Page images
PDF
EPUB

observed, that in the constitution proposed by Bonaparte, on his reascension of the throne of France, in 1815, the right to levy men and money for war was to rest entirely upon a law to be proposed to the House of Representatives of the people, and assented to by them. In this country, the power of declaring war, as well as of raising the supplies, is wisely confided to the legislature of the Union; and the presumption is, that nothing short of a strong case, deeply affecting our essential rights, and which cannot receive a pacific adjustment, after all reasonable efforts shall have been exhausted, will ever prevail upon congress to declare war.

It has been usual to precede hostilities by a public declaration communicated to the enemy. It was the custom of the ancient Greeks and Romans to publish a declaration of the injuries they had received, and to send a, herald to the enemy's borders to demand satisfaction, before they actually engaged in war; and invasions without notice were not looked upon as lawful. War was declared with religious preparation and solemnity. According to Ulpian,b they *alone were reputed enemies against whom the *53 Roman people had publicly declared war. During the middle ages, a previous declaration of war was held to be requisite, by the laws of honour, chivalry and religion. Louis IX. refused to attack the Sultan of Egypt until he made a previous declaration to him by a herald at arms; and one of his successors sent a herald, with great formality, to the governor of the Low Countries, when he declared war against Spain, in 1635. But, in modern times, the practice of a solemn declaration made to the enemy has fallen into disuse, and the nation contents itself with making a public declaration of war within its own territory, and to its own people. The jurists are, however, divided in opinion, in respect to the necessity or justice of some previous declaration to the enemy in the case of offensive war. Grotiusd considers a previous

• Potter's Antiquities of Greece, b. 3. c. 7. Livy, b. 1. c. 32. Cic. de Off. b. 1. c. 11. De Repub. lib. 3.

Dig. 49. 15. 24. Cicero says, that under the Roman kings it was instituted law, that the war was unjust and impious, unless declared and proclaimed by the heralds under religious sanction. De Repub. lib. 2.17.

!

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

demand of satisfaction, and a declaration, as requisite to a solemn and lawful war; and Puffendorfa holds acts of hostility, which have not been preceded by a formal declaration of war, to be no better than acts of piracy and robbery. Emerigonb is of the same opinion; and he considered the hostilities exercised by England, in the year 1755, prior to any declaration of war, to have been in contempt of the law of nations, and condemned by all Europe. Vattel strongly recommends a previous declaration of war, as being required by justice and humanity; and he says, that the fecial law of the Romans gave such moderation and religious solemnity to a preparation of war, and bore such marks of wisdom and justice, that it laid the solid foundation of their future great

ness.

Bynkershoeck has devoted an entire chapter to this *54 question,d *and he maintains that a declaration of war

is not requisite by the law of nations, and that though it may very properly be made, it cannot be required as a matter of right. The practice rests entirely on manners and magnanimity, and it was borrowed from the ancient Romans. All that he contends for is, that a demand of what we conceive to be due should be previously made. We are not bound to accompany that demand with threats of hostility, or to follow it with a public declaration of war; and he cites many instances to show, that within the two last centuries, wars have been frequently commenced without a previous declaration. Since the time of Bynkershoeck, it has become settled by the practice of Europe, that war may lawfully exist by a declaration which is unilateral only, or without a declaration on either side. It may begin with mutual hostilities.e After the peace of Versailles, in 1763, formal declarations of war of any kind seem to have been discontinued, and all the necessary and legitimate consequences of war flow at once. from a state of public hostilities, duly recognised, and explicitly announced, by a domestic manifesto or state paper. In the war between England and France, in 1778, the first public act on the part of the English government was recalling its

B. 8. c. 6. sec. 9.

B. 3. c. 4. sec. 51.
b Traité des. Ass. tome i. p. 563. Quæst. J. Pub. b. 1. c. 2.
• Sir Wm. Scott, 1 Dodson's Adm. Rep. 247.

minister, and that single act was considered by France as a breach of the peace between the two countries. There was no other declaration of war, though each government afterwards published a manifesto in vindication of its claims and conduct. The same thing may be said of the war which broke out in 1793, and again in 1803; and, indeed, in the war of 1756, though a solemn and formal declaration of war, in the ancient style, was made in June, 1756, vigorous hostilities had been carried on between England and France for a year preceding. In the war declared by the United States against England, in 1812, hostilities were immediately commenced on our part *as soon as the act of congress *55 was passed, without waiting to communicate to the English government any notice of our intentions.

But, though a solemn declaration, or previous notice to the enemy, be now laid aside, it is essential that some formal public act, proceeding directly from the competent source, should announce to the people at home, their new relations and duties growing out of a state of war, and which should equally apprize neutral nations of the fact, to enable them to conform their conduct to the rights belonging to the new state of things. War, says Vattel,a is at present published and declared by manifestoes. Such an official act operates from its date to legalize all hostile acts, in like manner as a treaty of peace operates from its date to annul them. As war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States without an act of congress, such an act is, of course, a formal official notice to all the world, and equivalent to the most solemn declaration.

binds sub

When war is duly declared, it is not merely a war between state of war this and the adverse government in their political characters. jects. Every man is, in judgment of law, a party to the acts of his own government, and a war between the governments of two nations, is a war between all the individuals of the one, and all the individuals of which the other nation is composed. Government is the representative of the will of all the people, and acts for the whole society. This is the theory in all governments; and the best writers on the law of nations concur

B. 3. c. 4. sec. 64.

in the doctrine, that when the sovereign of a state declares war against another sovereign, it implies that the whole nation declares war, and that all the subjects of the one are enemies to all the subjects of the other. Very important consequences concerning the obligations of subjects are deducible from this principle.

Enemy's pro- *56
perty within
the country.

*When hostilities have commenced, the first objects that naturally present themselves for detention and capture, are the persons and property of the enemy, found within the territory on the breaking out of the war. According to strict authority, a state has a right to deal as an enemy with persons and property so found within its power, and to confiscate the property, and detain the persons as prisoners of war. No one, says Bynkershoeck, ever required that notice should be given to the subjects of the enemy, to withdraw their property, or it would be forfeited. The practice of nations is, to appropriate it at once, without notice, if there be no special convention to the contrary. But though Bynkershoeck lays down this, as well as other rules of war, with great harshness and severity, he mentions several instances, arising in the 17th, and one as early as the 15th century, of stipulations in treaties, allowing foreign subjects a reasonable time after the war breaks out, to recover and dispose of their effects, or to withdraw them. Such stipulations have now become an established formula in commercial treaties. Emerigond considers such treaties as an affirmance of common right, or the public law of Europe, and the general rule laid down by some of the latter publicists is in conformity with that provision. The sovereign who declares war, says Vattel, can neither detain those subjects of the enemy who are in his do

■ Grotius, b. 3. c. 3. sec. 9.—c. 4. sec. 8. Burlamaqui, part 4. c. 4. sec. 20. Vattel, b. 3. c. 5. sec. 70.

Grotius, b. 3. c. 9. sec. 4.-c. 21. sec. 9. Bynk. Quæst. Pub. J. c. 2 and 7. Martens, b. 8. c. 2. sec. 5.

A liberal provision of this kind is inserted in the treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and the Republic of Colombia, which was ratified at Washington, May 27, 1825, and between the United States and the Republic of Venezuela, by the treaty of friendship and commerce in May, 1836.

Tome i. p. 567.

• Vattel, b. 3. c. 4. sec. 63. Azuni, part 2. c. 4. art. 2. sec. 7. Le Droit Public de l'Europe, par Mably, Euvres, tome vi. p. 334. Burlamaqui, p. 4. c. 7. sec. 6.

minions at the time of the declaration of war, nor their effects. They came into the country under the sanction of public faith. By permitting them to enter his territories, and continue *there, the sovereign tacitly promised them protection *57 and security for their return. He is, therefore, to allow them a reasonable time to retire with their effects, and if they stay beyond the time, he has a right to treat them as disarmed enemies, unless detained by sickness, or other insurmountable necessity, and then they are to be allowed a further time. It has been frequently provided by treaty, that foreign subjects should be permitted to remain, and continue their business, notwithstanding a rupture between the governments, so long as they conducted innocently; and when there was no such treaty, such a liberal permission has been often. announced in the very declaration of war. Sir Michael Fosterb mentions several instances of such declarations by the king of Great Britain, and he says, that aliens were thereby enabled to acquire personal chattels, and to maintain actions for the recovery of their personal rights, in as full a manner as alien friends.

Besides those stipulations in treaties, which have softened the rigours of war by the civilizing spirit of commerce, many governments have made special provision, in their own laws and ordinances, for the security of the persons and property of enemy's subjects, found in the country at the commencement of

war.c

It was provided by magna charta,d that upon the breaking out of war, foreign merchants found in England, and belonging to the country of the enemy, should be attached, "without harm of body or goods," until it be known how English merchants were treated by the enemy; and "if our merchants," said the charter, "be safe and

■ Vattel, b. 3. c. 4. sec. 63. See the treaty of commerce between the United States and the Republic of Chili, May, 1823, art. 23, which affords that permanent protection. Discourse of High Treason, pp. 185, 186.

[ocr errors]

By the Spanish decree of February, 1829, making Cadiz a free port, it was declared, that in the event of war, foreigners who had established themselves there for the purposes of commerce, and becoming alien enemies by means of the war, were to be allowed a proper time to withdraw, and their property was to be sacred from all sequestration or reprisal.

[blocks in formation]
« EelmineJätka »