creditor, if the money has been applied to the benefit of the State-if there has been what the civilians term a versio in rem-the payment will be regarded as valid.' from § 29. The earliest historical example of the effect of mili- Examples tary occupation or conquest, on the payment or cancelling ancient of debts due to the conquered State, is that of the hundred history talents borrowed by the Thessalonians from Thebes, and remitted by Alexander, as has been stated in chapter xxi. This case, however, belongs rather to complete conquests, than to mere military occupation; for the debt not being paid, but remitted, as a gift, the validity of the gift could be sustained only on the ground that Alexander had become so entirely and absolutely master of Thebes, as to constitute him the heir and universal successor to the defunct and extinguished State. In the civil war between Cæsar and Pompey, the former remitted to the city of Dyrrachium the payment of a debt which it owed to Caius Flavius, the friend of Decius Brutus. The jurists who have commented on this transaction, agree that the debt was not legally discharged: 1st, because in a civil war there could be, properly speaking, no occupation; and 2nd, because it was a private and not a public debt. Another classical example was that of the confiscation of Rhodian houses and debts within the Syrian dominions, by Antiochus, king of Syria; but this was settled by the peace which provided for the status quo ante bellum.2 from modern § 30. The first example in modern times, referred to by Examples jurists, occurred in 1349. A Fleming lent a Frenchman a thousand crowns; the latter contrived to delay the payment history until war broke out between Flanders and France, and then paid the money into the French treasury. After the peace the Fleming again demanded his debt, but the Frenchman defended himself by alleging the payment to the royal treasury. He, however, was condemned to pay back so much of the thousand crowns as he should be proved to have expended to his own benefit; in other words, the court of his own country relieved him only to the extent of the sum actually paid 1 Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. iii. §§ 157, 158; Kluber, Europ. Völkerrecht, §§ 258, 259; J. Voet, Com. ad Pandectas, lib. xix. tit. ii. § 28. 2 Quintilian, Inst. Orat., lib. v. cap. x.; Albericus Gentilis, De Jure Belli, lib. iii. cap. v. ; Cocceius, Grotius Illustratus, t. iii. pp. 202, 236; Polybius, Histor. Excerpta Legationes, cap. xxxv.; Tittman, Ueber den Bund des Amph., p. 135; Kamptz, Literatur, &c., § 307. to the sovereign of the debtor. The fraudulent mora does not seem to have entered into the judicial investigation of this case. In a war between Pisa and Florence, toward the close of the fifteenth century, the former compelled, by threats of punishment, its subjects, who were debtors to Florentine subjects, to pay their debts into the Pisan treasury. A Pisan debtor, named Ludovicus, who had so paid his debt, was nevertheless sued for it by his Florentine creditor; the question was referred to Philip Decius, a Milanese jurist of the highest reputation, who, reciting the premises, concludes: 'Ex quibus omnibus concludo et indubitanter existimo, quod Ludovicus mediante tali solutione fuerit liberatus.' In the year 1495, when Charles VIII. of France overran Italy, and temporarily replaced the house of Anjou upon the throne of Naples, the debts due to the State from the opposite faction were called in, as a means of enriching the Angevin party. Some of the debtors paid honestly the full amount of their debts; others paid a portion, and obtained a receipt in full; others again obtained a written discharge, without paying anything. Four months afterwards, Ferdinand of Aragon was restored to power, and the French and Angevins driven out; and the validity of these payments and receipts was sharply contested. The opinion of Matthæus de Afflictis, a jurist of the highest authority, was invoked, which concluded in the following words: Prima conclusio, quod illi debitores regum de Arragoniâ, qui fuerunt in morâ solvendi dictis regibus pecuniam debitam in genere, et jussu regis Caroli et suorum officialium solverunt ipsis donatariis, non sunt liberati, et tenentur solvere dictis regibus, veris creditoribus. Secunda conclusio sit ista, quod illi debitores qui non fuerunt in morâ solvendi dictis creditoribus, sed jussi fuerunt ab officialibus regis Franciæ, quod solvant illis Gallis, virtute largitatis regis, et ipsi fecerunt, quidquid eis fuit possibile, ut non solverent, et realiter eis solverunt propter jussum pœnalem, et isti sunt liberati. Tertia conclusio sit ista, quod si debitor fuit in morâ, sed erat infra tempus purgandi moram, et infra illud tempus sit exactus ab illis Gallis jussu magistratus, tunc solvendo Gallis perinde habetur ac si non esset in morâ, et sic erit liberatus. Quarta conclusio sit ista, quod debitor, qui solvit Gallis illam pecuniam debitam regibus de Arragoniâ virtute jussus magistratus, cui non potuit resistere, et pecuniam illam debitam post diem solutionis faciendæ erat solitum, quod ipsi debitores penes se retinebant pro expensis occurrentibus in administratione officii nomine regio, si ipsam pecuniam Gallis solverunt, sunt liberati, etiam quod fuerint in morâ. Quinta conclusio sit ista, quod illi debitores, qui solutionem probant per confessionem Gallorum publicam vel privatam, ita quod non probant veram numerationem pecuniæ eis factam, non sunt liberati, sed debent solvere veris creditoribus, quantumcunque ostenderint dictum jussum. Sexta conclusio, quod illi debitores, qui se concordaverunt, et non ostendunt veram solutionem in totum vel in partem, non sunt liberati. Exitus rei approbavit istas conclusiones.' The case of the debtors of the Prince of Hesse-Cassel, which has furnished such a fruitful subject for discussion by modern jurists, belongs rather to complete con quests than mere military occupation, and will, therefore, be considered in the next chapter. The only additional case in modern times, to which we shall here refer, occurred during the war between the United States and the republic of Mexico. The Messrs. Laurents, British subjects domiciled in Mexico, had purchased of the Mexican government, in 1847, certain church property, the sale of which had been previously authorised by a law of the Mexican Congress. The contract of sale was duly signed by the Laurents as purchasers, and by the agents of the government as the sellers, and the purchase money deposited in the hands of a banker, to await the execution of the conveyance by the proper government officer. By some neglect the instrument had not been signed, but the purchasers were in possession of the property, and the money still remained on deposit when the city of Mexico was captured by the American forces. This money was seized and confiscated by General Scott as the property of the Mexican government. On the return of peace the church reclaimed the property, and, on suit, recovered its possession from the Messrs. Laurents, not on the ground of a default of payment, but of illegality of sale. The Laurents then made a reclamation against the United States for the money confiscated, as British subjects, before the joint commission of the two governments. The commissioners being unable to agree, the case was referred to the umpire, who decided that, according to the rules of international law, the claimants were, at least for the time VOL. II. H H being, to be regarded as Mexican citizens, and not British subjects. Their claim was, therefore, rejected.1 1 Paponius, Recueil d'Arrêts, liv. v. tit. vi. Arrêt 2; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. iii. §§ 565-569; Commission of Claims between U. S. and G. Britain, pp. 120-160; Philip Decius, Consilia, cap. xxv.; Matthæus de Afflictis, Decisiones Nap., Dec. 150; Pfeiffer, Das Recht der Kriegseroberung, pp. 191, 192. 467 CHAPTER XXXIV RIGHTS OF COMPLETE CONQUEST 1. Conquests, how completed-2. Acquisition of parts of a State-3. Subjugation of an entire State-4. Retroactive effect of confirmation of conquest-5. Transfer of personal allegiance by conquest-6. The assent of the subject required-7. Such assent determined by domicile ---8. Case of Hallemund-9. Application to naturalised citizens and foreign subjects-10. Rule varied by treaty and by municipal law11. Right to citizenship under new sovereignty-12. English law on this subject-13. American decisions-14. Laws of the conquered territory-15. Conquered territory under British laws-16. Under the United States—17. Laws of conquered State, how affected by the new sovereignty-18. How affected by laws of military occupation-19. What laws of new sovereignty extend over it-20. Conquests and discoveries-21. Laws contrary to fundamental principles of new sovereignty-22. American decisions-23. Revenue laws in California24. Conquest changes political rights, but not rights of property -25. Title to private estate-26. Necessity of remedial laws for such titles-27. Effect of conquest on the property of the State—28. Alienated domains of Hesse-Cassel-29. Debts of Hesse-Cassel. § 1. As already remarked, the conqueror's title to immovable Conquests, property taken from the enemy, may be completed in various how completed ways, as by a treaty of peace or of cession, by entire subjugation and the incorporation with the conquering State, by civil revolution and the consent of the inhabitants, or by the mere lapse of time and the inability of the former sovereignty to recover its lost possessions. We will proceed to consider these different modes of confirmation. The title to conquered territory is made complete by a treaty of peace, either by express provisions of cession, or by the implied condition of uti possidetis. If the stipulation of cession is introduced in the treaty, it is usual to require of the conqueror certain stipulations with respect to the inhabitants of the ceded conquered territory, in order to secure to them rights not guaranteed by the positive law of nations. But the conqueror's title is equally made complete by the silent operation of a general treaty of Clark v. United States, 3 Wash. C. C., 10I. |