beatrice (U. S.) v. Great Britain, For. Rel. 1900, 529–618; The Tabasgueno v. U. S., For. Rel. 1907, 614 (neutral cargo is in the same position as the neutral vessel); U. S. v. Russell, 13 Wall. 623 (implied contract in municipal law). See the celebrated case of the sinking by German troops of British vessels in the Seine, 1870, in which indemnity was paid. 61 St. Pap. 575, 600, 611 and Moore’s Dig. VI, 904.

68 Bentwich, 34; Albrecht, Requisitionen von neutralem Privateigentum, Breslau, 1912, p. 1 et seq.; Oppenheim, II, sec. 146 et seq.; Westlake, II, 96 et seq.

69 Dalloz, Supplement XV, 1895, p. 459; 21 Journ. du Dr. Administratif (1873), 171–187; 37 Clunet (1910), 255, case in Chile. A French law of July, 1909, makes automobiles the subject of requisition, regardless of the nationality of the owners. See proceedings against John Morris, a British subject, noted in Jan. 1914, Journ. Of the Soc. of Comp. Leg., p. 283.

70 Bentwich, 36; Oppenheim, II, sec. 148.

71 Hague Regulations, Art. 50; Bentwich, 37.

72 Moore’s Dig. VI, 916. Although British subjects were protected by treaty against forced loans, it seems Mr. Seward would have regarded their exemption as a discrimination against U. S. citizens who enjoyed no such treaty exemption. See also McManus (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 3411, 3415 and Rose (U. S.) v. Mexico, ibid. 3417, 3421.

78 Mr. Bayard, Sec’y of State, to Mr. Buck, Min. to Peru, May 20, 1886, Moore’s Dig. VI, 918; Mr. Fish, Sec’y of State, to Mr. Foster, Min. to Mexico, Aug. 15, 1873, ibid. 917.

71 Ducoing (U. S.) v. Mexico, April 11, 1839, Moore’s Arb. 3409; Homan (U. S.) v. Mexico, March 3, 1849, ibid. 3409; Robinson (U. S.) v. Mexico, ibid. 3410, and other cases cited on p. 3410; Moke (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, ibid. 3411 (opinion by Wadsworth, Amer. commissioner). See also Beckman (Germany) v. Venezuela, Feb. 13, 1903, Ralston, 599 and De Caro (Italy) v. Venezuela, Feb. 13, 1903, ibid. 818.

75 McManus (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 3411, 3415; Rose (U. S.) v. Mexico, ibid. 3417, 3421; Cole, ibid. 3422 and cases cited p. 3423. But he awarded indemnities when the exaction of the loan was enforced by arrest and imprisonment, as he believed there must have been means of enforcing payment by judicial proceedings.

76 Weil (U. S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, Moore’s Arb. 3424, Thornton, Umpire.

77 Moore’s Arb. 3416.

78 The Institute of International Law, at its Oxford meeting in 1913, adopted a code of naval warfare. 15 R. D. I. n. s. (1913), 677 et seq.

79 The history of private property at sea is discussed by Oppenheim, II, sec. 176 and by Bentwich, ch. VII. See also Loreburn, R., Capture at Sea, London, 1913.

80 It seems that Turkey did not observe these rules in her recent war with Italy, 15 R. D. I. (1913), 577–578. Turkey has not ratified the Hague Convention.

81 Oppenheim, II, sec. 186. It is obviously beyond the scope of this article to enter into the details of the conduct of maritime warfare and its related questions, including neutrality. These matters are fully discussed in the more important works on international law and in special treatises.

82 The intricate rules governing contraband carriage, which have been much simplified by the Declaration of London, will be found discussed in Oppenheim, II, sec. 391 and in the special works cited by him at the head of Chapter IV.

82 Oppenheim, II, sees. 368–390.

83 Ibid., II, sees. 407–413.

84 Bentwich, 108.

85 Bentwich, 109 and cases cited. See also the Eastry (Gt. Brit.) v. Japan, Takahashi, S., International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, New York, 1908, pp. 358, 739.

87 See e. g., Arabia (U. S.) v. Russia, For. Rel. 1904 and 1905 and MS. Dept. of State, 1911; and Antiope (U. S.) v. Japan, MS. Dept. of State, 1911–1913. Belligerents have frequently violated the rule that a presumption of innocent use attaches to conditional contraband not consigned to a military base or destination and that the burden lies upon the captor to prove, and not upon the cargo owner to disprove, its intended hostile military use. Legal presumptions and the burden of proof play an exceedingly important part in claims arising out of captures on account of contraband. The designation of provisions as absolute contraband evoked earnest protests from neutrals during the Russo-Japanese war. Bon, Louis, , La guerre Russo-Japonaise et la neutralié, Montpelier, 1909, p. 227 Google Scholar.

88 See, e. g., the recent award of the Hague court, May 6, 1913, in the case of the Carthage (France) v. Italy, Jan. 26 and Mar. 6, 1912, 7 A. J. I. L. 623, in which Italy was held liable in damages for the capture and detention of a neutral vessel and the confiscation of an aeroplane on board, the seizure having been made without sufficient grounds to assert the hostile destination of the aeroplane. Hostile destination being a condition of contraband, the most important difference between absolute and conditional contraband lies in the presumptions of hostile use arising out of its consignment. Thus absolute contraband consigned to enemy territory is presumed to be destined for hostile military use, and the doctrine of continuous voyage applies. Conditional contraband, on the other hand, is presumed to have a non-hostile destination unless consigned to the military arm of the government, directly or indirectly, and the captor has the burden of overcoming the presumption. Oppenheim, II, § 395; Hirschmann, Otto, Das internationale Prisenrecht, Munchen, 1912, § 38. The generally accepted rule now is that the doctrine of continuous voyage does not apply to conditional contraband. Again, goods found in an enemy’s ship are presumed to be enemy’s property. The neutral must prove its neutral ownership, the evidence required depending upon the nature of the case. The matter of ownership is often a determining issue in prize cases. In the case of the Manouba (France) v. Italy, Jan. 26 and Mar. 6, 1912, Hague Court of Arbitration, indemnity was awarded for the capture and detention of a vessel having on board certain suspected enemy soldiers, the ground of award being that no demand for their surrender had been made. See also cases reported in Moore’s Arb. 3843–3885.

The impartial student of international law must have greeted with astonishment Great Britain’s recent radical departure from the accepted principles of maritime law in war, a course grievously subversive of the rights of neutrals. It seems inconceivable that Great Britain could have expected neutral nations to consent to the practical abrogation of the distinction between absolute and conditional contraband in the matter of hostile and innocent destination, and of the presumptions thereto attaching, as well as the remarkable enlargement of the contraband lists. The Order in Council of October 29, 1914 provides that notwithstanding the provisions of Art. 35 of the Declaration of London, which renders conditional contraband liable to capture only if destined “for the use of the armed forces or of a government department of the enemy state,” conditional contraband “shall be liable to capture on board a vessel bound for a neutral port if the goods are consigned ‘to order,’ or if the ship’s papers do not show who is the consignee of the goods or if they show a consignee of the goods in territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy.” Moreover, “the owner of the goods” must “prove that their destination was innocent.” Not only has the immunity of conditional contraband from the application of the doctrine of continuous voyages been practically set aside, but conditional contraband bound for any neutral port, if consigned “to order” is confiscable. Moreover, the established rule that the captor has the burden of proving the hostile destination of conditional contraband, a rule which Great Britain earnestly supported during and after the Russo-Japanese War, has been completely reversed by the Order. It is interesting to compare Sir Edward Grey’s contention in the Oldhamia case against Russia, Jan. 4 and Aug. 22, 1910. Misc. No. 1, 1912, Cd. 6011, pp. 15–17. Great Britain has left very little on the non-contraband list. In addition, if a neutral vessel has proceeded to an enemy port with false papers, she is liable to capture and condemnation “if she is encountered before the end of her next voyage.” Unless neutral governments have acquiesced in these Napoleonic restrictions upon neutral commerce, and thereby estopped themselves from supporting diplomatic claims of their citizens sustaining injury by these violations of international law, it would seem that Great Britain is laying the ground for a large number of just pecuniary claims by neutral nations on behalf of their citizens.

89 Comp. Gen. des Asphaltes (Gt. Brit.) v. Venezuela, Feb. 13, 1903, Ralston, 331, 336; Orinoco Asphalt Co. (Germany) v. Venezuela, ibid. 586; De Caro (Italy) v. Venezuela, ibid. 810; Martini, ibid. 819, and cases before the Anglo-Chilean Tribunal of 1893; Williamson, Balfour (Gt. Brit.) v. Chile, Reel. pres. al Trib. Anglo-Chileno, III, 335; St. Mary’s Bay, ibid. 557.

90 Bayne, Monmouth and Hilja (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Moore’s Arb. 3923–3928.

91 Hale’s Rep. 127. See Portendic claims in which France was held liable for failure to properly notify a blockade. 30 St. Pap. 581; 34 ibid. 1036; 42 ibid. 1377; Moore’s Arb. 4937, and note in Lapradelle’s Recited, p. 538.

92 Moore’s Arb. 3885–3923.

93 See, e. g., cases of the British schooners E. R. Nickerson and Wary, illegally seized during war with Spain, Sen. Doc. 396, 57th Cong., 1st sess., 32 Stat. L. 552; The Eastry (Gt. Brit.) v. Japan, Takahashi, op. cit. 739, 358; Manovba (France) v. Italy, supra, 7 A. J. I. L. 629. Certain cases reported in Moore’s Arb., ch. LXVI, p. 3815 et seq.

94 As between private parties, the decree of a prize court is a judgment in a proceeding in rem, and hence is conclusive against all the world as to matters within its jurisdiction. Cushing v. Laird, 107 U. S. 69.

95 Certain cases in Moore’s Arb., ch. LXVI, p. 3815 et seq. and cases in Russo-Japanese War, Takahashi, op. cit.

See also treaties between United States and Venezuela, May 1, 1852, Malloy, II, 1842; United States and Two Sicilies, Oct. 14, 1832, 20 St. Pap. 277; France and Brazil, Aug. 21, 1828, 15 St. Pap. 1242; United States and Portugal, Jan. 19, 1832, 19 St. Pap. 1379; Great Britain and Brazil, May 5, 1829, 18 St. Pap. 689; France and United States, July 4, 1831, Moore’s Arb. 4447–4485.

95 Oppenheim, sec. 192; Scott, J. B., The Hague Peace Conferences, ch. X, pp. 465–511.

97 See Oppenheim, sec. 194, in which numerous grounds are stated which have justified destruction. Under the Oxford rules of the Institute of International Law (1913), destruction is only permitted if the safety of the captor ship or the success of actual present military operations requires it (Art. 104). In Arts. 107, 113 and 114 indemnities are provided for in case the capture, seizure or destruction is held unwarranted.

98 Oppenheim, sec. 194. But see probable effect of Art. 3 of Convention XII, Scott, 485.

99 Art. 3 of Convention XIII of the Second Hague Conference makes it obligatory upon such neutral Power to “employ the means at its disposal to release the prize with its officers and crew.” Oppenheim, II, sec. 360; Scott, I, 620, et seq. See The Florida, 101 U. S. 37, a Confederate cruiser seized by United States in territorial waters of Brazil. On the reparation made to Brazil, see Moore’s Dig. VII, 1090. See also The Chesapeake, Moore’s Dig. VII, 937, and cases mentioned in same volume, § 1334.

100 The Diligentia, 1 Dodson, 412; Eliza Anne, 1 Dodson, 244 (dictum); The Anna, 5 Rob. 373; The Sir William Peel, 5 Wall. 517; The Anne, 3 Wheat. 447. See also Dana’s Wheaton,sec. 430 and note; the Twee Gebroeders, 3 Rob. 162, and Oppenheim, II, sec. 362.

101 The Anne, 3 Wheat. 447; The -Sir William Peel, 5 Wall. 517.

102 The Sir William Peel (Gt. Brit.) v. U. S., May 8, 1871, Moore’s Arb. 3948; Lawrence’s Wheaton, 2nd ed., 716.

103 Oppenheim, II, secs. 360–363. See Commodore Stewart’s case, 1 Ct. CI. 113.

104 It will not be possible to refer to these duties in any detail. These obligations of neutrals are now largely codified in Convention V of the Second Hague Conference respecting the rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in war on land and in Convention XIII concerning the rights and duties of neutral powers in maritime war. See Scott, Hague Peace Conferences, I, 541, et seq., 620, el seq.; Oppenheim, II, sec. 313, et seq.; Westlake, II, 117–119, 284–287, 321–331; Dupuis, Le Droit de la guerre maritime, Paris, 1912, ch. 12. On Convention V, see A. S. de Bustamente in 2 A. J. I. L. (1908), 95–120. Einicke, P., Rechte und Pflichten der neutralen Mächle im Seekrieg. Tubingen, 1912.

105 Wheaton, as representative of the United States, obtained heavy indemnities from Denmark for such breaches of neutrality during the Napoleonic Wars. Treaty of March 28, 1830, Moore’s Arb. 4549–4573. Spain was similarly held liable under the Florida treaty of Feb. 22, 1819, Moore’s Arb. 4487, 4513. The United States assumed heavy liabilities under Art. 7 of the Jay treaty of Nov. 19, 1794, for such use of its territory by France. Moore’s Arb. 3967, et seq., 3981.

106 Oppenheim, II, sec. 327.

107 But where the claimant vessel began the hostilities upon her captor, she forfeits neutral protection. The Anne, 3 Wheat. 435. The claim of the Brig Armstrong (U. S.) v. Portugal, attacked by a British vessel in Fayal, was dismissed because the brig had failed to notify the Portuguese authorities of the necessity of protection and that they were not physically in a position to protect. Moore’s Arb. 1071–1132. The decision has been severely criticized. Lapradelle and Politis, Recueil, I, 650, et seq.

108 These obligations had their origin in the Three Rules of Washington, applied in the Geneva Arbitration. Moore’s Arb. 4057–4178. See Convention XIII, 2nd Hague Conference, Arts. 6, et seq.; Hershey, ch. XXXI.

109 Arts. 4 and 6 of Convention V. The United States and British neutrality laws which prohibit citizens and subjects from enlisting within the jurisdiction (or by British law, even without his Majesty’s Dominions) exceed the requirements of international law.

110 But its negligence must be clearly proved. See cases in Moore’s Arb. 4027–4056.

111 Art. 7 of Convention V.

112 France, law of Aug. 11, 1792, Feb. 27, 1793, Nys, III, 456, 458; Law of Sept. 6, 1871, July 28, 1874 and Aug. 16, 1876, 65 St. Pap. 71 and 621; For. Rel. 1884, 357. Bentwich, pp. 42–43, cites various cases of voluntary indemnities in France, Germany, Italy and Great Britain. Germany in 1871 extended the indemnity to Germans and to subjects of such neutral States only as promised reciprocal treatment in a similar case. Moore’s Dig. VI, 905. Bentwich cites England’s generous conduct after the South-African War (p. 44). Great Britain also made compensation to deported neutrals. 26 Law Mag. and Rev. 486; For. Rel. 1903, 479–480; 28 Clunet (1901), 189. See also U. S. Act of April 9, 1816, supra, and Abandoned or Captured Property Act; Briggs v. U. S., 143 U. S. 346. Latin-American States often establish claims commissions after a civil war for deciding claims arising out of war injuries. See treaty between United States and Switzerland, Nov. 25, 1850, Art. 2, Malloy II, 1765, providing for equality with natives with respect to war indemnities.

113 Many European countries pressed claims against Chile arising out of her war of 1879–1883 with Bolivia and Peru. Large indemnities were paid. Moore’s Arb. 4916 (Germany). Some were submitted to arbitration. Seijas, V, 544–551; 73 St. Pap. 1211; 79 ibid. 670 (Italy); Martens, Nouv. rec. gén., 2* ser., 11, 638 (Belgium) 74 St. Pap. 128, 131, and 79 ibid. 671 (France); 77 St. Pap. 826 (Switzerland); 82 St. Pap. 1292 (Portugal); 76 St. Pap. 98; Martens, Nouv. rec. gén., 2* ser., 12, pp. 507–509 (Austria-Hungary). See also For. Rel. 1883, 97 and For. Rel. 1896, 42. See also claims conventions between Italy and Uruguay, Apr. 5, 1873, 63 St. Pap. 1322; Sardinia and Argentine, August 31, 1858, 49 St. Pap. 477, 480; Great Britain-France and Uruguay, June 28, 1862, 63 St. Pap. 1063; France and New Granada, Ecuador and Venezuela, 49 St. Pap. 1301; Great Britain and Nicaragua (seizures of neutral property and personal injuries) For. Rel. 1894, App. I, 234–363; Moore’s Arb. 4966; Great Britain and China, 1899 (Kowshing case), Pari. Pap. (Cd. 93) China, No. 1, 1900.

114 E. g., France v. China, treaty of Oct. 25, 1860, Art. V, Hertslet’s China Treaties, 3rd ed., London, 1908, 1, 289; France and Madagascar, French domestic commission, March 18, 1886, 77 St. Pap. 801, 78 St. Pap. 708; Great Britain and South African Republic, Aug. 3, 1881, 72 St. Pap. 900; Brazil and Paraguay, Jan. 9, 1872, La Fontaine, 167–170; Chile and Peru, Oct. 20, 1883, Art. 12, La Fontaine, 592, 593.