foreign power does not affect his status so long as the United States retains its peaceful relations with the two powers. "In view of the above state of facts, should any attempt be made to apply any provision of martial law in conflict with any stipulation of our treaty with the Ottoman Empire to an American citizen residing in Turkey, our representatives will be expected to interpose with the proper authorities in favor of their countrymen, and to demand that all treaty stipulations be strictly observed in the consideration and decision of the case. All cases arising under the law will be at once reported to the Department. وو Moore's Digest, vol. II, pp. 641, 642; Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of "Your despatch No. 124, of the 14th June last, has been received. You therein report the bombardment of Tamatave by the French on the 10th of that month, and your subsequent notification by the French naval commander that the occupation of the city by the forces of the Republic has put an end to your functions as the consul of the United States accredited to the Hovas Government. It further appears that the town has been proclaimed in a state of siege under the French law, and that the customs and other public business are administered by the French authorities. In this state of things you ask for instructions as to your duties and the disposition to be made of the archives and property in your care. "In reply I have to instruct you that while the temporary suspension of Hovas authority in Tamatave and its replacement by French military control may interrupt your relations with the Hovas Government, it does not annul your relations with the United States Government, which maintains you at the port of Tamatave 'for the representative protection of any interests of citizens of the United States who may be found there. You will, therefore, remain at Tamatave for the present and continue your charge of the archives and property of the consulate without interruption. You will inform the French authorities that under the circumstances in which you are placed you will in conformity with their order suspend the exercise of representative consular functions in Tamatave towards the Hovas Government awaiting the instructions which your own Government may give you after it has fully considered the situation. You will, however, add that the temporary intermission of your relations with the Madagascan authorities in Tamatave does not exempt you from the moral obligation as a representative of the Government of the United States to use your good offices for the protection of American citizens and property within your jurisdictional limits, and that in case anything should occur calling for your intervention you will feel it your duty to address yourself to whatever authority may be in responsible administrative control of the port." Moore's Digest, vol. II, pp. 642, 643; Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Whitney, acting U. S. consul at Tamatave, Aug. 28, 1883, 108 MS. Inst. Consuls, 185. On a report that the German consul at Apia had declared war against Matȧafa, an aspirant to the kingship of Samoa who had been in hostile collision with a squad of German marines, the minister of the United States at Berlin was instructed to say that his Government assumed that "the German officials in Samoa would be instructed carefully to refrain from interference with American citizens and property there, since no declaration of martial law could extend German jurisdiction so as to include control of American citizens in Samoa. Such a pretension could not be recognized or conceded by this Government." The German Government replied that when war was declared against Mataafa the commander of the German squadron issued a proclamation by which foreigners residing in Samoa were subjected to martial law; that while "international law would, to a certain extent, not prevent such a measure," yet Prince Bismarck thought that the military authority had gone too far in the present instance; and that the commander had been instructed to withdraw the part of his proclamation relating to foreigners. Moore's Digest, vol. II, p. 643; Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pendleton, min. to Germany, tel., Jan. 31, 1889; Count Arco-Valley, German min., to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State Feb. 1, 1889; H. Ex. Doc. 119, 50 Cong. 2 sess. 2, 3. With regard to the foregoing instances, it may be pointed out that the instruction of Mr. F. W. Seward to Mr. Maynard, in 1877, related to the question of a government's assuming within its own territory, by a proclamation of martial law, jurisdiction over the citizens of a friendly government to whom it had by treaty conceded the privilege of extraterritoriality. In the case of Madagascar in 1883, and of Samoa in 1889, where martial law was proclaimed in the extraterritorial country by a civilized power, the opinions of the Department of State appear to be contradictory. It will be observed that in the well-considered case of John L. Waller, in Madagascar in 1895, the jurisdiction of the French authorities, under their proclamation of martial law, was admitted with regard to the acts with which Waller was charged, which were offences against the laws of war. (See For. Rel. 1895, I. 251; and supra, § 196. Moore's Digest, vol. II, p. 644, Martial law is the law of military necessity in the actual presence of war. It is administered by the general of the Army, and is under his supreme control. United States v. Diekelman, 92 U. S. 520. A merchant vessel of one country visiting, for the purpose of trade, a port of another where martial law has been established, under belligerent right, subjects herself to that law while she is in such port. United States v. Diekelman, 92 U. S. 520. See, to the same effect, Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Baron von Gerolt, Prussian min., Oct. 11, 1862, MS. Notes to Prussian Leg. VII, 146. Moore's Digest, vol. VII, p. 277. OFFENDERS AGAINST THE LAWS OF WAR. A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations [annexed to Hague Convention IV, 1907], shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces. Article 3, Hague Convention IV, 1907. [For a discussion of certain specific offences against the laws of war, see “The Laws of Land Warfare," United States Government Printing Office, 1919, citations collected under the headings of Articles 22 and 23, Regulations, Hague Convention IV, 1907.] Article 84. Offenders against the laws of war are liable to the punishments specified in the penal law. This mode of repression, however, is only applicable when the person of the offender can be secured. In the contrary case, the criminal law is powerless, and, if the injured party deem the misdeed so serious in character as to make it necessary to recall the enemy to a respect for law, no other course than a resort to reprisals remains. Institute (1880), pp. 41, 42. Article 1. Each of the contracting Parties shall undertake to elaborate a penal law covering all possible infractions of the Geneva Convention. Article 2. Within a period of three years, these laws shall be promulgated and notified to the Swiss Federal Council, which shall communicate them through diplomatic channels to the signatory Powers of the Geneva Convention. The changes which any of the contracting States shall later make in its penal code shall also be notified to the Swiss Federal Council. Article 3. A belligerent State which shall make complaint of a violation of the Geneva Convention by the ressortissants of another belligerent State shall have the right to request, through the mediation of a neutral State, that an inquiry be instituted. The accused State shall be obliged to have its authorities institute this inquiry, to make known the result to the neutral State which has acted as intermediary, and, if necessary, to cause the guilty to be punished under the criminal laws. Article 4. The states signatory to the Geneva Convention which shall not have subscribed in the first instance to the present act, may do so at any time by a notification in the form prescribed for adhering to the Convention itself, addressed to all the States that are already signatories. Institute (1895), p. 118. Alien, with national commission. An alien, under the sanction of a national commission, cannot commit piracy while he pursues his authority. His acts may be hostile, and his nation responsible for them. They may amount to a lawful cause of war, but they are never to be regarded as piracy. The Barbary powers, notwithstanding some doubts which formerly existed, are now, and for a century past have been, regarded as lawful powers, and not pirates. They have all the insignia of regular independent governments, and are competent to maintain the European relations of peace and war. Cicero, and, after him, Grotius, define a regular enemy to be a power which hath the elements or constituents of a nation, such as a government, a code of laws, a national treasury, the consent and agreement of the citizens, and which pays a regard to treaties of peace and alliance; and all these things, says Bynkershoek, are to be found among the states of Barbary. Kent, vol. I, pp. 202, 203. At the Brussels Conference of 1874, a suggestion was made, on behalf of France, to provide by international agreement a single system for the repression of offences against the laws of war, to be put in force by each Power as part of its military law (Parl. Paper, Miscell. No. 1, 1875, p. 20). Nothing has, however, been done in this direction. With reference only to offences against the Geneva Convention, the Institut de Droit International, in 1895, drafted a set of rules (see Annuaire, t. xiv, p. 188); and the Geneva Convention of 1906 followed suit in Articles 27 and 28 (Arts. 68 and 69 supra), to which, as has already been explained, the British Government have been unable to accede. The unauthorized use of the Red Cross emblem had been, however, already made illegal in many countries, the laws of which upon this subject are set out in the Actes de la Conférence, pp. 166–174, as also in Parl. Paper 1908 [Cd. 3933], pp. 64-74. Very little is to be found in English Statutes or Regulations with reference to offences against International Law. Holland, p. 60. Individual offenders. Individuals offending against the laws of war are liable to such punishment as is prescribed by the military code of the belligerent into whose hands they may fall, or, in default of such code, then |