acts committed against the occupant; or from being taken into captivity, if exceptionally necessary. [Footnote 144: _Quaestiones juris publici_, I. c. 3 _in fine_.] [Footnote 145: See the _Harmony_ (1800), 2 C. Rob. 322; the _Johanna Emilie_, otherwise _Emilia_ (1854), Spinks, 12; the _Baltica_ (1857), 11 Moore, P.C. 141.] This treatment of foreigners resident on occupied enemy territory is generally recognised as legitimate by theory[146] and practice. The proposal of Germany, made at the Second Peace Conference, to agree upon rules which would have stipulated a more favourable treatment of subjects of neutral States resident on occupied enemy territory was, therefore, rejected. Not even France supported the German proposals, although according to the French conception foreigners residing in enemy country do not acquire enemy character, and therefore the German proposals were only a logical consequence of the French conception. This French conception of enemy character dates from the judgment of the _Conseil des Prises_ in the case of _Le Hardy contre La Voltigeante_[147] (1802), which laid down the rule that neutral subjects residing in enemy country do not lose their neutral character, and enemy subjects residing in neutral countries do not lose their enemy character. But it must be emphasised that this French conception of enemy character has been developed, not with regard to the treatment of foreigners whom an occupant finds resident on occupied enemy territory, but with regard to the exercise of the right of capture of enemy vessels and goods in warfare at sea. France did not make an attempt to draw the logical consequences from this conception and, therefore, to mete out to foreigners resident on occupied enemy territory a treatment different from that of enemy subjects resident there. [Footnote 146: See Albrecht, _Requisitionen von neutralem Privateigenthum_, &c. (1912), pp. 13-15.] [Footnote 147: 1 Pistoye et Duverdy (1859), 321.] (3) Since enemy subjects who reside in neutral countries, or are allowed to remain resident on the territory of the other belligerent, have to a great extent identified themselves with the local population and are not under the territorial supremacy of the enemy, they lose their enemy character according to English and American practice,[148] but according to French practice they do not, a difference of practice which bears upon many points, especially upon the character of goods.[149] [Footnote 148: See the _Postilion_ (1779), Hay & Marriot, 245; the _Danous_ (1802), 4 C. Rob. 255, note; the _Venus_ (1814), 8 Cranch, 253.] [Footnote 149: See below, § 90.] [Sidenote: Enemy Character of Vessels.]