Sec 477

Insurances either of the ships of public enemies, or of goods which are the subjects of contraband trade, are illegal, as tending to encourage the enemy's trade.1

Sec 478

Even supposing a contract continues in force during a war, an alien enemy cannot, without license, sue on it,2 though when sued, he may appear, if not otherwise disabled, and make defence.3 Permission to remain in the country, however, gives ground to infer tacit license to do business.4

Sec 479

A contract for the breach of neutrality laws, adopted by the lex fori, is void.5 English courts, also, it has been held, will refuse to sustain suits brought on contracts to raise money to support an insurrection against a state in amity with Great Britain.6 It should be remembered, as is elsewhere shown,7 that neutrality, as defined by the law of nations, and neutrality, as defined by local law, are far from being convertible. A government (as was the case with our own government during the Napoleonic wars, and with the British government during our late civil war) may say: "the law of nations in this respect imposes on us greater obligations than we can impose on our subjects, but this does not affect our liability for breaches of neutrality by our subjects which we either could not or would not prevent." On the other hand, a state may impose on its subjects limitations more strict than those imposed by the law of nations. In the latter case, all contracts subject to the local law, which violate that law, will be held void by the courts of the state enacting the prohibition. - "Whether contracts violating the laws of nations will be held good when not violating local law, may depend upon local legislation. But if the law of nations is part of our common law, which is now the prevalent opinion,1 and if the question be whether a court subject to the common law will enforce a contract contravening the law of nations, the answer should be in the negative. The object, however, of the contract, to make it illegal, must bring the party furnishing the illegal aid into privity of contract with the belligerent to whom it is unlawful for him to furnish aid. Contracts to sell naval ammunition will not be made illegal by the fact that the party selling foresees that they will find their way into a cruiser designed for a belligerent sovereign. If this invalidated a contract, few contracts for naval supplies would be valid.2 Nor, according to the better opinion, are contracts by neutrals to supply munitions of war to a belligerent illegal.3 But it is a breach of neutrality for a neutral to recruit soldiers and fit out cruisers for belligerent service,4 and to establish a system of coaling for belligerent steamers.6

Insurance of enemy's ships and goods illegal.

Alien enemies cannot sue during the war.

Contracts for breach of neutrality laws void.

1 Leake, 2d ed. 747; Phillips on Ins. sec 147, 223; Brandon v. Nesbitt, 6 T. R. 23; Bristow v. Towers, 6 T. R. 35; Vandyck v. Hewitt, 1 East, 96; Fnr-tado v. Rodgers, 3 B. & P. 191; Semmes v. Ins. Co., 13 Wall. 158; Delmas v. Ins. Co., 14 Wall. 661.

2 Infra, sec 97; Wh. Con. of L. sec 737; McConnell v. Hector, 3 B. & P. 113; U. S. v. Isaac Hammett, 10 Pitts. L. J. (0. S.) 97; Crawford v. The William Penn, 3 Wash. C. C. 484; Otteridge v.

Thompson, 3 Cranch C. C. 108; Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 561; Sanderson v. Morgan, 39 N. Y. 231; Perkins v. Rogers, 35 Ind. 124.

3 McVeigh v. U. S., 11 Wall. 259; Seymour v. Bailey, 66 111. 288.

4 Wells v. Williams, 1 Salk. 46; Boulton v. Dobree, 2 Camp. 163; supra, sec 475.

5 Wh. Cr. L. 8th ed. sec 1901.

6 De Wiitz v. Hendricks, 2 Bing. 314. 7 Wh. Cr. L. 8th ed. sec 1901.