The principle of international law as announced by Chief Justice Marshall in the famous Percheman Case and supported by a long list of American decisions is that no confiscation of private property in land results from a mere change of sovereignty. Will this principle be sufficient and adequate to protect private property rights in concessions and contracts? In other words, since contracts no less than land may constitute valuable and irreplaceable private property, should any distinction be made, in the application of the Percheman principle, between land and contracts?

Where the parties to the contracts are private persons or corporations there seems to be no essential distinction between property in the form of land and property in the form of contracts. In either case the change of sovereignty must, of itself, effect no forfeiture; where, for instance, territory passes out of the sovereignty of State X and under the sovereignty of State Y, just as State Y must not allow the change of sovereignty to affect the ownership of land held by a private individual, A, within the ceded territory, so State Y must not allow it to affect the ownership of contract rights, held by A against some private obligor or debtor, B.

The English Custodian. The outbreak of the war found in nearly every belligerent country vast amounts of property, both real and personal, owned by persons of enemy nationality or domicile. Likewise, enemy persons were the owners or shareholders in many business and industrial enterprises, corporations, partnerships, etc. With a view to preventing such property from being used or such business from being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the national defense or for the benefit of the enemy, the governments of all the belligerent countries very early adopted measures for placing enemy-owned property and enemy business enterprises under the control or supervision of the public authorities.

The recognition and guarantee of Swiss neutrality once definitely accomplished at the Congress of Paris in November, 1815, its subsequent progress was destined to be deeply affected by constitutional struggles in both federal and cantonal organizations.

It will be recollected that the initial change in the ancient Swiss alliance to a more modern form of government was introduced as the result of invasion by the French revolutionary forces, and that from April 12, 1798, to February 19, 1803, Switzerland was governed under the Helvetic Constitution imposed by the French, which created a military state with the cantons as administrative divisions only in accordance with Title II, section 15 of the instrument:—

We now come to the last part of what one might call the Greek tragedy, which was played in Hellas during the first three years of this world war with such marvelous success under Teutonic guidance. The events of June, 1916, laid bare the whole plot, unmasked the royal actors at Athens, and compelled France and England, the protecting Powers of Greece, at last to take drastic measures.

The surrender of the “key” to Eastern Macedonia (the Roupel fortress) by Constantine to the Germano-Bulgarian forces was rightly considered by the guardians of Greece as a hostile act directed against them, demanding the adoption of appropriate measures for the security of their armies on the Balkan front. Their first measure to this end was the substitution of Allied authorities for those of Greece in the city of Salonika. The second was the refusal by Great Britain to supply coal to Greek ships. The three Entente Powers had previously warned the Greek Government that if it allowed the armies of their enemies to advance freely into Greek territory, such action would lead to serious consequences. Therefore, the Royal Government of Greece, fearing lest the Allies institute repressive measures of a more drastic character, informed the Entente Governments that the further advance of the Bulgarian troops into Greek territory would be prevented.