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 by the vessel on board of which he has taken passage if he personally is in no fault. United States v. Guillem, 11 How. 47. See this case considered in dispatch from Mr. Hoffman, Apr. 14, 1879, For. Rel. 1879, 913; Wharton, Com. Am. Law, § 219. The question how far a temporary residence of a neutral merchant in an enemy's country imposes on such merchant the enemy's liability to capture at sea is discussed at large by Mr. Pinkney, as commissioner, under the treaty of 1794, Wheaton's Life of Pinkney, 245 et seq. 6. CORPORATIONS. § 1194. There is no legal difference, as. to a plea of alien enemy, between a corporation and an individual. Society, etc., v. Wheeler, 2 Gall. 105. See, also, The Danckebaar Africaan, 1 Rob. 107; Martine v. Int. Life Ins. See Nigel Gold Mining Co., Lim., v. Hoade (1901), 17 T. L. R. 711, and the IX. EXEMPTIONS FROM CAPTURE. 1. GOODS ON NEUTRAL VESSELS. $1195. By international law up to the present time the ships of an enemy are lawful prize, but their cargoes may or may not be subject to condemnation. On the other hand, ships of a neutral are not in themselves good prize, but may become so as the result of unneutral conduct such as the attempt to break a blockade; and their cargoes, like those of enemy ships, may or may not be subject to confiscation, according to circumstances. As to the treatment of cargo, the following rules have been acted upon: 1. The goods of an enemy may be seized and confiscated whether found in an enemy or in a neutral ship. 2. Goods of an enemy, contraband of war excepted, are exempt from seizure and confiscation when on board of a neutral ship. This is known as the rule of" free ships, free goods." 3. The goods partake of the character of the ship: If the ship is neutral, they are free; if the ship belongs to an enemy, they are condemned. This is known as the rule of" free ships, free goods; enemy ship, enemy goods." The last rule is enforced only under special treaty stipulations. The great contest has been waged between the first and second rules. The first, that the fate of the goods is determined by the belligerent. or neutral character of the owner, without regard to whether the ship is enemy or neutral, was at one time the common law of Europe. It was laid down in the Consolato del Mare and was universally accepted. But about the middle of the seventeenth century a new rule began to be introduced, and it was stipulated in various treaties that the goods of an enemy should be free when on board a neutral ship. This rule was in time embodied in the marine ordinances of France. It was strenuously advocated by the Dutch. It was embraced in the declaration of the Empress of Russia of 1780, which formed the basis of the first armed neutrality. Great Britain generally adhered to the old rule, and in the maritime wars of the eighteenth century the new rule was little observed. Eventually, however, Great Britain came to accept the new rule. When the Crimean war broke out she joined France in proclaiming that enemy property on board a neutral ship would be respected. Then, at the close of the war, came the famous Declaration of Paris of April 16, 1856, the second and third rules of which, as we have seen, read as follows: "2. The neutral flag covers an enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war. "3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy's flag." The position of the United States with reference to these rules has often been misapprehended. The rule that neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy's flag, has always been acted upon by the United States, save in case of special treaty stipulations to the contrary; but, with the rule that free ships make free goods, the case is different. Mr. Seward, referring to this rule, as embodied in the Declaration of Paris, once said: "We have always practiced on the principles of the declaration." Similar expressions may be found in the works of publicists, but they are inaccurate. Although American statesmen had advocated the adoption of the rule, the American courts, except where a treaty prescribed a different rule, had uniformly confiscated enemy property, even when it was seized under a neutral flag. And what is to be said as to our treaties? In only ten of them, made with seven powers-Algiers, 1816; Morocco, 1787 and 1836; Prussia, 1785 and 1828; Spain, 1795; Tripoli, 1796 and 1805; Tunis, 1797; and Venezuela, 1860-had the rule of "free ships, free goods" been stipulated for unconditionally, contraband always excepted. In six treaties-Russia, 1854; Two Sicilies, 1855; Peru, 1856; Bolivia, 1858; Hayti, 1864; and the Dominican Republic, 1867-the principle of "free ships, free goods" was recognized as "permanent and im a Instruction to Mr. Dayton, min. to France, Sept. 10, 1861, Diplomatic Correspondence 1861, 233-235. 66 mutable," but the contracting parties engaged to apply it only to the commerce and navigation of such powers as should consent to adopt" it as "permanent and immutable." Of these treaties, those with the Dominican Republic and the Two Sicilies have ceased to be in force, and that with Peru had been superseded. In our treaty with Spain of 1819 the principle of " free ships, free goods" was acknowledged, but only in regard to the property of enemies whose governments recognized it. Similar stipulations may be found in our treaties with Italy of 1871 and Peru of 1887, and indeed in the first treaty ever concluded by the United States-the treaty of amity and commerce with France of February 6, 1778. But in the treaty with France they were coupled with yet another stipulation restrictive of neutral commerce, namely, that the goods of the citizens of the contracting parties should be confiscated, if laden on the ship of an enemy, unless they were shipped before the declaration of war, or within a certain time afterwards in ignorance of the declaration. These associated stipulations are found more generally than any others in our treaties relating to neutral rights, as may be seen by the following list: Brazil, 1828; Central America, 1825; Chile, 1832; Colombia, 1824 and 1846; Ecuador, 1839; France, 1800; Guatemala, 1849; Mexico, 1831; the Netherlands, 1782; Peru, 1851; Peru-Bolivia, 1836; Salvador, 1850 and 1870; Sweden, 1783; Sweden and Norway, 1816 and 1827; and Venezuela, 1836. But at the outbreak of the war with Spain all these treaties, except those with Colombia (1846), Salvador (1870), and Sweden and Norway (1827), had ceased to be in force. With Great Britain we had had no engagement on the subject except that embodied in the treaty of 1794, which acknowledged the rule of the common law. "I believe it can not be doubted, but that, by the general law of nations, the goods of a friend found in the vessel of an enemy are free, and the goods of an enemy found in the vessel of a friend are lawful prize. Upon this principle, I presume, the British armed vessels have taken the property of French citizens found in our vessels, in the cases above mentioned, and I confess I should be at a loss on what principle to reclaim it. It is true, that sundry nations, desirous of avoiding the inconveniences of having their vessels stopped at sea, ransacked, carried into port, and detained, under pretence of having enemy goods on board, have, in many instances, introduced, by their special treaties, another principle between them, that enemy bottoms shall make enemy goods and friendly bottoms friendly goods-a principle much less embarrassing to commerce, and equal to all parties in point of gain and loss; but this is altogether the effect of particular treaty, controlling, in special cases, the general principle of |