lish law. And it is right to add that the authority of Stowell supports a case of gross fraud upon an enemy which it is difficult to reconcile with the laxest views of belligerent morality. The case is as follows: CASE OF THE LONDON (n). "This was also the case of a British ship and cargo, captured by an American privateer, the captain of which offered to restore "the ship and cargo to the master, on condition of his drawing a "bill for 1,000l., payable in London. The master accepted the "restitution on these terms, and accordingly drew a bill to that 66 amount; but took care to send advices to London in time to prevent payment of it. A demand was now made by him for salvage on the cargo, as recaptured from the enemy. The value "of the cargo was stated to be from 1,500l. to 2,000l. "The Court gave him one-tenth, and his expenses." No. 5. To these cases it should be added that it was actually held, in the case of Smith v. Marconnay (o)," that the maker of paper in England, knowingly made by him for the purpose of forging assignats upon the same, to be exported to France in order to "commit frauds there on other persons, might recover damages for "not accepting such paper pursuant to contract." 66 The same doctrine has been held by the American Courts in various cases. But Dr. Story, in his Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, speaking as a jurist, reprobates, with Pothier, the principle of these decisions. Dr. Story says " It might be different, according to the received, although it should seem upon principle inde"fensible, doctrine of judicial tribunals, if the contract were made "in some other country, or in the foreign country to which the parties belong; for (as has been seen) it has been long laid down as a settled principle, that no nation is bound to protect, or to regard the revenue laws of another country; and, therefore, a " contract made in one country by subjects or residents there to evade "the revenue laws of another country, is not deemed illegal in the "country of its origin. Against this principle Pothier (p) has argued strongly, as being inconsistent with good faith and the "moral duties of nations. Valin (q), however, supports it; and (n) 2 Dodson's Admiralty Reports, 74. (p) Pothier, Assur. n. 58. (q) 2 Valin. Comm. art. 49. p. 127. Emérigon (r) defends it, upon the unsatisfactory ground, that "smuggling is a vice common to all nations. An enlightened policy, "founded upon national justice as well as national interest, would seem to favour the opinion of Pothier in all cases where positive legislation has not adopted the principle as a retaliation upon the 66 narrow and exclusive revenue system of another nation. The contrary doctrine seems, however, firmly established in the actual practice of modern nations, without any such discrimination, "too firmly, perhaps to be shaken, except by some legislative Act "abolishing it" (s). The passage in Pothier to which Dr. Story refers, is as follows: : Lorsque l'arrêt a été fait pour cause de contrebande, et que les "marchandises assurées s'étant trouvées de contrebande ont été confisquées, cette perte doit-elle tomber sur les assureurs? Par exemple, un négociant françois a fait charger en Espagne clan"destinement des marchandises de soierie, contre les loix d'Espagne, qui en défendent l'exportation: le vaisseau a été arrêté par les "officiers du Roi d'Espagne, et les marchandises confisquées, comme "étant chargées en contrebande. Les assureurs sont-ils tenus de "cette perte? Vaslin tient l'affirmative, pourvu que les assureurs "aient eu connoissance que les marchandises qu'on a fait assurer "étoient de contrebande: car s'ils l'avoient ignoré, il n'est pas "douteux, en ce cas, qu'ils n'en seroient pas tenus : ils ne pourroient "L pas être censés s'être soumis au risque de la confiscation pour cause de contrebande, n'ayant pas de connoissance que les mar"chandises fussent de contrebande" (t). It appears that the judicial tribunals in Prussia do, to their great credit be it said, hold that a contract relating to the smuggling into a foreign country of goods prohibited by the revenue laws of that country, is illegal and invalid, as being contra bonos mores (guten Sitten zuwider).-Heffters, Das Europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart, § 31, n. 21. (r) Emérigon, c. 8. s. 5. pp. 212, 215. (8) Story, Conflict of Laws, c. viii. s. 257. p. 333. (t) Pothier, Euvres du Traité de Contrat d'Assurance, t. iii. c. i. sect. 2. art. 2. s. 2. p. 58, APPENDIX V. PAGE 89, CHAP. VIII. TREATIES INTERPRETATION OF. No. 1. Interpretatio § 4. Pacis Monasteriensis, 30 Januar. 1648 (a). "LONGUM esset exponere, quæ Pontificiorum fuerit conditio in "Belgio Fœderato ab initio Reipublicæ ad hæc usque tempora. "Ne quidem animus est commemorare, quæ in Imperio Ordinum "Generalium, et quæ in singulis Provinciis contra solos Ecclesias"ticos, qui Pontifici Romano adsurgunt, constituta et decreta sunt. "In rem nostram sufficit scire, ut Laicis Pontificiis in Belgio "Fœderato libere morari semper licuit, ita Clericis, etiam ante 66 pacem Monasteriensem, non licuisse. Jesuitis quidem, qui in Belgio Fœderato invenirentur, 600 florenorum mulctam Ordines "Generales constituerunt in Edictis 26 Febr. 1622, 8 Sept. 1629, "et 30 Aug. 1641, ceteris omnibus Ecclesiasticis Belgio Fœderato "simpliciter interdicto, exceptis duntaxat iis, qui ante annum 1622 "hic habitassent, dummodo intra dies octo nomina sua ad Magis"tratum loci, ubi degunt, deferrent, et secundum leges Ordinum "viverent. 66 "Recte se habebant ea Edicta tempore belli Hispanici, quo facta sunt, sed quæro, an recte se habeat Edictum, quod Ordines "Generales post pacem Monasteriensem promulgarunt 14 Apr. "1649, quo priora illa Edicta, quorum sententiam retuli, repetita "et servari jussa sunt? vel potius quæro, an non sæviora illa Edicta "restringi et temperari debeant quod ad Ecclesiasticos, qui ex "Imperio Regis Hispaniarum, Belgio forte tunc Hispanico, nunc "Austriaco, hic adsunt? Quæstionem facit § 4, Pacis Monaste"riensis 30 Jan. 1648, quo inter Regem Hispaniarum et Ordines "Generales convenit, ut olim quoque convenerat § 4, Induciarum "9 Apr. 1609, alterius subditis et incolis, absque ullo personarum "discrimine, in alterius Imperium recte licere advenire, ibi manere "et agere, et commercia sua exercere. Verba Belgice sic habent: "de Ondersaten en inwoonderen van de Landschappen van de "voorschr. Heeren Koning en Staten zullen ook mogen "komen en blyven in de Landschappen de een van de andere, en "daar doen hare trafique en commercie in alle versekertheid, zoo ter "Zee, andere Wateren, als te Lande. แ "Sane plerique Belga Fœderati videntur credidisse, salva ea แ pace, duriora illa Edicta explicari non posse, atque ita Ecclesiasticis Pontificiis omnino prodesse d. § 4. Gelri quidem, et "Hollandi, et Frisii, et Groningani in extraordinariis Ordinum "Generalium Comitiis, proxime post illam pacem habitis anno (a) Bynkershoek, Quæstiones Juris Publici, lib. ii. cap. 20. แ "1650 et 1651 proposuerunt, exercerentur Ordinum Edicta contra "effrenem Ecclesiasticorum in has Regiones veniendi licentiam, sed "hoc nominatim addito, quatenus salva pace fieri posset, cujus "nomine non aliam, quam illam Monasteriensem, intelligo, et ita quoque, addita hac ipsa clausula, Ordines Generales decreverunt "27 Jan. 1651. Quia autem illa clausula parum certitudinis habebat, idcirco in iisdem Comitiis mense Apr. 1651, propositum est, habita ratione eorum, quæ tempore induciarum acta gesta แ erant, certa ei rei forma daretur; sed traditum invenio, eam non esse constitutam, verum ad ordinarium Ordinum Generalium Collegium rejectam ejus rei curam, atque adeo tacite substitum esse in illo Decreto 27 Jan. 1651, nihil enim quicquam postea "definitum est. 66 แ 66 66 66 "Nondum igitur extricata res erat. Zelandi, ut extricarent, 22 "Jan. 1651. in iisdem extraordinariis Comitiis alia rem adgressi "sunt via. Existimarunt illi, non obstante eo § 4, omnes Eccle"siasticos, qui Pontificia Sacra sequuntur, expelli, nec ullos alios "admitti posse, quod nempe illi Ecclesiastici, utut ex Imperio "Hispanico advenientes, non essent Regis Hispaniarum subditi, "sed Papæ Romani. Addebant, id ipsum Regis Legatos eo tempore, quo pax illa pangebatur, fuisse testatos, quin etiam Ordines "in deliberationibus, quæ pacem præcesserunt, decrevisse, nihilo"minus Edicta, contra Ecclesiasticos Pontificios facta, effectum esse "habitura. Quas rationes Synodorum Legati per libellum, iisdem "Comitiis porrectum, deinde suas fecerunt. At prima ratio apud "me parum valet, Ecclesiastici utique etiam sunt subditi, et pro "subditis habentur in omnibus Imperiis Pontificiis. Si tamen, qua "sunt Ecclesiastici, subditos Regis esse neges propter jurisdictionem "Ecclesiasticam, non negabis certe, qui ex Imperio Hispanico ad nos advenere, Regis Hispaniarum esse incolas, inwoonderen, pax "autem loquitur de subditis et incolis, ondersaten en inwoonderen. "Legatos Regis aliud fuisse testatos, et Ordines in præviis delibe"rationibus modo decrevisse, etiam post pacem factam tuenda esse "sæviora illa Edicta, non comperi, etsi diligenter quæsiverim, neque "adeo de duabus illis rationibus, quæ facti sunt, quicquam habeo, "quod dicam, nec etiam de his quicquam dixerunt Gelri, Hollandi, "Frisii et Groningani, nec postea etiam Transisulani, quamvis "in Pontificios adhuc magis acerbi. Et tamen illæ rationes, in "causa adeo recenti, omnes illos latere non potuerunt. Hoc unum comperi, Ordines, priusquam Legatos suas ad pacem pangendam "mitterent, simpliciter decrevisse, se tuituros puriora Sacra, publice recepta, sed aliud est Sacra illa tueri, aliud duriora illa "Edicta exsequi. Neque etiam animadverto, quid prodesset, si "Legati Regis ante pacem pactam vel tale quid garrivissent, vel "ipsi Ordines decrevissent. Quid in ipsa pace convenerit, unice quærendum, et ex ejus legibus, si quid inter Principes incidat, "definiendum est. 66 66 Sic "Fuit, cum putarem, d. § 4, duntaxat esse intelligendum de "ejusmodi subditis et incolis, qui commercia exercerent, ajunt "enim verba finalia, quæ exhibui, en daar doen hare trafique en "commercie. Sed bona fides illam interpretationem respuit, nam, quod de mercatura additur, non aliam causam habet, quam quod "eo plerumque fine alterius subditi alterius Principis Imperium frequentent, non quod interdicatur alterius subditis in alterius "Imperium advenire, et ibi forte otiari, philosophari, et procul "negotiis securum agere ævum. Hac igitur sententia nunc non utor, maxime quum alia, et, ni fallor, verior succurrat. Nempe "Clericatus Pontificius, postquam emendatior Religio publice re"cepta fuit, in hisce Regionibus criminis speciem quandam ha"bebat, neque enim cuiquam hic impune Clerico esse licebat, qui"busdam Clericis posita mulcta, et omnibus, ut dixi, advenis Belgio "Fœderato interdicto, quin et indigenis sub certo modo. "leges moresque ferebant, etiam ante pacem Monasteriensem; "criminosis autem, ex mente d. § 4, quamvis in alterius Imperio "habitarent, in alterius Imperium, ubi criminosi sunt, advenire 66 nequaquam licet. Factus est d. § 4, belli finiendi ergo inter Regem et Ordines, ut sic, quemadmodum ibi palam expressum "est, inter utriusque subditos cesset, quicquid antea hostile fuit, "sed non ut ċessaret persequutio criminum, quæ, etiam extra "causam belli, leges publicæ vindicabant. Quare d. § 4, prodesse "nequit Ecclesiasticis, quamquam Hispaniarum Regis subditis, 66 quia et ante illam pacem proscribebantur, et proscribebantur non tanquam Regis Hispaniarum subditi, sed tanquam Ecclesiastici, " omnium enim Principum Ecclesiasticos Pontificios, etiam eorum, quibuscum pax erat, eadem lex arcebat. Unde manifestum est, "antequam Ecclesiastici, ut Regis Hispaniarum subditi, etiam hic "admitterentur, nova opus fuisse pactione, ex qua, quos citra belli causam lex repellebat, hic adesse liceret, cujusmodi pactio nunแ quam intercessit. An tu putas, qui non propter bellum, sed propter crimen aliquod, ex Belgio Fœderato relegati deportative "in Ditionem Regis Hispaniarum concesserant, et ibi, qua subditi "vel incolæ, aliquamdiu egerant, an, inquam, tu putas, iis, si "animum revertendi haberent, per d. § 4, in Belgio Fœderato esse "licere? ego non puto. Exemplo res fiet clarior. Omnes Judæos "impia pietate, et in manifestam Imperii sui perniciem Hispani proscripserunt, et in aliis etiam Imperiis inclementius habentur, "sed aliter Hollandi, mercator Populus, sentiunt, apud hos enim "Judæi, Gens ad Rempublicam commerciis frequentandam utilis"sima, adeo benigne recepti sunt, ut utantur iisdem Legibus et "L Privilegiis, quibus utuntur ceteri Hollandiæ subditi et incolæ. "Quæro igitur, an Judæus ex Hollandia, Judæorum nutricula, post d. § 4, in Hispaniam commeare, ibique libere morari possit? "Si me audias, non poterit, nam, qua Judæus, diu ante d. § 4, proscriptus est, nec proscriptis favet ille §. 4. |