These are the words of the eminent Dutch publicist, Bynkershoek, in the first half of the last century. In adducing them now I present them as adopted by Mr. Jefferson, in his remarkable answer to the note of the British minister at Philadelphia on the confiscations of the American Revolution. There are no words of greater weight in any writer on the Law of Nations. But Mr. Jefferson did not content himself with quotation. In the same state paper he thus declares unquestionable rights:-- “It cannot be denied that the state of war strictly permits a nation to seize the property of its enemies _found within its own limits or taken in war_, and in whatever form it exists, whether in action or possession.”[21] This sententious statement is under date of 1792, and, when we consider the circumstances which called it forth, may be accepted as American doctrine. But even in our own day, since the beginning of the present war, the same principle has been stated yet more sententiously in another quarter. The Lord Advocate of Scotland, in the British House of Commons, as late as 17th March of the present year, declared:-- “The honorable gentleman spoke as if it was no principle of war that private rights should suffer at the hands of the adverse belligerent. But that was the true principle of war. If war was not to be defined--as it very nearly might be--as a denial of the rights of private property to the enemy, that denial was certainly one of the essential ingredients in it.”[22] In quoting these authorities, which are general in their bearing, I do not stop to consider their modification according to the discretion of the belligerent power. I accept them as the starting-point in the present inquiry, and assume that by the Rights of War enemy property may be taken. But rights with regard to such property are modified by the _locality_ of the property; and this consideration makes it proper to consider them under two heads: _first_, rights with regard to enemy property actually within the national jurisdiction; and, _secondly_, rights with regard to enemy property actually outside the national jurisdiction. It is easy to see, that, in the present war, rights against enemy property actually outside the national jurisdiction must exist _a fortiori_ against such property actually within the jurisdiction. But, for the sake of clearness, I shall speak of them separately. * * * * * _First._ I begin with the Rights of War over enemy property actually within the national jurisdiction. In stating the general rule, I adopt the language of a recent English authority.