Opinion of Opinion of territory of another State. It is not implied for a moment that angry and passionate feelings are to be aroused in the bosom of everybody, and that as much cruelty is to be inflicted, by every single person in the one State on every single person in the other, as is possible. I cannot illustrate the change I have described better than by quoting a notable passage from Portalis, cited both by Professor Heffter and by Mr. Woolsey: "The Right of War is founded on this, that a people, in "the interests of self-conservation, or for the sake of self"defence, will, can, or ought to use force against another people. It is the relation of things, and not of persons, "which constitutes war; it is the relation of State to State, "and not of individual to individual. Between two or more "belligerent nations, the private persons of which these "nations consist, are enemies only by accident; they are "not such as men, they are not even as citizens, they are "such solely as soldiers." Another assertion of the doctrine, also cited by Mr. Woolsey, is contained in a despatch of Talley-· rand's to Napoleon, in 1866 : "Three centuries of civilisation has given to Europe a "Law of Nations, for which, according to the expression of "an illustrious writer, human nature cannot be sufficiently "grateful. This Law is founded on the principle, that "Nations ought to do one another in peace, the most good, "and in war, the least evil possible. According to the "maxim that war is not a relation between a man and "another, but between State and State, in which private persons are only accidental enemies, not such as men, nor "even as members or subjects of the State, but simply as "its defenders, the Law of Nations does not allow that the "rights of war, and of conquest thence derived, should be "applied to peaceable unarmed citizens, to private dwellings "and properties, to the merchandise of commerce, to the "magazines which contain it, to the vehicles which transport " it, to unarmed ships which convey it on streams and seas; "in one word, to the person and the goods of private indi"viduals." I have only to notice further that the doctrine is a modern one, and that this is an instance of its assertion. Difficulties in application of the practical the doctrine. of Continental I may now allude to a difficulty in the practical application of this doctrine in the present day. There are two or three movements in most States which seem to set this doctrine of the distinction between combatants and non-combatants, to a certain extent, at defiance. One concerns the con- Constitution stitution of modern armies. They are becoming armies. more and more inclusive of all persons in the State. It is not so as yet in England, but it may become so hereafter, and it is so in most military nations either through the exercise of the conscription or through what are called the Prussian and Swiss systems. The principle of making every man a soldier at one period of his life, and making him liable throughout the greater portion of his life to be called upon for active service, is being universally adopted. The effect of this will be to extend the range of combatants over the whole population, except women and children. Another movement of the same kind, in which English feeling embodies itself, is the volunteer movement. Volunteers. The tendency of this is to make every man, to a certain extent, a soldier, and in time of war to employ him as a very active soldier. A third movement, not F Guerilla bands. distinctly modern, is the tendency to extemporise armies by calling on the unwarlike population to assist at the moment. This takes the form of what are called guerilla bands, or levies en masse, and the like. This last mode may take one of two forms. They may be disciplined, organised, and under the control of the Government; or they may not be organised nor under control. If the distinction between the combatants and non-combatants is to be applied, the benefit of being regarded as a non-combatant will only be enjoyable by persons who do not mix themselves up in the war under any circumstances whatever. And not only that; but they must not be under occasional military discipline at the hands of the Government. Therefore, if a person, not wearing a uniform, nor being under the control of any officer of the Government, wishes to have the benefit of being a non-combatant, he must not actively interfere in any warlike operations, under penalty of the chance of being treated as a non-combatant taking part in the warfare. The difference between combatants and non-combatants is that combatants are classed as proper participators in war and non-combatants are not. If, therefore, non-combatants do take part in the war they will be punished as mere marauders. You should remember the difficulty which arose in the late Franco-German war, on account of the tendency of the peasants of the country to become FrancTireurs and the like, and thereby to continue and spread the war. This distinction must however be enforced very accurately. In order to be a combatant under this distinction, the volunteer should have some general mark and be under some controlling power which is responsible to his own Government, because the Government of one belligerent is responsible to the other. I should recommend you to read the whole argument upon this point in Wheaton or Kent, or in some modern pamphlets which have been written on the subject, because there is a great difference of opinion upon it. Some say non-combatants meddling in the war should be treated as combatants for all purposes, and others say they should not be so treated. The difference is not merely between persons belonging to peaceful professions and others, but between persons actually engaged in the war and those not so engaged. tory. As to the treatment of hostile territory, that is Treatment of another point. The old doctrine was that the hostile terrihostile territory might be invaded as much as possible, and that the property of all persons in the territory might and should be confiscated. Further than that, all things wanted for the purposes of the invading army might be seized just as the invading army wanted them. There again a distinction has been introduced. As the persons of non-combatants are respected, so also are private Rights in hostile territory. It may be occupied, perhaps permanently occupied,but even in this case private rights are respected, and the occupation exists only to the extent to which it is necessary for the purposes of the war. The modern doctrine is that no territory occupied forms of property. Confiscation of Debts. during war ever belongs to the occupying State until the treaty of peace has been finally signed. While speaking of hostile territory, I may also and of other speak of other forms of property, such as debts private and public, and the immoveable and moveable property generally of citizens of either of the belligerent States. A question with respect to these generally arises at the commencement of a war. A war commences, and at that moment a number of persons belonging to each of the belligerent States are living in the territory of the other belligerent State. These persons have a quantity of property and of debts owing to them. And all this property and these debts are or may be instantly confiscated. The general rule as recognized in the United States, seems to be that neither public nor private property nor debts are ipso facto confiscated, but that they can be so by a definite act of the Legislature. The Legislature can confiscate debts if it chooses, but it is against the practice to do so, and a Legislature usually does so only as a measure of retaliation or for some other extraordinary political purpose. With respect to public debts, that is debts owing by one belligerent State to private citizens of the other, the principle is that they are never confiscated, because the whole State is supposed to have pledged itself to the effect that, whether a war comes or not, the interest on these debts shall be continuously paid, and the debts shall themselves be at last paid off. There have been some remarkable instances of this enduring respect |