to the opinion of Alexander Hamilton, as stated in these words : " According to the laws and usages of nations, a State is not obliged to make compensation for damages done to its citizens by an enemy or wantonly or unauthorized by the troops." (Report of Mr. Hamilton, Secretary of Treasury, No vember 19, 1792.) While not in sympathy with the law as above set forth, the doctrine not only receives the high sanction of Mr. Hamilton, but the judge-advocate general in the following language expresses the same opinion : " For criminal or tortious acts com mitted by soldiers against the property of citizens, the United States is not responsible. The remedy is by prosecution of the indi vidual offender, or suit for damages." (Vol. 38, page 319.) "The United States is not re sponsible for unlawful acts of its soldiers or employees, and the secretary of war is not

empowered to allow a claim for personal pro perty stolen or illegally appropriated by a soldier." (Id. vol. 33, page 165.) From the foregoing judicial decisions and diplomatic utterances, it seems clear that for property of citizens or alien residents, destroyed in the track of war, " no cause of action lies against either belligerent; that, if made at all, com pensation is a matter of grace and not of legal right. The great number of claims against the government, arising from the American occu pation, are of the general character of the one constituting the basis of this article. While some may present equities calling for a certain compensation from congressional action, as a matter of bounty, few, if any, of the great war claims, aggregating millons of dollars, constitute a legal claim against the United States.