state recognized the payment, as made by him, to be valid; in other words, that it was made in good faith, and to the de facto authority authorized by the fundamental laws to receive it. It is not a necessary condition, but it is a substantive defense against the original creditor, that the money has been applied to his benefit; thus, in the case of a state 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. (Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 3, §§ 157, 158; Kluber, Europ. Volkerrecht, §§ 258, 259; Pfeiffer, Dos Recht der Kreigseroberung, pp. 161– 164; Wolfius, Jus Gentium, cap. 7, §840; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 3, ch. 5, § 77; J. Voet, Com. ad Pandectas, lib. 19, tit. 2, § 28; Heffler, Droit International, § 134.)

§ 29. The earliest historical example of the effect of military occupation or conquest, on the payment or cancelling of debts due the conquered state, is that of the hundred talents borrowed by the Thessalonians from Thebes, and remitted by Alexander, as has been stated in another chapter. 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 2d, 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. (Philli more, On Int. Law, vol. 3, §§ 561-563; Quintilian, Inst. Orat., lib. 5, cap. 10; Puffendorf, De Jur. Nat. et Gent, lib. 8, cap. 6, § 23; Grotius, De Jur. Bel. ac Pac., lib. 3, cap. 8, § 4; Albericus Gentilis, de Jure Belli., lib. 3, cap. 5; Cocceius, Gro

tius Illustratus, t. 3., pp. 202, 236; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 3, ch. 14, § 212; Polybius, Histor. Exerptae Legationes, cap. 35; Pfeiffer, Dos Recht der Kreigseroberung, pp. 165-180; Heffter, Droit International, § 134; Tittman, Neber den Bund des Amph., p. 135; Kamptz, Literatur, etc., § 307.)

§ 30. The first example in modern times, referred to by jurists, occurred in 1349. A Fleming lent a Frenchman a thousand crowns; the latter contrived to delay the payment 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 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, quad Ludovicus mediante tali solutione fuerit liberatus." In the year 1495, when Charles VIII. of France overrun 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 afterward, Ferdinand of Arragon 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 Matthacus de Affictis, a jurist of the highest authority, was invoked, which concluded

in the following words: "Prima conclusio, quod illi debitores regum de Arregoniâ, qui fuerunt in morâ solvendi dictis regibus pecuniam debitam in genere, et jussu reyis Caroli et suorum officialium solverunt ipsis donotariis non sunt liberati, et tenentur solvere dictis regibus, veris creditoribus. Segunda conclusio sit ista, quod illi debitores qui non fuerunt in morâ solvendi dictis creditoribus, sed jussi fuerunt ab officialibus regis Franciae, quod solvant illis Gallis, virtute largitatis regis, et ipsi fecerunt, quidquid eis fuit possibile, ut non solverent, et realiter eis solverunt propter jussum poenalem, et isti sunt liberati. Tertia conclusio sit esta, quod si debitor fuit in morâ, sed erat infra tempus purgandi moram, et infra illud tempus sed exactus ab illis Gallis jussu magistratûs, tune 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 faciendi erat solitum, quod ipsi debitores penes se retinebant pro expensis, occurentibus in administratione officii nomine regio, si ipsam pecuniam Gallis solverunt, sunt liberati, etiam quod fuerunt in morâ. Quinta conclusio sit ista, quod illi debitores, qui solutionem probant per confessionem Gallorum publicam vel privatam, ita quod non probant veram numerationem pecuniae eis factum, non sunt liberati, sed debent solvere veris creditoribus, quantum cunque, ostenderint dictum jussum. Sexta conclusio, quod illi debitores, qui se concordaveruent, et non ostendunt reram 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 conquests 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 authorized by a law of the Mexican congress. The contract of sale was duly signed by the Laurents as pur

chasers, 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 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 being, to be regarded as Mexican citizens, and not British subjects. Their claim was, therefore, rejected. (Paponius, Recueil d'Arrêts, liv. 5, tit. 6, arrêt 2; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 3, §§ 565-569; Commission of Claims between U.S. and G. Britain, pp. 120-160; Philip Decius, Consilia, cap. 25; Matthaeus de Afflictis, Decisiones Nap., Dec. 150; Pfeiffer, Das Recht der Kriegserberung, pp. 191–192.)

54

CHAPTER XXXIII.

RIGHTS OF COMPLETE CONQUEST.

CONTENTS.

1. Conquest, how completed-2. Acquisition of parts of a state-3. Subjugation of an entire state-24. Retroactive effect of confirmation of conquest-5. Transfer of personal allegiance by conquest-36. The assent of the subject required - 7. Such assent determined by domicil - 8. Reason of this rule-29. Application to naturalized citizens and foreign subjects 10. Rule varied by treaty and by municipal law - 11. 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 California - 24. Conquest changes political rights, but not rights of property- 25. Titles to real 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 property taken from the enemy, may be completed in various 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 sove