impossible to assume, inferentially, acceptance of law as a whole from isolated acts or even from frequently repeated acts of a certain kind." Hall, Int. Law, 4th ed., 42-44. Formerly the states that were subject and those that were not subject to international law were respectively classed as Christian and non-Christian. By Art. VII. of the treaty of Paris of March 30, 1856, however, Turkey was expressly "admitted to participate in the advantages of the public law and system of concert of Europe." (Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, II. 1254.) By the new treaties which went into effect in July and August, 1899, “Japan's position as a fully independent sovereign power is assured." (President McKinley, Annual Message, Dec. 5, 1899.) Japan's admission into the "circle of law-governed countries" was preceded by various acts by which she recognized the obligations of international law. In August, 1870, during the war between France and Germany, she issued a declaration of neutrality. (For. Rel. 1870, 188.) In 1886 the Emperor formally adhered to the Geneva Convention. By an imperial decree of March 19, 1887, the rules of maritime law embodied in the Declaration of Paris of 1856 were declared to be in force in the empire. On August 21, 1894, during the war with China, a law was promulgated for the organization of a prize court which was established at Sasebo. This law was based chiefly on the British and German prize acts; and there was subsequently promulgated a prize act, founded on the works of Professor Holland and Sir Godfrey Lushington, the rules of the Institute of International Law of 1882, and the instructions of the French navy of 1870. In the work of adaptation, however, Japan made one salutary improvement; she abolished the interest of the individual captor in the prize. (See Ariga, La Guerre sino-japonaise au point de vue du droit international; Takahashi, Cases on International Law during the Chino-Japanese War; Siebold, Japan's Accession to the Comity of Nations.) To Hall's statement that China, in 1884, expressed the expectation that England would prevent French ships from coaling in British ports, it is proper to add that the British Government recognized the belligerent rights of China as well as of France, and acknowledged toward both the obligations of neutrality, issuing to that end instructions for the enforcement of the foreign enlistment act. (Br. & For. State Papers, LXXVI. 1884-1885, 434.) Judicial declara tions. * * * The "privilege of foreign ministers and their domestic servants depends upon the law of nations. The act of parliament of 7 Anne, c. 12, is declaratory of it. All that is new in this act is the clause which gives a summary jurisdiction for the punishment of the infractors of this law. But the act was not occasioned by any doubt whether the law of nations, particularly the part relative to public ministers, was not part of the law of England,' and the infraction criminal, nor intended to vary an iota from it. I remember in a case before Lord Talbot, 6 * * * the matter * * * was very elaborately argued at the bar, and a solemn, deliberate opinion given by the court. Lord Talbot declared a clear opinion, 'That the law of nations, in its full extent, was part of the law of England.' 'That the act of Parliament was declaratory;' * * * 'that the law of nations was to be collected from the practice of different nations, and the authority of writers. Accordingly he argued and determined from such instances and the authority of Grotius, Barbeyrac, Binkershoek, Wiquefort, etc., there being no English writer of eminence upon the subject. I was counsel in this case, and have a full note of it. I remember, too, Lord Hardwicke's declaring his opinion to the same effect, and denying that Lord Chief Justice Holt ever had any doubt as to the law of nations being part of the law of England." Lord Mansfield, Triquet . Bath (1764), 3 Burrows, 1478. To the same effect, The Emperor of Austria . Day and Kossuth (1861), 2 Giffard, 628. See Blackstone, Comm., B. IV., ch. 5, p. 67; Coxe, Judicial Power and Unconstitutional Legislation, generally. The "law of nations" being "in its full extent" a "part of the law" of Pennsylvania, to be "collected from the practice of different nations and the authority of writers," a citizen of France was tried, convicted, and sentenced at common law for an assault on the secretary of legation of France in the French minister's dwelling, and an assault and battery on the same person in the streets. Respublica . De Longchamps, court of oyer and terminer at Philadelphia (1784), 1 Dallas, 111. The same principle is stated by Lincoln, At.-Gen. (1802), 5 Op., Appendix, 691. "If it be the will of the Government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the Government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the court is bound by the law of nations, which is a part of the law of the land." Marshall, C. J., The Nereide (1815), 9 Cranch, 388, 423. Opinions of states men. "The law of nations makes an integral part of the laws of the land." * * Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to Mr. Genet, French Minister, June 5, 1793, "A question may be raised-Does this customary law of nations, as established in Europe, bind the United States? An affirmative answer to this is warranted by conclusive reasons. "1. The United States, when a member of the British Empire, were, in this capacity, a party to that law, and not having dissented from it, when they became independent, they are to be considered as having continued a party to it. 2. The common law of England, which was and is in force in each of these States, adopts the law of nations, the positive equally with the natural, as a part of itself. 3. Ever since we have been an independent nation, we have appealed to and acted upon the modern law of nations as understood in Europe-various resolutions of Congress during our revolution, the correspondence of executive officers, the decisions of our courts of admiralty, all recognized this standard. 4. Executive and legislative acts, and the proceedings of our courts, under the present government, speak a similar language. The President's proclamation of neutrality, refers expressly to the modern law of nations, which must necessarily be understood as that prevailing in Europe, and acceded to by this country; and the general voice of our nation, together with the very arguments used against the treaty, accord in the same point. It is indubitable, that the customary law of European nations is as a part of the common law, and, by adoption, that of the United States. Hamilton, Letters of Camillus, No. 20, Lodge's Hamilton, V. 89; Hamilton's ed., VII. 349. "Offences committed in the territorial jurisdiction of a nation may be tried and punished there, according to the definitions and penalties of its municipal law, which becomes for the particular purpose the international law of the case." Report of Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, Jan. 20, 1887, in the case of Pelletier, charged with attempt at slave trading in Haytian waters, Sen. Ex. Doc. 64, 49 Cong. 2 sess; Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1799. The law of nations, unlike foreign municipal laws, Question of proof, does not have to be proved as a fact. The Scotia, 14 Wallace, 170; The New York (1899), 175 U.S. 187. CHAPTER II. STATES: THEIR CHARACTERISTICS AND CLASSIFICATION. I. DEFINITIONS OF THE STATE, § 3. General definitions. Particular elements. Excluded associations. Principles of inclusion and exclusion. Protected princes of India. Colonial possessions. II. SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCE, § 4. Ideas of sovereignty and independence. National obligations. External influence. External guarantees. III. CLASSIFICATION OF STATES. 1. Simple states, § 5. Their characteristic. (1) Single states, § 6. 2. Composite states, § 8. (1) Real union, § 9. (2) Confederation, § 10. (3) Federal union, § 11. United States of America. German Empire; Switzerland. 3. Neutralized states, § 12. Belgium, Ionian Islands, Savoy, Switzerland. Congo. Samoa. 4. Semi-sovereign states and protectorates. (1) Semi-sovereign states, § 13. Suzerain and subject. Egypt, Bulgaria, Transvaal, and other examples. Ionian Islands, Andorra, San Marino, Monaco. 5. American Indians. (1) Their dependent relation, § 15. "Domestic dependent nations." 12 III. CLASSIFICATION OF STATES-Continued. 5. American Indians-Continued. (1) Their dependent relation, § 15—Continued. Domestic subjects, not citizens. Local self-government. Comparison with native states of India. Commerce with aboriginal tribes. (2) Inability to transmit title, § 16. (3) Treaties, § 17. 6. The Holy See, § 18. IV. THE STATE AND ITS GOVERNMENT. 1. Distinction between State and Government, § 19. 2. De facto governments. (1) Different kinds, § 20. Classification and powers. Insurrection and revolt. (2) Military occupation, § 21. By recognized government: Castine. California and New Mexico. New Orleans. Cuba and the Philippines. Continuation of powers after annexation. (3) The Confederate States, § 22. De facto supremacy; effects and limitations. Confederate debts and obligations. V. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES. 1. Fundamental rights and duties, § 23. Requirement of “due diligence." 2. Equality, § 24. 3. Property. (1) Ownership and transfer, § 25. (2) Succession in case of unsuccessful revolt, § 26. |