00034
34
-6-
party to any dispute nor were they questioned by any government. During the period preceding the present war, it was often controversial whether or not an international war existed, but it was never denied that articles 42-56 applied if the existence of international war was admitted." (Feilchenfeld, the International Economic Law of Belligerent Occupation, par. 13 p. 5.)
There is no doubt that the credit in question is included in
the term "realizable securities" mentioned in Article 53 of the Hague
Regulations, and they are of those that the army of occupation cannot
sequestrate unless they be strictly property of the State.
Hyde in his work of International Law, Vol. III p. 1895, 1945
edition, speaking of the applicability of the Hague Regulations concern-
ing the inviolability of private property and referring to private cred-
its, said the following:
"It is believed that no distinction should be made between tangible and intangible or incorporeal private property, such as debts due to the inhabitants of the occupied district, with respect to the duty of the bell- igerent to refrain from confiscation. Where the State of the occupant is itself the debtor, the reason for restraint is like that apparent when, for any reason, the debt is regarded as being within the territory of the belligerent, and subject to its jurisdiction. If the debtor is a private individual residing in that territory, and the creditor an inhabitant of the occupied district, no reason is apparent why the occupant should be entitled to cancel the debt." (Hyde on International Law, Vol. III page 1895, 1945 edition).
The principle of international law regarding the immunity of
private property, especially if it consists of a credit, has been recog-
nised and confirmed in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court,
in the cases of Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176, 24 L. ed 716, and
Planter's Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall. 483, 211. ed. 473.
In the first of those cases, the court said:
"Debts not being tangible things subject to physical seizure and removal, the debtors cannot claim release from liability to their creditors by reason of the coerced pay- ment of equivalent sums to an unlawful combination. The debts can only be satisfied when paid to the creditors to whom they are due, or to others by direction of the lawful authority. Any sun which the unlawful combination may have compelled the debtors to pay to its agents on account of debts to loyal citizens, cannot have any effect upon their obligations; they remain subsisting and unimpaired."
In the second case, the decision states:
2
Ref.:
CO 537/1374
THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
Ins
N
restrictions. Further information is given in the enclosed Terms and Conditions of supply of
Please note that this copy is supplied subject to the National Archives' terms and conditions and that your use of it may be subject to copyright
National
Archives'
leaflet.