Venus (8 Cranch, 253), dissenting in this respect from the majority of the court, who held to the English view. Chancellor Kent (Com. i. 79) and Mr. Duer (Ins. i. 498), vindicate the dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice; Chancellor Kent saying 'there is no doubt of its superior solidity and justice.' And even by the English courts a person doing business in a land in which he is not naturalized is allowed, on the breaking out of war, a reasonable time to leave such land, and dissolve his business relations. The Gerasimo, 11 Moore, P. C. 88; The Ariel, id. 119; see, for parallel cases in this country, The William Bagaley, 5 Wall. 377; The Gray Jacket, 5 Wall. 342. But where a merchant elects to put his goods in a country engaged in war, he impresses such goods, according to the English view, with the political character of such country; and this allows a merchant to act in two characters, so as to protect his property connected with his house in a neutral country, and to subject to seizure and forfeiture his effects belonging to the establishment in the belligerent country."" Wharton, Int. Law Digest, III, 344.

2. IMMATERIALITY OF PERSONAL DISPOSITION.

§ 1190.

"It is said, that though remaining in rebel territory, Mrs. Alexander has no personal sympathy with the rebel cause, and that her property therefore can not be regarded as enemy property; but this court can not inquire into the personal character and dispositions of individual inhabitants of enemy territory. We must be governed by the principle of public law, so often announced from this bench as applicable alike to civil and international wars, that all the people of each State or district in insurrection against the United States, must be regarded as enemies, until, by the action of the legislature and the executive, or otherwise, that relation is thoroughly and permanently changed."

Chase, C. J., Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 404, 419.

An attempt was made to prevent the condemnation of a vessel, captured by an American cruiser in June, 1898, as Prize-enemy char- enemy's property, on the ground that the alleged owner, one de Messa, though a Spanish subject,

acter.

should not be treated as an enemy of the United States. It was argued that the vessel when captured was engaged in a voyage in behalf of the local Cuban junta at Kingston, Jamaica, allies of the United States, and was thus captured in the service of the United States in the performance of friendly offices to the United States forces in Cuba. There was "evidence tending to show that Messa sympathized with the Cuban insurgents, but no proof that he was himself a Cuban rebel

or that he had renounced his allegiance to Spain." The cargo of the vessel when captured consisted chiefly of flour, and there was evidence to show that this flour, when landed at Manzanillo, was immediately transferred to the Spanish Government warehouse. The court referred to Manzanillo as a "Spanish stronghold," and observed that the delivery of the provisions to the Spanish Government constituted, under the laws of war, illicit intercourse with the enemy. It was alleged, however, that de Messa had rendered important service to the United States; that he was the friend and not the enemy of the United States, and that there was an agreement between him and the United States consul which operated to protect the vessel from capture. It appeared that de Messa had endeavored to cultivate friendly relations with the United States consul at Kingston, and had given him an old government plan of the province of Santiago, and an especially prepared chart of the harbor, in return for which he endeavored to obtain from the consul a letter of protection for the voyage which he was about to undertake. The consul declined to furnish the letter, but on June 23 wrote to Admiral Sampson that de Messa offered to give certain information that might be valuable, and proposed to be off Cape Cruz on June 30, adding: "You quite understand that in dealing with those people, one is always more or less liable to imposition. I therefore make no recommendation of Messa to you." The claimant asserted, while the consul denied, that protection was given to the voyage by his letter. With reference to this contention, the court said that there was nothing to show that the voyage was undertaken on the strength of the letter, or that it in any way contributed to the capture; nor that the admiral intended to avail himself of the suggestion made in it; "but," said the court, "we do not go at length into this matter because we think that no engagement with the United States nor any particular service to the United States was made out in that connection, and so far as appears the vessel was captured in the ordinary course of cruising duty at a time and under circumstances when her liability was not to be denied. Moreover, a United States consul has no authority by virtue of his official station to grant any license or permit the exemption of a vessel of an enemy from capture and confiscation." Referring to the same subject in another place, the court said: "Messa's status was that of an enemy, as already stated, and this must be held to be so notwithstanding individual acts of friendship, certainly since there was no open adherence to the Cuban cause, and allegiance could have been shifted with the accidents of war."

The Benito Estenger, 176 U. S. 568.

3. CONSULS.

§ 1191.

The ship Indian Chief, belonging to Mr. Johnson, a citizen of the United States, who had lately been American consul in London, was seized at Cowes, and libeled as a droit of the admiralty. Her cargo, which was taken at Batavia, belonged to Mr. Millar, American consul at Calcutta, and she had called at Cowes to receive orders concerning its delivery. The question of condemnation depended upon whether Messrs. Johnson and Millar were to be regarded as having a commercial domicil in British territory. In the case of the former, it was found that he had taken steps to regain his American character, and the ship was restored. As to Mr. Millar, is was held that he was, in spite of his consular character, to be considered as a British (domiciled) merchant, and the cargo was condemned.

The Indian Chief (1801), 3 C. Rob. 12.

"As connected with this subject, it is proper that I should inform you that a ship belonging to Mr. Johnson, late our consul here, laden with a cargo belonging to Mr. Miller, our consul at Calcutta, and bound from Batavia to Hamburgh, touched a few weeks since at Cowes, where she was detained and has since been libelled as a droit of Admiralty. Upon my application for her release, I have been answered that it is thought proper to make this case the subject of a judicial decision; that Johnson and Miller were both domiciled as alien merchants within the British dominions, that being so domiciled they no longer possessed the commercial rights of the citizens of the nation to which they belonged, but were subject to the laws of Great Britain, which prohibit every person settled within the British dominions from trading with any nation with whom Great Britain is at war. I have on a former occasion stated to you the law as it is here interpreted concerning the consuls of neutral nations residing and carrying on trade in belligerent nations. In this case I observed among other things to Sir Wm. Scott that both Johnson and Miller were in their consular commissions named as American citizens and their exequatur must be considered as an admission thereof on the part of the Crown; that it therefore seemed unreasonable to confound the case of consuls who, for the benefit of the commerce of their nation, are sent to reside within the British dominions with that of other foreigners who for the mere sake of trade might come to settle there. The Advocate-General replied that the recognition of a consul was relative merely to his consular or official character, and could not be intended to grant any commercial privileges to the person named as consul; that the contrary doctrine would be introductory of great mischief, and that the law upon this subject has been long settled. I have recommended to the gentlemen who represent Mr. Johnson and Mr. Miller to contest this law, tho' Doctor Nicholl gives me little encouragement to hope that the decision of the court will be in our favour. Perhaps the circumstance that Johnson had quitted London and probably was in America at the time of the seizure may operate

in his favour. At any rate it is suitable that you should be acquainted with a transaction that so materially affects the economical views of our consular system." (Mr. King, min. to England, to the Secretary of State, No. 60, December 28, 1797, MS. Desp. England.) "The French practice is so far different that the property of a neutral subject, consul for a neutral state in a belligerent country, and carrying on trade in the latter, is held to be itself neutral." (Hall, Int. Law, 5th ed. 501, citing Le Hardi contre la Voltigeante, Pistoye et Duverdy, I. 321; La Paix, ib.)

Certain tobacco belonging to the Portuguese vice-consul at Gibara, Cuba, was seized by the United States and condemned as prize, together with the Spanish vessel of which it formed the cargo. It was asserted that a claim for the tobacco was not directly and formally presented owing to certain correspondence between the Departments of State and Justice and the Portuguese minister. Held, that the precedents would have led to the condemnation of tobacco so owned, so shipped, so originating, and that its condemnation was not illegal and tortious, and that the demand of this merchant, whose status was not effected by his consular character, is without substantial merit.

Griggs, At. Gen., Feb. 10, 1899, 22 Op. 327.

4. INTERESTS OF PARTNERS.

§ 1192.

The share of a partner in a neutral house is, jure belli, subject to confiscation where his own domicil is in a hostile country.

The Antonia Johanna (1816), 1 Wheat. 159.

See The Jonge Classina, 5 C. Rob. 302; The Anna Catherina, 4 C. Rob. 119; The Portland, 3 C. Rob. 44; Calvo, § 1719-cited in Hall, Int. Law, 5th ed. 501.

The property of a house of trade established in the enemy's country is condemnable as prize, whatever may be the personal domicil of the partners.

The Friendschaft, 4 Wheat. 105.

If there be a house of trade established in the enemy's country, the property of all the partners in the house is condemnable as prize, notwithstanding some of them have a neutral residence. But such connection will not affect the other separate property of the partners having a neutral residence.

The San José Indiano, 2 Gall. 268.

The property of a commercial house, established in the enemy's country, is subject to seizure and condemnation as prize, though some of the partners may have a neutral domicil.

The Cheshire, 3 Wall. 231.

The presumption of the law of nations is against an owner who suffers his property to continue in the hostile country for a considerable length of time. If a person, abandoning a hostile country, has had his property in partnership with citizens thereof, it is his duty to withdraw or dispose of his interest in the firm. If he neglects to do so, his property becomes liable as enemy's property.

The William Bagaley, 5 Wall. 377.

The taint of belligerent domicil does not reach the separate property of a partner having a neutral domicil, see the Sally Magee, Blatch. Pr. Cas. 382; The Aigburth, id. 635.

5. CHANGE OF DOMICIL.

§ 1193.

If a native citizen of the United States emigrate, before a declaration of war, to a neutral country and acquire a domicil there, and afterwards return, during the war, to the United States and reacquire his domicil here, he becomes a redintegrated American citizen, and can not flagrante bello separate himself from his character as such and acquire a neutral character by returning to his adopted country.

The Dos Hermanos (1817), 2 Wheat. 76.

The native character does not revert, by a mere return to his native country, to a merchant who is domiciled in a neutral country at the time of a capture, and after the capture leaves his commercial establishment in the neutral country to be conducted by his clerks in his absence, visiting his native country merely on mercantile business, and intending to return to his adopted country. His neutral domicil still continues.

The Friendschaft, 3 Wheat. 14.

British subjects residing in Portugal, though allowed great privileges, do not retain their native character, but acquire that of the country where they reside and carry on their trade. (Ibid.)

A neutral, who has resided in an enemy's country, resumes his neutral rights as soon as he puts himself and his family in itinere to return home to reside, and has a right to take with him money he has earned, as the means of support for himself and his family. Such property, it was further held, is not forfeited by a breach of blockade