States except with a passport either issued from the Department of State or countersigned by the Secretary of State, and forbade any person to land without a passport from a minister or consul of the United States, or, if a foreigner, from his own government, countersigned by such minister or consul. See supra, § § 532, 533, where the subject is more fully treated. Moore's Digest, vol. II, pp. 138, 139. By treaties of commerce it has often been stipulated that the citizens of the one country residing within the territories of the other shall, in the event of war, have a certain time within which to collect or dispose of their effects and depart. In yet other cases it has been provided that such persons may during the war continue their residence and business, so long as they behave themselves. See, for example, the treaty between the United States and the Argentine Confederation. July 10, 1853, Article XII. 'Japanese subjects are allowed to continue, under the protection of the Russian laws, their sojourn and the exercise of peaceful occupations in the Russian Empire, excepting in the territories which are under the control of the imperial viceroy in the Far East." (Imperial Russian order, Feb. 14, 1904, For. Rel. 1904, 727; also Monthly Consular Reports, May, 1904, LXXV. 397.) Moore's Digest, vol. VII, p. 192. In 1755 British subjects were expelled from France, while in 1803 those between the ages of 18 and 60 were declared prisoners of war by Napoleon, ostensibly as an act of reprisals for the capture of French ships. During the Crimean war Russian subjects were permitted to remain in England and France. In 1870 Frenchmen were permitted to remain in Germany. On the contrary, Germans in France were first detained; but afterwards, by an order of Aug. 28, 1870, those residing in Paris or the Department of the Seine, were, on the ground of national defense as well of their personal safety, required to depart within three days: and either to leave the country or to retire to one of the departments below the Loire. By a ukase of May 12, 1877, Turkish subjects in Russia were permitted to continue to reside there and continue their business, subject to the laws. In 1879 Chileans were expelled from Bolivia and their goods confiscated. (Ibid.) The instructions issued to United States marshals with regard to alien enemies during the war of 1812 were of a general nature. The minor police regulations concerning such aliens were confided to the marshals, respectively, under those general instructions. (Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cuthbert, M. C., March 1, 1821, 18 MS. Dom. Let. 274.) Moore's Digest, vol. VII, p. 192. Right of control.--Every belligerent state possesses the inherent right to take such steps as it may deem necessary for the control of all persons whose conduct or presence appears dangerous to its safety In strict law enemy subjects located or resident in hostile territory may be detained, interned in designated localities, or expelled from the country. U. S. Manual, p. 18. Modern practice as to status.-It is now universally recognized that hostilities are restricted to the armed forces of belligerents, and that the unarmed citizens who refrain from acts of hostility and pursue their ordinary avocations must be distinguished from the armed forces of the belligerent, must be treated leniently, must not be injured in their lives or liberty, except for cause or after due trial, and must not, as a rule, be deprived of their private property. U. S. Manual, pp. 18, 19. Practice as to detention and internment.-Enemy subjects are not made prisoners en masse on the breaking out of hostilities. Persons known to be active or reserve officers, or reservists, of the hostile army, as well as persons suspected of communicating with the enemy, will be detained and, if deemed advisable, interned on the ground of self-preservation, in the exercise of the right of control. U. S. Manual, p. 19. Practice as to expulsion.-In modern practice the expulsion of the citizens or subjects of the enemy is generally decreed from seaports, fortresses, defended areas, and the actual or contemplated theaters of operation. From other territory the practice is not uniform, expulsion being resorted to usually for grave reasons of state only. When decreed, the persons expelled should be given such reasonable notice, consistent with public safety, as will enable them to arrange for the collection, disposal, and removal of their goods and property. U. S. Manual, p. 19. It is, however, a universally recognized rule of International Law that hostilities are restricted to the armed forces of the belligerents, and that the ordinary citizens of the contending States, who do not take up arms and who abstain from hostile acts, must be treated leniently, must not be injured in their lives or liberty, except for cause or after due trial, and must not as a rule be deprived of their private property. It is thus no longer considered admissible to detain as prisoners subjects of one of the hostile parties travelling or resident in the country of the other at the time of the outbreak of war. The view that such action is illegal, except in grave emergency, has steadily gained support. Article 5 of the Regulations annexed to the Convention, 1899, concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1899, permitted the internment of prisoners of war, and it was contended at the Conference of 1907 that the terms of the article afforded a strong argument, e contrario, that the internment of enemy subjects not prisoners of war was prohibited. No vote was taken on the point, but this interpretation of the article was generally accepted, subject to the reservation of the right which every State undoubtedly possesses of taking such steps as it may deem necessary for the control of all persons whose presence or conduct appear dangerous to its safety. This immunity, however, cannot apply to persons known to be active or reserve officers, or reservists, of the hostile army. For the principle of self-preservation must justify belligerents in refusing to furnish each other with resources that will increase their means of defence. Edmonds and Oppenheim, arts. 11–13. The expulsion of subjects of the enemy from the territory of the opposing State is in strict law admissible, but is usually not resorted to unless grave reasons make it advisable. Belligerents have in recent years always acted in obedience to this principle. Thus expulsion has been decreed from seaports, fortresses, and defended areas, where special precautions were necessary, and from the actual or expected theatres of hostilities. Should the expulsion of any person be ordered he should be given such reasonable notice as may be consistent with public safety, in order to make arrangements for the custody of his property and preparations for his departure. Edmonds and Oppenheim, arts, 14–16. "I enclose herewith a memorial filed in the Department by Mr. Frank Crus, complaining of his expulsion by British authorities from South Africa. . . . "The Department refers in this connection to its instructions No. 461, of October 6, and No. 468, of October 16, ultimo, for your guid ance in this case. While at all times asserting the right of expulsion by a state from its territory of persons who are dangerous to its security, the Covernment of the United States, in consonance with the enlightened precepts of authoritative writers on international law, and especially of the more recent ones does not assert in practice the existence of the right without just grounds for expulsion, which grounds and evidence thereof it believes the expelling Government should commu nicate to the Government of the person expelled, as well as the evidence showing the reasonableness of such expulsion. It is not believed that Her Majesty's Government will assert an arbitrary right of expulsion which it has not been the practice of the Government of the United States to assert for itself. "You will therefore bring the matter to the attention of Her Majesty's Government and request an investigation of the facts and for such further action as may be equitable and just in the premises." Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Choate, amb. to England, No. 494, November 14, 1900, MS. Inst. Gr. Br. XXXIII. 505. See, as to the South African Deportation Claims Commission, Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Choate, No. 635, May 17, 1901, id. 608. It is stated in this instruction that the Department of State had rejected as without merit certain claims of British subjects for deportation from Hawaii during the royalist insurrection in 1893; that the British Government then proposed arbitration; and that the Department made a counter-proposal to submit to a common arbitration both the Hawaiian and South African deportation claims. Moore's Digest, vol. 4, p. 140. In The Santa Cruz, 1 C Rob. 64, the Court said: "It is a principle sanctioned by that great foundation of the law of England, Magna Charta itself, which prescribes that, at the commencement of a war, the enemy's merchants shall be kept and treated as our own merchants are kept and treated in their country." C. & O. R. R. v. U. S., 20, Ct. Cls., 49.-The court said: "The Government may prescribe the conditions under which its executive officers are to deal with its alien enemies." U. S. Manual, p. 18. ENEMY PROPERTY IN BELLIGERENT TERRITORY. In order to favour commerce on both sides as much as possible, it is agreed that, in case a war should break out between the said two nations, which God forbid, the term of nine months after the declaration of war shall be allowed to the merchants and subjects respectively on one side and the other, in order that they may withdraw with their effects and movables, which they shall be at liberty to carry off or to sell where they please, without the least obstacle; nor shall any seize their effects, and much less their persons, during the said nine months; but on the contrary, passports which shall be valid for a time necessary for their return, shall be given them for their vessels, and the effects which they shall be willing to carry with them. And if anything is taken from them, or if any injury is done to them by one of the parties, their people and subjects, during the term above prescribed, full and entire satisfaction shall be made to them on that account. The above-mentioned passports shall also serve as a safe conduct against all insults or prizes which privateers may attempt against their persons and effects. Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States and If war should arise between the two contracting parties, the merchants of either country then residing in the other shall be allowed to remain nine months to collect their debts and settle their affairs, and may depart freely, carrying off all their effects without molestation or hindrance; Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States and In case of any dispute arising, from the violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever; but if the Consul residing at the place where the dispute shall happen shall not be able to settle the same, the Government of that country shall state their grievances in writing, and transmit it to the Government of the other; and the period of twelve calendar months shall be allowed for answers to be returned, during which time no act of hostility shall be permitted by either party; and in case the grievances are not redressed, and war should be the event, the Consuls and citizens or subjects of both |