false pretenses, collect or seek to collect information in the districts occupied by the enemy, with the intention of communicating it to the opposing force. Such agents are not forbidden, but are liable to such treatment as the laws of the capturing army may prescribe. This may be death by hanging. The office of spy is not necessarily dishonorable. § 101. Non-combatants Non-combatants include those who do not participate in the hostilities. In practice this status is generally conceded to women, children, clergy, scientists, artists, professional men, laborers, etc., who make no resistance, whether subjects of the state or not. These are, of course, liable to the hardships consequent upon war. (a) When the armed forces of one state obtain authority over territory previously occupied by the other state, the non-combatant population is free from all violence or constraint other than that required by military necessity. They are liable, however, to the burdens imposed by civilized warfare. (b) Subjects of one of the belligerent states sojourning within the jurisdiction of the other were in early times detained as prisoners. While Grotius (1625) allows this on the ground of weakening the forces of the enemy,2 and while Ayala had earlier (1597) sanctioned it,3 Bynkershoek, writing in 1737, mentions it as a right seldom used. The detention of English tourists by 1 Appendix, pp. 353, 372, 388. 2 De Jure Belli," III., ix., 4. De Jure et Officiis Bellicis," I., v., 25. Napoleon in 1803 was not in accord with modern usage. During the eighteenth century, the custom was to secure, by treaty stipulation, a fixed time after the outbreak of hostilities during which enemy subjects might withdraw. While similar provisions are inserted in many treaties of the nineteenth century, the practice may be said to be so well established that, in absence of treaty stipulations, a reasonable time would be allowed for withdrawal. A large number of treaties of the nineteenth century have provisions to the effect of Article XXVI. of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of 1795: "The merchants and others of each of the two nations residing in the dominions of the other shall have the privilege of remaining and continuing their trade, so long as they live peaceably and commit no offense against the laws; and in case their conduct should render them suspected, and their respective Governments should think proper to order them to remove, the term of twelve months from the publication of the order shall be allowed them for that purpose, to remove with their families, effects, and property." This custom of allowing enemy subjects to remain during good behavior has become common, but can hardly be called a rule of international law. Persons thus allowed to remain are generally treated as neutrals, though in the case of Alcinous v. Nigreu1 it was held that an enemy subject, residing in England without a license, could not maintain an action for breach of contract, though the contract which had been entered into before the war was valid and might be enforced when peace was restored. 14 Ellis and Blackburn's Reports, 217. CHAPTER XVIII STATUS OF PROPERTY ON LAND 102. PUBLIC PROPERTY OF THE ENEMY. 103. REAL PROPERTY OF ENEMY SUBJECTS. § 102. Public Property of the Enemy Formerly the public property of the enemy, whatever its nature, was regarded as hostile, and liable to seizure. Practice of modern times has gradually become less extreme, and the attitude of the powers in restoring the works of art which Napoleon had brought to Paris shows the sentiment early in the nineteenth century. The practice in regard to public property of the enemy has now become fairly defined. The public property of one belligerent state within the territory of the other at the outbreak of war, if real property, may be administered during the war for the benefit of the local state; if movable, it is liable to confiscation. Works of art, scientific and educational property, and the like are, however, exempt.1 The Treaty of Aug. 20, 1890, between Great Britain and France, exempts public vessels employed in the postal service. In case one belligerent by military occupation acquires authority over territory formerly within the 1 Appendix, pp. 340, 385. jurisdiction of the other, the rules of the Hague Conference of 1899 provide as follows: — "ART. 53. An army of occupation can only take possession of the cash, funds, and property liable to requisition. belonging strictly to the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and generally, all movable property of the State which may be used for military operations. "Railway plant, land telegraphs, telephones, steamers, and other ships, apart from cases governed by maritine law, as well as depots of arms and, generally, all kinds of war material, even though belonging to Companies or to private persons, are likewise material which may serve for military operations, but they must be restored at the conclusion of peace, and indemnities paid for them." "ART. 55. The occupying state shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real property, forests, and agricultural works belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must protect the capital of these properties, and administer it according to the rules of trusteeship. "ART. 56. The property of municipalities, that of religious, charitable, and educational institutions, and those of arts and science, even when State property, shall be treated as private property. "All seizure, destruction of, or intentional damage done to such institutions, to historical monuments, works of art or science, is prohibited, and should be made the subject of civil and criminal proceedings."1 § 103. Real Property of Enemy Subjects The real property of the subject of one belligerent situated within the territory of the other belligerent was in early times appropriated by the state, later prac 1 Holls," Hague Peace Conference," 451. tice administered it during the war, for the benefit of the state; but at present it is treated as the real property of any non-hostile foreigner. It is generally conceded that real property of the subjects of either state is unaffected by hostile occupation by the forces of the other state, except so far as the necessities of warfare may require.1 § 104. Personal Property of Enemy Subjects The movable property of the subject of one of the belligerent states in the territory of the other belligerent state was until comparatively recent times appropriated. In the case of Brown v. United States, 2 in 1814, the Supreme Court held that the "existence of war gave the right to confiscate, yet did not of itself and without more, operate as a confiscation of the property of an enemy," though it further held that the court could not condemn such property unless there was a legislative act authorizing the confiscation. Many modern treaties provide that in case of war between the parties to the treaties subjects of each state may remain in the other, “and shall be respected and maintained in the full and undisturbed enjoyment of their personal liberty and property so long as they conduct themselves peaceably and properly, and commit no offense against the laws." The most recent practice has been to exempt personal property of the subject of one belligerent state from all molestation, even though it was within the territory of the other at the outbreak 1 Appendix, pp. 339, 385. 2 8 Cr., 110. 3 See Index U. S. Treaties, "Reciprocal Privileges of Citizens." R |