wherever found. The mitigations of this rigid rule which the policy of modern times has introduced into practice will more or less affect the exercise of this right, but can- not impair the right itself; " 8 Cra. 122. Com- mercial nations have always considerable property in the possession of their neigh- bors; and when war breaks out, the ques- tion what shall be done with enemies' prop- erty found in the country is one rather of policy than of law, and is properly ad- dressed to the consideration of the legisla- ture, and not to courts of law. The strict right of confiscation exists in congress; and without a legislative act authorizing the confiscation of enemies' property, it cannot be condemned; 8 Cra. 128. The right of confiscation exists as fully in case of a civil war as it does when the war is foreign, and rebels in arms against the lawful government, or persons inhabiting the territory exclusively within the control of the rebel belligerents, may be treated as public enemies. So may adherents, or aiders and abettors of such a belligerent, though not resident in such enemy's terri- tory; 11 Wall. 269. Proceedings under the Confiscation Act of July 17, 1862, were justi- fied as an exercise of belligerent rights against a public enemy, but were not, in their nature, a punishment for treason. There- fore, confiscation being a proceeding dis- tinct from, and independent of, the treason- able guilt of the owner of the property con- fiscated, pardon for treason will not restore rights to property previously condemned and sold in the exercise of belligerent rights as against a purchaser in good faith and for value; 91 U. S. 21. The claim of a right to confiscate debts contracted by individuals in time of peace, and which remain due to subjects of the enemy in time of war, rests very much upon the same principles as that concerning the enemy's tangible property found in the country at the commencement of the war. But it is the universal practice to forbear to seize and confiscate debts and credits; 1 Kent 64. See 4 Cra. 415; T. U. P. Charlt. 140; 2 H. & J. 101, 112, 286, 471; 7 Conn. 428; 1 Day 4; Kirb. 228, 201; 2 Tayl. 115; Cam. & N. 77, 492; 2 Dill. 555; 15 Wall. 591; Chase, Dec. 259. A suit in confiscation is an action of en- tirely different nature from a proceeding in prize. Confiscation is the act of the sover- eign against a rebellious subject. Con- demnation as prize is the act of a belligerent against another belligerent. Confiscation may be effected by such means, either sum- mary or arbitrary, as the sovereign express- ing its will through lawful channels, may please to adopt. Condemnation as prize can only be made in accordance with prin- ciples of law recognized in the common jurisprudence of the world. Both are pro- ceedings in rem, but confiscation recognizes the title of the original owner to the prop- erty which is to be forfeited, while in prize the tenure of the property seized is qualified, provisional and destitute of ab- solute ownership; Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 620. To confiscate property seized upon land, re- sort must be had to the common-law side of the court; 20 Wall. 110; prize proceed ings are always in admiralty; 14 Ct. Cls. 48. See, generally, Chitty, Law of Nations, c. 3: Marten, Law of Nat. lib. 8, c. 3, s. 9; Burlamaqui, Pol. Law, part 4, c. 7; Vattel, liv. 3, c. 4, § 63; Twiss, Law of Nations; Wheaton; Hall, International Law.