“Although there have been so many conventions granting exemption from the liabilities resulting from a state of war, the right to seize the property of enemies found in our territory when war breaks out remains indisputable, according to the Law of Nations, wherever there is no such special convention. All jurists, including the most recent, such as De Martens and Klüber, agree in this decision.”[23] This statement is general, but unquestionable even in its rigor. For the sake of clearness and accuracy it must be considered in its application to different kinds of property. 1. It is undeniable, that, in generality, the rule must embrace real property, or, as termed by the Roman Law and the Continental systems of jurisprudence, _immovables_; but so important an authority as Vattel excepts this species of property, for the reason, that, being acquired by consent of the sovereign, it is as if it belonged to his own subjects.[24] But personal property is also under the same safeguard, and yet it is not embraced within the exception. If such, indeed, be the reason for the exception of real property, _it loses all applicability where the property belongs to an enemy who began by breaking faith on his side_. Surely, whatever the immunity of an ordinary enemy, it is difficult to see how a rebel enemy, whose hostility is bad faith in arms, can plead any safeguard. _Cessante ratione, cessat et ipsa lex_, is an approved maxim of the law; and since with us the reason of Vattel does not exist, the exception which he propounds need not be recognized, to the disparagement of the general rule. 2. The rule is necessarily applicable to all personal property, or, as it is otherwise called, _movables_. On this head there is hardly a dissenting voice, while the Supreme Court of the United States, in a case constantly cited in this debate, has solemnly affirmed it. I refer to _Brown_ v. _United States_,[25] where the broad principle is assumed that war gives to the sovereign full right to confiscate the property of the enemy, wherever found, and that the mitigations of the rule, derived from modern civilization, may affect the exercise of the right, but cannot impair the right itself. Goods of the enemy actually in the country, and all vessels and cargoes afloat in our ports, at the commencement of hostilities, were declared liable to confiscation. In England, it is the constant usage, under the name of “Droits of Admiralty,” to seize and condemn property of an enemy in its ports at the breaking out of hostilities.[26] But this was not followed in the Crimean War, although the claim itself has never been abandoned.