Subsequent to the inauguration of the policy of wholesale internment, special conventions were concluded between a number of the belligerent governments providing for the re ciprocal exchange and release of women and males except those of military age. Thus in January 1917 an arrangement was concluded between the British and German governments under which all males over 45 years of age and under 17 held in either country as interned prisoners were released and allowed to return to their own countries. In pursuance of this arrangement some 7,000 Germans in England and some 600 or 700 British subjects in Ger many were repatriated. Somewhat similar ar rangements were concluded between the German and French governments and between the Ger man and Austro-Hungarian governments.
The presence in many of the belligerent countries of enormous property holdings and business houses owned wholly or in part by, or under the control of, enemy persons raised a difficult problem for belligerent govern ments. Obviously considerations affecting the national defense made it necessary to de prive the enemy of the use and control of such property or business ; otherwise his power would have been employed to increase its own strength and resources. Steps were therefore taken in every belligerent country for placing enemy:owned property and enemy business un dertakings under the control or supervision of the public authorities. In England and the United States all such property was placed in the hands of a public custodian who was em powered to hold and administer it and in gen eral to exercise over it all the powers of a common-law trustee throughout the period of the war. At first the American custodian was given only a limited right to dispose of such property by sale, as for example, when it was necessary to prevent waste or protect the rights of the United States therein, but later he was given a general power of sale and enormous German holdings aggregating many millions of dollars worth of property were sold. The pro ceeds were turned into the treasury of the United States and it is understood that the eventual disposition of it will be determined by the treaty of peace at the close of the war. The proceeds in some cases were used to pur chase war bonds. It should be remarked, how ever, that this somewhat rigorous policy was not enforced against the property owned by enemy persons residing or domiciled in the United States, but only against property of those living in the enemy country and who were presumably engaged in making war upon the United States. The property holdings of the former, except those interned, have not been molested. The property of American citizens residing in Germany, however, was treated as enemy property on the theory that the test of enemy character is domicile rather than nation ality.
In France enemy property was put under the control of sequestrators appointed by the courts and their power over such property was substantially the same as that of the English and American custodians, except that they were never given a general power of sale. Again and again it was emphasized in France that sequestrators were mainly conservators with no general power to dispose of the property placed in their custody. They were authorized to sell enemy property only when it was perishable or when it was necessary to protect it from waste or loss. Germany began by placing enemy property under supervision, but later on adopted the policy of other countries and put it in the hands of administrators who had the power to manage it and in some cases to dispose of it by sale. There was widespread complaint in France of the conduct of the German govern ment in respect to its treatment of French property, especially in Alsace-Lorraine where large quantities were held and the proceeds of which in some cases were employed for the purchase of war bonds. As regards enemy business enterprises and undertakings, all belligerents adopted a somewhat similar policy. In England an official known as
the controller was appointed to manage and carry on any enemy business undertakings the continuance of which was demanded by the public interest. Other businesses were prohibited or wound up and liquidated by the Board of Trade.. In the United States this power was exercised by the alien enemy cus todian, Certain enemy businesses such as in surance were prohibited; in the case of other businesses under the ownership or control of enemy persons residing in Germany the boards of directors were reorganized by the appoint ment of new directors by the custodian, and the business was continued by the reorganized di rectorate. In Germany all enemy business en terprises were put under a regime of com pulsory administration and management through government appointed agents. Some of them were continued; many were wound up and liquidated. Likewise, in France administrators were appointed by the courts to operate and manage any enemy enterprise, the carrying on of which was required by the public interest; others were wound up by a liquidator, likewise appointed by the courts. In the case of that particular species of property in the form of patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc., the policy of all belligerent governments was more liberal than it was in respect to other property. In general, the policy of all of them was to sus pend such rights but without confiscating them. Citizens who held patents in enemy countries were allowed to transmit money thereto in or der to pay the necessary fees for the renewal of their patents or copyrights. In most of the belligerent countries enemy patents for the manufacture and sale of articles which the pub lic interest required to be manufactured were assigned to local firms or persons, the licensees in such cases being required to pay the fees and royalties due the enemy patentee into the pub lic treasury the same to be held for the benefit of the enemy patentee until the end of the war or to he otherwise disposed of as might then be determined, presumably by the treaty of peace.
As to the right of enemy subjects to enforce their rights by suits in the courts or to appear in court and defend actions brought against them the policy of most of the belligerent gov ernments has been fairly liberal. Under the English common law no enemy alien was al lowed such a right unless he remained in Eng land by permission of the Crown and was under the special protection of the king. During the present war, however, the English courts have not only held that an enemy alien residing in England may defend an action brought against him in the courts but that an enemy subject who is interned may bring an action as a plain tiff. Since practically the entire enemy popula tion has been interned the effect of the decision is to open the courts generally to all enemy aliens in the country. This privilege, however, does not extend to persons residing or domiciled in enemy territory. Germany allowed enemy aliens domiciled in the empire the right of access to German courts but denied it to those residing or domiciled outside the empire. In France some of the lower courts admitted enemy aliens to bring actions but others less liberal refused it. The Court of Appeals of Paris in April 1916, however, rendered a notable decision upholding this right. In the United States the policy of the courts has been some what divided but in general enetny aliens re siding here have been allowed access to the courts on a footing of equality with citizens. Those residing in enemy country, however, are not allowed the privilege.
Hall, < International Law' (Pt. III, ch. 1) ; Lawrence, 'Principles of In ternational Law,' (Pt. III, ch. 3) ; Oppenheim, 'International Law) (Vol. II, Pt. II, ch. 2) ; Phillipson, 'International Law and the Great War' (Ch. 5) • Baty and Morgan, 'War, Its Conduct and Legal Results' (Pt. 1, chs. 1-3) ; Garner (in American Journal of International Law, Jan. and July 1918).