ing a similar flag and conducted to the ship on which the officer in command is to be found.

§ 233.

Another mode of intercourse between belligerents is by
Cartels,

which are agreements entered upon during war, or in antici-
pation of it, in order to regulate such intercourse as is to be
allowed in the course of the struggle. They
Cartels. prescribe the formalities to be observed in the
exchange of prisoners, the reception of flags of truce, and
the interchange of postal or telegraphic communications.
Whatever regulations are laid down in them should be ob-
served in good faith, and without any attempt to wrest them
from their humane purposes, and turn them into means of
obtaining information or gaining military advantage. Car-
tels for the exchange of prisoners are incidents of all wars
between civilized powers, and the arrangements connected
therewith are made and supervised by officers called com-
missaries, who are appointed by each belligerent, and allowed
to reside in the country of the enemy. Cartel-ships are
vessels employed in the conveyance of prisoners to and from
the place of exchange. They are free from hostile seizure
on the conditions set forth when we were considering the
extent to which public vessels of the enemy are liable to
capture.1

§ 234.

The next subject to be considered in connection with the relaxations of the strict rule of non-intercourse in warfare may be dealt with under the head of

Passports and Safe-Conducts,

which can be described as permissions to travel given to subjects of the enemy. Passports are granted by a belliger

T

1 See § 205.

Safe-conducts.

ent government, and are generally made to apply to all territory under its control. Safe-conducts are granted either by a belligerent government or by its naval and Passports and military officers. They apply to a particular place only, and any commander may grant them in the area under his control. Both passports and safe-conducts are revocable for good reason; but if they are revoked the grantee should be allowed to withdraw in safety. A limit of time may be named in these instruments, and a special purpose may be mentioned as the only one for which the permission is given. Whatever conditions are imposed must be carefully complied with, and both sides are held to the strictest good faith. A safe-conduct may be given in respect of goods only, in which case it is a permission to remove them without restriction as to the agent, but with an implied condition that he shall not be dangerous or otherwise obnoxious to the grantor. It is always understood that neither passports nor safe-conducts are transferable.

§ 235.

It often happens, especially in maritime hostilities, that a belligerent grants

Licenses to trade,

which enable their holders to carry on a commerce forbidden by the ordinary laws of war or by the legislation of the grantor. Licenses are general when a state Licenses to trade. gives permission to all its own subjects, or to

all neutral or enemy subjects, to trade in particular articles or at particular places, special when permission is granted to particular individuals to trade in the manner described by the words of the documents they receive. Both kinds remove all disabilities imposed because of the war upon the trade in respect of which they are given. The holders can sue and be sued in the courts of the grantor, and are allowed

to enter into contractual relations with his subjects to the extent necessary in order to act on the terms of the license. General licenses can be granted only by the supreme power in the state. Special licenses generally emanate from the same source; but officers in chief authority on land or sea can issue permissions to trade in the district or with the force under their command. Such licenses, however, afford no protection outside the limits of the grantor's control. When the commander of an invading force issues a proclamation to the people of the country requesting them to sell him supplies, he gives them an implied license to trade in his camp.

During the war between Great Britain and France at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, a very large number of licenses were granted by both the belligerents. This was especially the case towards the end of the struggle, when Napoleon's attempt to ruin England by excluding her manufactured goods and colonial produce from the continent of Europe had brought about an enormous rise in the price of such commodities in all the countries controlled by him. In 1811 sugar was seven francs a pound in Paris, while in London it cost barely a tenth of that sum, and the price of coffee, raw cotton and indigo in the two places followed about the same proportion.1 As a natural consequence an enormous system of smuggling arose. Bourienne describes how, at Hamburg, brown sugar was first placed in gravel pits and then passed in carts through the city barriers covered with a thin layer of sand, and how, when this device was found out, hearses were filled with it, till the sudden and remarkable increase in the number of funerals aroused suspicion and led to discovery. We are not surprised, after this, to find the statement that "licenses were procured at a high price by whoever was rich enough to pay for them," or to learn that great and wide

1 Rose, article in Historical Review for October, 1893, on Napoleon and English Commerce.

spread discontent was caused by the prohibition of English goods. If Napoleon had his Berlin and Milan Decrees, Great Britain had her Orders in Council. She too sold or gave licenses in order to mitigate the rigor of her own prohibitions, while unfortunate neutrals, chief among whom was the United States, found their commerce restricted by both sides. Under these circumstances Prize Courts were frequently employed in deciding upon questions of the construction of licenses, and the extent to which the permissions given in them reached. A whole system of jurisprudence grew up with reference to the subject, but most of it is now obsolete. The vast strides made by commerce since the beginning of the century have led to a corresponding increase of its influence on maritime law. The Declaration of Paris laid down, in 1856, that enemy goods not contraband of war might be freely carried on neutral ships; and it is quite certain that in future maritime struggles neutral powers will not again submit to such treatment as they received from France and England in the crisis of their great conflict for commercial supremacy.

It follows from what has just been said that much of the received law of licenses has little more than an antiquarian interest. We will, therefore, pass over its details, and be content to give only those parts of it which may possibly be again enforced. Misrepresentation of facts is held to annul a license, and an individual who has received one by name cannot transfer it to others, though he may act through an agent. But if it is made negotiable by express words, it may be transferred like any other instrument. Slight deviations from the quantity or quality of the goods specified will not forfeit the license, nor will a slight alteration in the character of the vessel; but the use of a ship of one nationality when another was mentioned will cause forfeiture. Deviation from the specified course, or a delay in arrival beyond the specified time, may be excused when caused by

1 Bourienne, Memoirs (Bentley's ed.), II., XXXIII., et seq.

stress of weather or some other unavoidable calamity; but delay beyond the time fixed for the commencement of a voyage will not be allowed.

§ 236.

No war of any magnitude is likely to continue long without being marked by one or more

Capitulations,

which is the name given to agreements for the surrender upon conditions of a fortified place, or a military or naval

Capitulations.

force. The conditions are set forth in the terms of the agreement, and vary from a prom

It

ise to spare the lives of those who surrender to grant of "all the honors of war" to the vanquished, a phrase which means that they are allowed to depart unmolested with colors displayed, drums beating and their arms in their hands. is not often that such ample terms are obtained, nor, on the other hand, does a mere promise to spare life confer any benefit upon the conquered beyond what is theirs already by the laws of modern warfare. Generally the conditions of capitulations range between the two extremes, being lenient or severe according to the nature and extent of the straits to which those who surrender have been reduced, and the degree of necessity the victors are under of ending their operations quickly. Sometimes, too, admiration for an heroic defence will cause more generous terms to be granted than the military situation would enable the beaten side to exact. This was the case at Appomattox, when the remnant of Lee's army surrendered to the Union forces on April 9, 1865, six days after the fall of Richmond and the destruction of the hopes of the Southern Confederacy in the great American Civil War. Grant could certainly have enforced far harsher conditions than the dismissal to their own homes of the foes who, in his own words, "had fought so long and valiantly."

1 U. S. Grant, Personal Memoirs, II., 489.