mercial dornicil [voir ci-dessus § 286 et ss.], and the effect of the Turkish Capitulations, and their alleged abolition before the war by the Sublime Porte. —< In the view I take of this case all such questions are irrelevant. The simple fact upon which the décision of the Court depends is that the goods claimed were the produce of land owned or held by the claimants in an enemy country. The law applicable is wel settled — namely, that the produce of such land, while in the possession or ownership of the person owning or holding such land, even although he be a neutral and resident in a neutral country, is confiscable if captured or seized by a belhgerent with whom the State where the land is situate is at war. This doctrine was declared as long ago as 1803 to have been so repeatedly decided, both in the English Prize Court and the Court of the Commissioners of Appeal in Prize Cases, that it was no longer open to question or discussion — see The Phoenix . It was also fully adopted and indorsed by the Suprème Court of the United States Of America in Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar (or Bentzen) v. Boyle . — This doctrine has not been doubted, and still remains in full force as part of the law of nations. It is well stated by the late Mr. Hall in the last edition of his work on international law in this passage : „Property is considered to be necessarily hostüe by its origin when it consists in the produce of estates owned by a neutral in beüigerent territory, although he may not be resident there. Land, it is held, being fixed, is necessarüy associated with the permanent interests of the state to which it belongs, and its proprietor, so far from being able to impress his own character, if he happens to be neutral, upon it or its produce, is drawn by the intünacy of his association wifh property which cannot be moved into identüication in respect of it with its national character. The produce of such property therefore is üable to capture under ah circumstances in which enemy's property can be seized" — Haü's International Law (6th ed.), p. 497. — The fact was reüed upon by the claimants that the shipment of the goods was before the state of war existed between this country and Turkey. Upon the principle enunciated in the above passage from Mr. Hall this fact does not affect the question of the confiscabiüty of the goods; and, indeed, it was expressly declared by Sn William Scott in The Vrow Anna Catharina  that the produce of land in an enemy country was subject to confiscation, although shipped in time of peace."
Comp. aussi la disposition de rarticle 2 du décret du 13 mars 1915 édictant des représailles, et cité au § 322. § 804. Une application curieuse d'un principe analogue a celui qui semble être a la base des jugements concernant les produits du sol ennemi, se trouve encore dans la décision de la „Commercial Court at Malta (in prize)" relative a Turkish moneys taken at Mudros (378); la cour déclara de bonne prise une quantité de pièces de monnaie turques et de bülets de la Banque Ottomane impériale, saisis a bord