Here I might stop; for the conclusion stands on reason and authority, each unanswerable; but I proceed further in order to relieve the case of all ambiguity. Of course instances may be adduced where compensation has been made to sufferers from an army, but no case like the present. If we glance at these instances, we shall see the wide difference.
1. The first instance is where property is taken by the Nation, or its representative, within its own established jurisdiction. Of course this is unlike that now before us. To cite it is only to perplex and mystify, not to instruct. Thus, a Senator [Mr. Willey, of West Virginia] has adduced well-known words from Vattel on the question, “Whether subjects should be indemnified for damages sustained in war,” “as when a field, a house, or a garden, belonging to a private person, is taken for the purpose of erecting on the spot a town-rampart, or any other piece of fortification.”[15] But this authority is not applicable to the present case, where the claimant is not what Vattel calls a “subject,” and the property was not within the established jurisdiction of the nation. It applies only to such cases as occurred during the War of 1812, where property was taken on the Canadian frontier or at New Orleans for the erection of a fortress,—or such a case as that which formed one of the military glories of the Count Rochambeau, when at the head of the French forces in our country. The story is little known, and therefore I adduce it now, as I find it in the Memoirs of Ségur, one of the brilliant officers who accompanied the expedition.
The French squadrons were quitting their camp at Crompond, near the North River, in New York, on their way to embark for France. Their commander, fresh from the victory of Yorktown, was at the head of the columns, when a simple citizen approached, and, tapping him slightly on the shoulder, said: “In the name of the law you are my prisoner.” The glittering staff by which Count Rochambeau was surrounded broke forth with indignation, but the General-in-Chief restrained their impatience, and, smiling, said to the American citizen: “Take me away with you, if you can.” “No,” replied the simple representative of the law, “I have done my duty, and your Excellency may proceed on your march, if you wish to set justice at defiance. Some of your soldiers have cut down several trees, and burnt them to make their fires. The owner of them claims an indemnity, and has obtained a warrant against you, which I have come to execute.” The Count, on hearing this explanation, which was translated by one of his staff, gave bail, and at once directed the settlement of the claim on equitable grounds. The American withdrew, and the French squadrons, which had been arrested by a simple constable, proceeded on their march. This interesting story, so honorable to our country and to the French commander, is disfigured by the end, showing extortion on the part of the claimant. A judgment by arbitration fixed the damages at four hundred dollars, being less than the commander had at once offered, while the claimant demanded no less than three thousand dollars.[16]
Afterward, in the National Assembly of France, when that great country began to throb with republican life, this instance of submission to law was mentioned with pride.[17] But though it cannot lose its place in history, it cannot furnish a precedent of International Law. Besides being without any exigency of defence, the trespass was within our own jurisdiction, in which respect it differed precisely from the case on which we are to vote. I adduce it now because it serves to illustrate vividly the line of law.
2. Another instance, which I mention in order to put it aside, is where an army in a hostile country has carefully paid for all its supplies. Such conduct is exceptional. The general rule was expressed by Mr. Marcy, during our war with Mexico, when he said that “an invading army has the unquestionable right to draw its supplies from the enemy without paying for them, and to require contributions for its support,” that “the enemy may be made to feel the weight of the war.”[18] But General Halleck, after quoting these words, says that “the resort to forced contributions for the support of our armies in a country like Mexico, under the particular circumstances of the war, would have been at least impolitic, if not unjust; and the American generals very properly declined to adopt, except to a very limited extent, the mode indicated.”[19] According to this learned authority, it was a question of policy rather than of law.
The most remarkable instance of forbearance, under this head, was that of the Duke of Wellington, as he entered France with his victorious troops, fresh from the fields of Spain. He was peremptory that nothing should be taken without compensation. His order on this occasion will be found at length in Colonel Gurwood’s collection of his “Dispatches.”[20] His habit was to give receipts for supplies, and ready money was paid in the camp. The British historian dwells with pride on the conduct of the commander, and records the astonishment with which it was regarded by both soldiers and peasantry, who found it so utterly at variance with the system by which the Spaniards had suffered and the French had profited during the Peninsular campaigns.[21] The conduct of the Duke of Wellington cannot be too highly prized. It was more than a victory. I have always regarded it as the high-water mark of civilized war, so far as war can be civilized. But I am obliged to add, on this occasion, that it was politic also. In thus softening the rigors of war, he smoothed the way for his conquering army. In a dispatch to one of his generals, written in the spirit of the order, he says, in very expressive language: “If we were five times stronger than we are, we could not venture to enter France, if we cannot prevent our soldiers from plundering.”[22] It was in a refined policy that this important order had its origin. Regarding it as a generous example for other commanders, and offering to it my homage, I must confess, that, as a precedent, it is entirely inapplicable to the present case.
Putting aside these two several classes of cases, we are brought back to the original principle, that there can be no legal claim to damages for property situated in an enemy country, and belonging to a person domiciled there, when taken for the exigencies of war.