The same rule seems to be applicable to the property of neutrals, whether that of individ uals or of governments, in a belligerent coun try. It must be held to be liable to the fortunes of war. In this conclusion the un dersigned is happy in being able to refer the Austrian government to many precedents of comparatively recent date, one of which, a note of Prince Schwartzenberg, of the I4th of April, 1850, in answer to claims put for ward on behalf of British subjects, who were represented to have suffered in their persons and property in the course of an insurrection in Naples and Tuscany." It may be well to call particular attention to the fact that the Austrian government denied responsibility for property of British subjects destroyed in the course of an insurrection, in which belli gerent rights had not been granted by for eign powers to the insurgents, as we under stand was the case in the insurrection in Naples and Tuscany against the Austrian government referred to by Mr. Seward. The above correspondence is found in a letter from Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, to Mr. Wydenbruck dated November 16, 1865, MSS. notes, Austria. To the same effect is a letter from the Sec retary of State, to Mr. Barreda representing the Peruvian government, referring to a claim of certain citizens of Peru, for the value of certain property destroyed in 1862, by in surgents. " The United States government is not liable for loss to Peruvian citizens caused by the destruction of their property on board a ship in Chesapeake Bay, in 1862, such destruction being effected by a sudden attack of insurgents, which could not by due diligence have been averted by the govern ment of the United States." (Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, to Mr. Barreda, January 9, 1863, MSS. notes, Peru.) That alien residents have the same status as citizens, and no greater rights, and that no national liability is incurred for losses sus tained by them on the part of the belligerent inflicting the loss, when it occurs as the re
sult of military operations, is shown by the language of Secretary of State Bayard, as follows : " However severe may have been the claimant's injuries, it must be recollected that like injuries are committed in most cases where towns are sacked, and that aliens resi dent in such towns are subject to the same losses as are citizens. It has never been held, however, that aliens have for such in juries a claim on the belligerent by whom they are inflicted. On the contrary the au thorities lay down the general principle that neutral property in belligerent territory shares the liabilities of property belonging to subjects of the State." (Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, to Mr. O'Conner, October 29, 1885, MSS. Dom. Let.) That there is no national liability to make compensation to the alien owner, for property destroyed in the necessary prosecution of hostilities, has been explicitly declared by the English government, as shown in the follow ing correspondence of Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, in which the government of the United States adopts the same principle. The corre spondence is in regard to the claim of a Mr. Ravenscroft, a British subject, against the United States, for damages sustained through loss of property during the late Civil War. Mr. Fish in denying the responsibility of his government makes reference to the doctrine laid down by the English government as to losses sustained by its subjects resident in France during the Franco-Prussian War, in the following language : " Nor does the fact that Mr. Ravenscroft is a subject of Great Britain in any way affect his claim to com pensation being a resident within the seat of war. At the time of his alleged losses he was equally with the citizens of the country, subject to the fortunes and incidents of war. Earl Granville with his usual clearness applies this principle to the case of Mr. Kirby, an English gentlemen, residing at La Forte, Imbault, in France, during the late FrancoGerman War. The German forces had ap propriated much of that gentleman's property
