260 WRIGHT— POWER TO MEET RESPONSIBILITIES. 



seizures upon the high seas or in foreign territorial waters by vessels 

 of the navy or revenue cutter service.*^ In such cases, however, 

 the courts sometimes refuse relief on the ground that the question 

 is political/* Although the courts exercise less control of the army 

 than of the navy in time of war, yet they may give relief in case mili- 

 tary action violates property rights protected by international law. 

 Thus in Mitchell v. Harmony*^ the court applied international law to 

 determine the right of military officers to confiscate enemy property 

 in the occupied territory of Mexico and in Brown v. the United 

 States*^ the court refused to confiscate enemy property in American 

 territory holding that international law regarded such confiscation 

 with disfavor and the court could not permit it unless authorized 

 by an express act of Congress. In other cases the courts have held 

 that the President's power in conducting war is limited by interna- 

 tional law and any action he may authorize contrary to that law is 

 void. Congress alone can authorize military methods conflicting 

 with international law and as we have seen the courts will not 

 presume such a conflict.*^ 



^^ La Jeune Eugenie, 2 Mason 409, 1822; Rose v. Himeley, 4 Cranch 241; 

 Hudson V. Guestier, 6 Cranch 281, 1810; The Marianna Flora, 11 Wheat, i, 

 1826; The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66, 122, 1825; La Ninfa, 75 Fed. 513, 1896. 



** Ship Richmond v. U. S., 9 Cranch 102, 104, 1815 ; Davisson v. Seal- 

 skins, 2 Paine 324 ; Moore, Digest, 2 : 364-365, and supra, sec. 107. 



45 Mitchell V. Harmony, 13 How. 115. 



4*5 Brown 2>. U. S., 8 Cranch no. See also McVeigh v. U. S., 11 Wall. 

 259, 1870, in which the court relaxed the rule which permits an alien enemy 

 no status in court and permitted him to defend, and Wright, Am. Jl. Int. Law, 

 II : 19. 



*7 Mitchell V. Harmony, 13 How. 115; Miller v. U. S., 11 Wall. 268; 

 Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603; Willoughby, op. cit., p. 1196, says: "With 

 respect to the persons and property of the enemy, however, he (the military 

 commander) is subject only to the limitations which the laws of war, as 

 determined by international usage, supply, and for violations of these he 

 is responsible only to the military tribunals." But on page 1212 he says: 

 " Indeed, the President, in the exercise simply of his authority as commander- 

 in-chief of the army and navy, may, unless prohibited by congressional stat- 

 ute, commit or authorize acts not warranted by commonly received principles 

 of international law." Sutherland, however {op. cit., p. 71), says: "The 

 usages and laws of war alone, and not the Constitution of the United 

 States, fix the limits " of the President's authority in conducting military op- 

 erations. See also British case of the Zamora, L. R. 1916, 2 A. C. 77, 

 holding an order in council contrary to international law void; Wright, Am. 

 Jl. Int. Lazv, 11:2, and supra, sec. 47. 



