from any other prince who has purchased it, or received it in exchange, or acquired it by any title whatsoever." (Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 3, ch. 13, § 198; Treaty of Schewdt, Oct. 6th, 1713; De Felice, note 140, to tome 5 of Burlamaqui.)

§ 7. All implements of war, military and naval stores, and in general, all moveable property, belonging to the hostile state, is subject to be seized and appropriated to the use of the captor. And the title to such personal or moveable property is considered as lost to the original proprietor, as soon as the captor has acquired a firm possession; which, as a general rule, is considered as taking place after the lapse of twentyfour hours; so that, immediately after the expiration of that time, it may be alienated to neutrals as indefeasible property. But, with respect to maritime captures, a more absolute or certain species of possession is required, the original title not being, by some, considered as completely divested, until regularly condemned in a competent court of prize. But, this branch of the subject will be particularly discussed in another place; we are here considering only the capture of enemy's property on land. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 4, ch. 2, § 11; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 3, ch. 13, § 196; ch. 14, § 209; Grotius, de Jur. Bel. ac Pac., lib. 3, cap. 6, § 3; cap. 9, § 14; Kluber, Droit des Gens Mod., § 254; Heffter, Droit International, § 135, 136.)

§ 8. We have discussed in a former chapter the right of a belligerent state to confiscate, on the declaration of war, debts owing by its government, or by its subjects, to subjects of the enemy. We will now consider the right to capture them as the property of the enemy, found in hostile territory, by capturing the documents which constitute the evidence of such debts. It will be observed that this question is entirely distinct from the right to confiscate a debt, ipso facto, by the declaration of war. We have an example from classical history. When Alexander took the city of Thebes, he found an instrument by which it was shown that the Thessalians, who served with him, owed the Thebans an hundred talents. This instrument he gave to the Thessalians as a cancillation of their debt. On the restoration of the Thebans, they demanded the payment of the debt as still due and owing them. The case was referred to the Amphictyonic council,

and their decision is understood to have been in favor of the Thessalians. Quintilian, makes a number of objections to the validity of the gift, by Alexander, and offers some important arguments in favor of the demand of the Thebans. To all of these objections and arguments, Puffendorf suggests answers, and opposes the demand, on the following grounds: 1st, that the seizure, being made in solemn war, was a just one; 2d, that the right acquired by war, to a thing taken in war, is a valid title, and must be so regarded in civil law; 3d, that the restoration not being provided for in the treaty of peace, everything is left to the possessor as his own; 4th, that in capturing Thebes, Alexander captured the action of debt due to Thebes, which he might either retain himself or transfer to another; 5th, that the conquest destroyed the former body politic of Thebes, and the new commonwealth established by Cassander, did not succeed to the rights of the one destroyed by Alexander; and 6th, that the Thessalians had obtained the instrument in no unjust manner, it having been given to them by one who had obtained it by the right of conquest. Jurists have generally sustained the supposed decision of the Amphictyons, on the ground of the complete conquest of Thebes, and that Alexander became the universal successor of the conquered state, but not on the ground of the mere capture of the documentary evidence of the debt. The instruments cannot be regarded as the debt, because a creditor may recover his debt, though the instruments be lost or destroyed; they are means, but not the only means of proving that it exists. It is, therefore, held that the mere fact of the conqueror possessing himself of the documents, relating to incorporeal rights, does not give to him the possession of the rights themselves; and as his rights, as derived from military force, are simply those of possession, it is not competent for him to bestow upon, or transfer to another, what he cannot physically take possession of himself. (Quintilian, Inst. Orat., lib. 5, cap. 10; Puffendorf, de Jur. Nat. et Gent., lib. 8, cap. 6, § 23; Aerodius, Rerum Ind. Pandect, lib. 2, tit. 2, cap. 1; Grotius de Jur. Bel. ac Pac., lib. 3, cap. 8, §4; Alberius Gentilis, de Jure Belli, lib. 3, cap. 5; Coccejus, Grotius Illustratus, lib. 3, p. 202, 236; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 3, ch. 14, § 212 Hotman, Quaest Illustr., sec. 5; Pfeiffer,

Das Recht der Kriegseroberung, pp. 165-180; Brumleger, Diss. de Occupatione Bellica, p. 38; Burlamaqui, de Droit de la Nat. et des Gens, p. 4, ch. 7, § 14; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 3, §§ 561, 562; Heffter, Droit International, § 134.; Schweikart, Napoleon und der Kur., pp. 74, 82; Tittman, Ueber den Bund der Amp., p. 135.)

§ 9. There is one species of moveable property belonging to a belligerent state which is exempt, not only from plunder and destruction, but also from capture and conversion, viz.: state papers, public archives, historical records, judicial and legal documents, land titles, etc., etc. While the enemy is in possession of a town or province, he has a right to hold such papers and records, and to use them in regulating the government of his conquest; but if this conquest is recovered by the original owner during the war, or surrendered to him by the treaty of peace, they should be returned to the authorities from whom they were taken, or to their successors. Such documents adhere to the government of the place or territory to which they belong, and should always be transferred with it. None but a barbarous and uncivilized enemy would ever think of destroying or withholding them. The reasons of this rule are manifest. Their destruction would not operate to promote, in any respect, the object of the war, but, on the contrary, would produce an animosity and irritation which would extend beyond the war. It would inflict an unnecessary injury upon the conquered without any benefit to the conqueror. Moreover, such archives, records, and papers, often constitute the basis and evidence of private property, and their destruction would be a useless destruction of private property; in other words, it would be an injury done in war beyond the necessity of war, and, therefore, illegal, barbarous, and cruel. The same reasons apply to carrying them off and withholding them from their proper owners and legitimate use. (Real, Science du Gou vernement, tome 5, ch. 2; Leiber, Political Ethics, p. 7, § 25; Kent, Com. on Am. Law, vol. 1, p. 92; Heffter, Droit International, §§ 130, 131; Bodinus, De Republica, lib. 1, p. 34; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 2, cap. 4, § 6.)

§10. Some have contended that the same rule applies to public libraries and to all monuments of art and models of

taste. But there is an obvious distinction in the two cases. No belligerent would be justifiable in destroying temples, tombs, statutes, paintings, or other works of art, (except so far as their destruction may be the accidental or necessary result of military operations.) But, may he not seize and appropriate to his own use such works of genius and taste as belong to the hostile state, and are of a moveable character? This was done by the French armies in the wars of conquest which followed the revolution of 1789. The practice was condemed by the English writers of that age, but this condemnation seemed rather the result of national prejudice than sound reasoning. The acquisitions of the Parisian galleries and museums from the conquest of Italy, were generally obtained by means of treaty stipulations, or forced contributions levied by Napoleon on the Italian princes. They are equally condemned by the English historians. It should be remembered that but few of the master-pieces taken from Italy were in their original places, or in the possession of their original owners. We need hardly mention the Apollo Belvidere, the Dying Gladiator, the Venus, the Laocoon, the Bronze Horses, etc. Major Henry Lee, an American writer of great ability, discusses this question in his Life of Napoleon, and deems these forced contributions as not only justifiable by the laws of war, but as highly creditable to the conqueror, as adding grace and refinement to the warfare, and as reflecting lustre on the French arms, by harmonizing the rudeness of military fame with the softer glories of taste and imagination. It is proper to remark, however, that other distinguished and impartial writers dissent from the foregoing opinion, and regard this species of military contribution as an abuse of the power of conquest, and contrary to the usages of modern civilized warfare. On the invasion of France, in 1815, the pictures, statues, and other monuments of art, collected from other countries, as spoils of war, or acquired under treaties, were seized and distributed among the allies. In the debate in the British house of commons, February 20th, 1816, Sir Samuel Romilly, speaking incidently of this proceeding, stated, that "it was not true that the works of art, deposited in the museum of the Louvre, had all been carried away as the spoils of war; many,

and the most valuable of them, had become the property of France, by express treaty stipulations; and it was no answer to say, that these treaties had been made necessary by unjust aggressions and unprincipled wars, because there would be an end of all faith between nations, if treaties were to be held not to be binding, because the wars out of which they arose were unjust, especially as there could be no competent judge to decide upon the justice of the war, but the nation. itself. By whom, too, was it that this supposed act of justice, and this 'great moral lesson,' as it was called, had been read? By the very powers who had, at different times, abetted France in these, her unjust wars! Among other articles carried from Paris, under the pretense of restoring them to their rightful owners, were the celebrated Corinthian horses which had been brought from Venice; but how strange an act of justice was this to give them back their statues, but not to restore to them those far more valuable possessions, their territory and their republic, which were, at the same time, wrested from the Venetians? But the reason of this was obvious: the city and territory of Venice had been transferred to Austria by the treaty of Campo Formio, but the horses had remained the trophy of France; and Austria, whilst she was thus hypocritically reading this moral lesson to nations, not only quietly retained the rich and unjust spoils she had got, but restored these splendid works of art, not to Venice, which had been despoiled of them, the ancient, independent, republican Venice, but to Austrian Venice,—to that country which, in defiance of all the principles which she pretended to be acting on, she still retained as a part of her own dominions." On an examination of all that has been said and written on this subject, and weighing all the circumstances connected with the formation and spoiliation of the rich museum of the Louvre, we think the impartial judge must conclude, either that such works of art are legitimate trophies of war, or, that the conduct of the allied powers in 1815, was in direct violation of the law of nations. It is impossible to avoid one or the other conclusion. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 4, ch. 2, §6; Kent, Com. on Am. Law, vol. 1, p. 93; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 3, ch. 9, § 168; Martens, Nouveau Recueil, tome 2, p. 632; Life of Romilly, vol. 2, p.