'^  No  titles  were  divested  in  the  insurgent  States,  unless  in  pursuance
of  a  judgment  rendered  after  due  legal  proceedings.  The  Oovemment
recognized  to  the  fullest  extent  the  humane  maxima  of  the  modem  law  of
Mtkm$,  which  exempt  property  of  non-combatant  enemies  from  capture  or
hootffofwarP

Chase,  C.  J.;  U.  S.  v.  Klein,  13  Wall.,  128.    See  to  same  general  effect,  Lamar  v,
Browne,  d2  U.S..  194.
Where  private  property  is  impressed  into  public  use  during  an  emer-
gency, such  as  a  war,  a  contract  is  implied  on  the  part  of  the  Govem-
ment  to  make  comi>ensation  to  the  owner.
U. 8.  r.  RusseU,  13  Wall.,  623.
Daring  the  civil  war  enemies'  property  was  made  liable  to  confiscation
by  certain  acts  of  Congress,  but  the  Government  of  the  United  States
J^sserted  no  general  right  in  virtue  of  conquest  to  compel  the  payment
of  private  debts  to  itself.
PUmters'  Bank  v.  Union  Bank,  IG  Wall.,  483.    Supra,  $$  223 if.;  infra,  $$  352 if.
247


^  338.]  WAR.  [chap.  XVTl.
It  is  by  no  means  to  bo  admitted  that  a  conquering  power  may  compel
private  debtors  to  pay  tbeir  debts  to  itself,  and  that  sncb  payments  ex-
tinguish the  claims  of  the  original  creditor.  The  principle  of  interna-
tional law,  that  a  conquering  state,  after  the  conquest  has  subsided
into  Government,  may  exact  payment  from  the  state  debtors  of  the
conquered  power,  and  that  payments  to  the  conqueror  discharge  the
debt,  so  that  when  the  former  Government  returns  the  debtor  Is  not
compellable  to  pay  again,  has  no  applicability  to  debts  not  due  to  the
conquered  state.
Ibid.
