Effects of Conquest or Cession upon Municipal Laws. It is a general rule of public law, recognized and acted upon by the United States, that whenever political jurisdiction and legislative power over any territory are transferred from one nation or sovereign to another, the municipal laws of the country -that is, laws which are intended for the protection of private rights-continue in force until abrogated or changed by the new government or sovereign. By the cession public property passes from one government to another, but private property remains as before, and with it those municipal laws which are designed to secure its peaceful use and enjoyment. As a matter of course, all laws, ordinances, and regulations in conflict with the political character, institutions, and constitution of the new government are at once displaced. . . . But with respect to other laws affecting the possession, use, and transfer of property, and designed to secure good order and peace in the community, and promote its health and prosperity, which are of a strictly municipal character, the rule is general, that a change of government leaves them in force until, by direct action of the new government, they are altered or repealed.'

The extent and amount of the political changes, and the circumstances under which they shall be accomplished; whether, for example, they shall be violent, and become operative immediately upon the execution of the treaty of peace, or gradual, extending over a considerable period of time, are questions

Rec. Gen. p. 689; Hall, p. 572, note; III Phillimore, pp. 868-871.

'Chicago and Pacific Railway Company vs. McGlinn, 114 United States, 542; Mitchel vs. United States, 9 Peters, 734; Strother vs. Lucas, 12 Peters, 410, 436; American Insurance Company vs. Canter, I Peters, 542; II Halleck, pp. 460, 461, 493; Dana's Wheaton, p. 347, note 169; Hall, §§ 27–29, p. 205; Vattel, liv. i. chap. xxi. §§ 261265: Risley, pp. 165, 166; United States vs. Percheman, 7 Peters, 83; III Phillimore, pp. 862-866; IV Calvo, §§ 2458-2477.

that depend, in part, upon the terms of the treaty or the circumstances of the conquest, and, in part, upon the differences between the legal conceptions and political institutions of the conquering and conquered states. In any case, however, as the laws of a state must, in general, be uniform throughout the entire extent of its territory, it follows that, if marked differences exist between the laws in force in the acquired provinces and those of the new sovereignty, such differences must eventually be removed or made to disappear. Indeed, uniformity of operation can be secured in no other way.

If, however, the necessary changes be extensive and important, as would be the case in which a people whose legal institutions were based upon the Roman law passes under the dominion of a state whose constitutional ideas are derived from the common law, every consideration of expediency and justice would seem to suggest the wisdom and propriety of effecting such changes in a manner so gradual as to cause a minimum of disturbance to existing institutions. A similar difficulty presents itself where territory in which representative institutions are firmly established, and the population of which has been accustomed to a large measure of self-government, passes into the dominion of a state in which individual rights are more rigidly restricted, or where representative institutions do not exist. In this case the assimilation of population becomes considerably more difficult than in the former, where the changes caused by the fact of conquest are all in the direction of liberality and tend to add to, rather than to detract from, the constitutional rights of individuals. It is proper to remember in this connection, however, that an inhabitant who has been afforded an opportunity to dispose of his property and withdraw from the ceded territory, but who elects to remain there, and, by so doing, to acquire residence and citizenship in the conquering state, must be presumed to have signified his willingness to accept such changes in his political status as the new sovereign may see fit to impose.'

For the practice of Great Britain in this regard, see I Wildman,

pp. 162-164; Hall, § 205; The Foltina, 1 Dodson, Adm. Rep. p. 451;

Responsibility of a State for Injury or Damage to Private Property. It has been seen that the destruction of private property, and its taking for belligerent use, are inevitable incidents of war; it has also been seen that the right to take and destroy is exercised by both belligerents, and upon all property, whatever may be its ownership, which is located in the theatre of active military operations. If the property of an individual be appropriated or destroyed by his own government, the question of compensation is, in general, a strictly internal one, with which international law has nothing to do. If, on the other hand, the property of enemies' subjects be taken or destroyed by an invading army, such appropriation or destruction is regulated by the rules and usages of war; this is seen in the requirements of the law of nations in respect to occupation and use of real property, the capture of public or private property which is useful to the belligerent in the prosecution of his military operations, the taking of private property by way of requisition and contribution, and the immunity from interference which is accorded to property devoted to religious, charitable, or educational uses. But the laws of war are silent, however, where the property taken by a belligerent is owned by his own subjects, or neutrals, or by subjects of the enemy who have been permitted to remain in the country after the outbreak of hostilities; they are also silent as to the right of an individual to compensation for property destroyed as a direct consequence of military operations, as by the fire of artillery or the movements of armies in battle.

In determining the responsibility of a state in this respect, the question must be regarded from several points of view, and the character of the war, as internal or external, the ownership of the property destroyed or appropriated, and the nature and cause of the injury or appropriation itself must all

IV Calvo, §§ 2466-2469. For the
practice in the United States, see
IV Calvo, §§ 2468, 2469; Inglis vs.
Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Peters,

100; Dana's Wheaton, § 347, note 169; II Halleck, pp. 484-511; for the practice of France, see IV Calvo, §§ 2472, 2473.

be considered. Regard must be had, also, as to whether the injury consists in a taking of private property for public use, as where lands or buildings are appropriated for the construction of defensive works, or supplies are taken for public use; or as to whether such injury or destruction is due to acts of war, or is the direct and inevitable consequence of hostile operations, as where houses or buildings are destroyed during a bombardment, or where standing timber is cut down by the fire of artillery or is taken for the construction of field intrenchments, or where crops are trampled down and destroyed by the movements of troops during the progress of a battle.

In respect to the question of ownership, where the property is taken by a government from individuals residing within its own territory, as it is the duty of the state to protect all private property within its territorial limits, without regard to its ownership, the modern tendency is to obliterate the distinction between citizens and aliens, in this regard, and base the compensation, if any be made, upon the circumstances attending the appropriation or destruction of the property itself. If such appropriation of private property is for the public use, or is made with a view to secure the public defence, the property so taken is, as a rule, made the subject of compensatory damages. In no case, however, unless it be made the subject of treaty stipulations, is any greater protection afforded to the property of aliens than is afforded to the citizens' or subjects of the state in whose behalf the appropriation is made; nor is the rule of compensation applied more liberally in the one case than in the other.' If, on the other hand,

1 The method in which payment is to be made for private property thus taken for the public use is regulated and determined by the municipal law of the state by whom the property has been appropriated. If particular courts are given jurisdiction over such cases, claims for property thus appropriated must be brought before the tribunals

empowered by law to ascertain the damage inflicted; if no such jurisdiction is conferred upon any of the courts of a state, the case may be presented, by way of petition, to the supreme legislative body or to the sovereign. In cases of alien ownership, if aliens are placed upon the same footing as citizens in respect to the institution of suits of

the damage or destruction is clearly due to an act of war, or to strict military necessity, or is an inevitable consequence of warlike operations, the loss lies where it falls, and the individual owner is not compensated save as an act of grace or charity. In this case no distinction is made between citizens and aliens, or other foreign residents; and it matters not by whom the injury is inflicted, whether by the enemy or by the troops of the state of the injured party.❜