Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T23:32:58.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Innovations in Legal and Regulatory Concepts as to the Alien and his Property*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Otto C. Sommerich
Otto C. Sommerich*
Affiliation:
New York, N. Y.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The present totalitarian war and the emergency situations which preceded it and which are following in its wake have caused the creation of many new concepts which perhaps owe their basis to the theory that in the conduct of foreign affairs and in the conduct of war the executive arm of the government must be unhampered. In several recent cases the United States Supreme Court has held that under the Constitution the conduct of foreign relations is committed to the political departments of the Federal Government, and that the propriety of the exercise of that power is not open to judicial inquiry. However, it is now equally well settled that where a conflict of property rights under statutes and treaties is presented, the determination of these rights by the executive department is subject to review by the courts. The doctrine excluding from judicial inquiry the conduct of foreign relations by the political departments of the government has encouraged the creation of concepts which permeate the entire field relating to the alien and his property.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 1943 , pp. 58 - 73
Copyright
Copyright, 1943, by the American Society of International Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Revision of an Address delivered before the 65th Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association at Detroit, Mich., Aug. 24, 1942.

References

1 U. S. v. Pink, 301 U. S. 203; 62 S. Ct. 552, 562; this Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), p. 309.

2 Willoughby, Constitutional Law of the United States, 2d ed., §855, p. 1336; Jaffe, Judicial Aspects of Foreign Relations, p. 233; The Florence H., 248 F. 1012; U. S. v. Watts, 8 Sawyer 370; U. S. v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407; Tartar Chemical Co. v. U. S., 116 F. 726; Banco de España v. Federal Reserve Bank, 114 F. (2d) 438, 442.

3 1 Stat. 577; 50 U.S.C. 21.

4 40 Stat. 411, U. S. Code, Appendix; this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 12 (1918), p. 27.

5 54 Stat. 179; this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 35 (1941), p. 213.

6 Public Law 354, 77th Cong., 50 U. S. Code, Appendix, § 616; this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 36 (1942), p. 56.

7 Under the Selective Service Regulations, ed., Commerce Clearing House, 18601.02, the term “alien enemy” means a citizen or subject of any country who has been or may hereafter be proclaimed by the President to be an enemy alien of the United States.

8 See Department of State Bulletin, Aug. 1, 1942, p. 660.

9 C.C.H. War Law Service 9729.

10 C.C.H. War Law Service 8051. On and after Oct. 19, 1942, citizens of Italy were declared exempt from complying with the regulations relating to curfew and travel. C.C.H. 9743.

11 See Federal Register, Dec. 17, 1941, Vol. 6, No. 244, pp. 6450, 6451.

12 8 U.S.C. 726, subdivision d; this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 35 (1941), p. 79.

13 Federal Register, March 24, 1942, Vol. 7, No. 57, p. 2199.

14 See Final Act published by the Pan American Union, Washington, D. C., 1942, Congress and Conference Series No. 39, p. 16; also in Supplement to this Journal, p. 9.

15 314 U. S. 610; 62 S. Ct. 373; this Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), p. 489.

16 N.Y.L.J., Feb. 5, 1942.

17 The most comprehensive article on the subject of suits by alien enemies is that of Sterck and Schuck. 30 Georgetown Law Journal (March 1942), p. 421.

18 In re Kawato, 63 S. Ct. 115.

19 130 F. (2d) 396.

20 H. P. Drewry, S.A.R.L. v. Onassis, N.Y.L.J., Nov. 17, 1942, p. 1496.

21 40 Stat. 966.

22 54 Stat. 179.

23 50 U.S.C. Appendix, Sec. 616.

24 8 U.S.C. 501.

25 See Executive Order No. 8785, as amended, which amends Executive Order No. 8389.

26 7 Fed. Reg. 2168.

27 282 U. S. 481; this Journal, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 159.

28 This Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), p. 462.

29 288 N. Y. 332.

30 255 U. S. 239, 41 S. Ct. 293.

31 See The Defence (Finance) Regulations, by Howard, F. C., Butterworth & Co., Ltd., London, June 1, 1942.Google Scholar

32 New York Times, April 22, 1942.

33 New York Times, March 12, 1942.

34 Congress and Conference Series No. 39, p. 19, Supplement to this Journal, p. 9.

35 New York Times, Aug. 18, 1942.

36 C.C.H. War Law Service 8066.

37 Ex parte Ventura, et al., 44 F. Supp. 520; also Ex parte Lincoln Seiichi Kanai, 46 Fed. Supp. 286; U. S. v. Gordon Kiyoshi Hirabayashi, 46 Fed. Supp. 657: See contra opinion of Judge Fee, N. Y. Times, Nov. 17, 1942, U.S.D.C., District of Oregon, 11 U. S. Law Week, 2413.

38 C.C.H. War Law Service 8039.

39 11 U. S. Law Week, 4001; 63 Sup. Ct. Rep., pp. 1, 3; this Journal, infra, p. 152.

40 New York Times, July 28, 1942.

41 289 N. Y. 9; this Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), p. 701.

42 28 N.Y.S. (2d) 547.

43 71 Lloyd’s L. R. 197 (1942).

44 F. C. Howard, in Defence (Finance) Regulations, supra, p. 18; Bollack v. Société Générale Pour Favoriser, etc., 33 N. Y. S. (2d) 986.

45 N.Y.L.J. Nov. 23, 1942, p. 1578.