Confiscate

To appropriate to the use of the st.i Especially used of the goods and property of alien enemies found in a state lu time of war.

1 K et seq.

— Bona confiscata and forisfacta are said to be the same (1 Bla. Con- to the individual Is the same whether the feited or confiscated; I n Individual forfeits, a state confiscate''-, good;

— or other property. Used also as an adjec:. Ill a. Com. 299. In International Law. It is a rule that the property of the subjects ol found in the country may be appropriated by the government without notice, unless there be a treaty to the contrary; Hall, Int. L.:;;>7; The Emulous. 1 GalL.".;::. Fed 4,479; Ware v. Ilylton, 3 DalL (U. S.) 199, 1 1.. Ed. 568. 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 themselves innocently: and when there was no such treaty, such a liberal permission has been announced in the very declaration of war. Vattel, 1. 3, c. 4, § 63. Sir M Foster (Discourses on High Treason, pp. 185 6) mentions several instances of such declarations by the king of Great Britain; and he says that alien enemies 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; 1 Kent 57. In the United States, the broad principle has been laid down "that war gives to the sovereign full right to take the persons and confiscate the property of the enemy, wherever found. The mitigations of this rigid rule which the policy of modern times has introduced into practice will more or less affect the exercise of this right, but cannot impair the right itself:-' Brown v. I', s.. 8 Cra. (U. S.) 122, 3 L. Ed. 504. Commercial nations have always considerable property in the possession of their neighbors: and when war breaks out, the question what shall be done with enemies' property found in the country is one rather of policy than of law, and is properly addressed to the consideration of the legislature, and not to courts of law. The strict right of confiscation exists in congress; and without a legislative act authorizing the confiscation of enemies' property, it cannot be condemned; 8 Cra. (U. S.) 128, 3 L. Ed. 504. Notwithstanding this positive statement of the law, private property of enemy subjects Waa n. 'i confiscated during the wars of the L9th century, and it may safely be said that an Internationa] custom prohibiting such confiscation has grown up having nearly the force of law.

An exception is to be found in the right of a belligerent to seize and make use of such private property of enemy subthe other hand, public property, such as provisions, ammunition, rolling stock of state railroads, realizable securities, funds, etc., of one belligerent in the territory of the other, is subject to seizure.

See IV H. C. Art 53.

The claim of a right to confiscate debts contracted by individuals in time of peace, and which remain due to subjects of the enemy in time of war, rests upon much the same principle as that concerning the enemy's tangible property found in the country at the commencement of the war. But it is the universal practice to forbear to seize and confiscate debts and credits.

1 Kent 64.

The right of confiscation exists as fully in case of a civil war as it does when the war is foreign, and rebels in arms against the lawful government, or persons inhabiting the territory exclusively within the control of the rebel belligerents, may be treated as public enemies. So may adherents, or aiders and abettors of such a belligerent, though not resident in such enemy's territory; Miller v. U. S., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 2G9, 20 L. Ed. 135. Proceedings under the Confiscation Act of July 17, 18G2, were justified as an exercise of belligerent rights against a public enemy, but were not, in their nature, a punishment for treason. Therefore, confiscation being a proceeding distinct from, and independent of, the treasonable guilt of the owner of the property confiscated, pardon for treason will not restore rights to property previously condemned and sold in the exercise of belligerent rights as against a purchaser in good faith and for value; Semmes v. U. S., 91 U. S. 21, 23 L. Ed. 193. A suit in confiscation Is an action of entirely different nature from a proceeding in prize. Confiscation is the act of the sovereign against a rebellious subject Condemnation as prize is the act of a belligerent against another belligerent or against an offending neutral. Confiscation may be effected by such means, either summary or arbitrary, as the sovereign expressing his will through lawful channels, may please to adopt. Condemnation as' prize can only be made in accordance with principles of law recognized in the common jurisprudence of the world. Both are proceedings in rem, but confiscation recognizes the title of the original owner to the property which is to be forfeited, while in prize the tenure of the property seized is qualified, provisional and destitute of absolute ownership; The Peterhoff, Blatchf.

Pr. Cas. 620, Fed. Cas. No. 11,025.

To confiscate property seized upon land, resort must be had to the common-law side of the court; The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 110, 22 L. Ed. 320; prize proceedings are always in admiralty; Winchester v. U. S., 14 Ct Cls. 48. See, generally, Chitty, Law of Nations, c. liv.

3, c. 4, § 63; Twiss, Law of Nations; Wbeaton; Hall, International Law.