Page images
PDF
EPUB

Munster in January, 1648; of the Swiss Cantons, which were at length admitted to representation in the Congress of Westphalia; of the United States of America;" of the Spanish American republics and Brazil; of Belgium; of Greece; and of Texas.

"The several States which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign States, and they did not derive them from concessions made by the British King. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several State governments were the laws of sovereign States, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such State, from the time they were enacted.”

Cushing, J., delivering the opinion of the court, in M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessees (1808), 4 Cranch, 209, 212; S. P., Harcourt r. Gaillard, 12 Wheat. 527; Henderson v. Poindexter's Lessee, id. 530.

"It has never been admitted by the United States that they acquired anything by way of cession from Great Britain by that treaty [of 1783]. It has been viewed only as a recognition of pre-existing rights, and on that principle the soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour. By reference to the treaty it will be found that it amounts to a simple recognition of the independence and the limits of the United States, without any language purporting a cession or relinquishment of right on the part of Great Britain. In the last article of the treaty of Ghent will be found a provision respecting grants of land made in the islands then in dispute between the two States, which affords an illustration of this doctrine. By that article a stipulation is made in favor of grants before the war, but none for those which were made during the war."

Johnson, J., Harcourt . Gaillard, 12 Wheaton, 527; Henderson r. Poindexter's
Lessee, 12 Wheaton, 530; Lawrence's Wheaton (1863), 37, 977.

Under the treaty with Great Britain of 1783 the United States succeeded to all the rights in that part of old Canada which now forms the State of Michigan that existed in the King of France prior to its conquest from the French by the British in 1760; and, among those rights, to that of dealing with the seigniorial estate of lands granted out as seigniories by the said king, after a forfeiture had occurred for nonfulfillment of the conditions of the fief.

U. S. v. Repentigny, 5 Wallace, 211.

@Supra, § 4.

Supra, § 23 et seq.

© Wheaton, Hist. of the Law of Nations, 538-555.

a Id. 560–563.

e Supra, § 33.

"The United States regard it as an established principle of public law and of international right that when a European colony in America becomes independent it succeeds to the territorial limits of the colony as it stood in the hands of the parent country."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dallas, July 26, 1856, MS. Inst. Great Britain,
XVII. 1, 11.

In a case involving the power of a certain intendant to make a grant of lands in Mexico in November, 1821, the court said that that year "witnessed the separation of Mexico from the Kingdom of Spain," and referred to the declaration of Mexican independence of February 24, 1821, the treaty of Cordoba of August 21, 1821, which Spain afterwards repudiated, and the surrender of the city of Mexico on September 27, 1821, by which surrender, said the court, the "declaration of independence was made good." The provisional junta then set up promulgated, however, an order continuing in existence various officers, among whom were the intendants, so that the recognition of the authority of the intendant in the case in question, who came within the order, did not necessarily involve the determination of the exact time of the disappearance of the Spanish sovereignty in Mexico. Ely's Adm. v. United States, 171 U. S. 220.

III. INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT.

§ 91.

A State may gain sovereign rights by internal development. A remarkable example of such evolution is that of Japan." Turkey, though admitted in 1856 to the advantages of the public law and system of concert of Europe, continues to exercise only a limited. Sovereignty. Various examples may be found in Chapter III., supra, of the development of more or less organized communities into soyereign states.

IV. EFFECTS OF CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY.

1. ON BOUNDARIES.

$92.

"At the date of the ratification of this treaty [United States and Spain, February 22, 1819] the country now constituting Texas belonged to Mexico, part of the monarchy of Spain. Subsequently, in 1824, Mexico became a separate independent power, whereby the

a Supra, § 2, p. 9.

As to the position of Turkey and the transactions of 1856, see Duggan, The Eastern Question (New York, 1902).

boundary line designated in the treaty of 1819 became the line between the United States and Mexico."

Harlan, J., delivering the opinion of the court, United States r. Texas (1892), 143 U. S. 621, 633. The statement as to the date of Mexican independence was merely made in the course of a recital of facts and did not affect the merits of the case.

2. ON PUBLIC LAW.

$93.

"Those laws of the former Government which have for their object a certain governmental public policy, of which character are laws for the disposition of the public domain and the granting of quasi-public franchises, rights and privileges to private individuals or corporations, ceased to have any force or effect after the sovereignty of the former Government ceased."

Harcourt. Gailliard, 12 Wheat. 523, cited by Griggs, At.-Gen., Sept. 9, 1899, 22 Op. 574, 577; Nov. 21, 1899, 22 Op. 627, 631.

"In case of an uninhabited country newly found out by English subjects, all laws in force in England are in force there; so it seemed to be agreed. They held that in the case of an infidel country their laws by conquest do not entirely cease, but only such as are against the laws of God; and that in such cases where the laws are rejected or silent, the conquered country shall be governed according to the rule of national equity.” (Blankard v. Galdy (1693), 2 Salkeld, 411.)

66

Where Englishmen establish themselves in an uninhabited or barbarous country, they carry with them not only the laws but the sovereignty of their own state; and those who live amongst them and become members of their community become also partakers of and subject to the same laws.” (Advocate-General v. Ranee Surnomoyee Dossee (1863), 2 Moore P. C. 22.)

The term "municipal legislation" embraces only such laws as relate to the internal affairs of the country and the relation of the people to one another.

Griggs, At.-Gen., Nov. 21, 1899, 22 Op. 627, 631, citing Davis r. Pele Jury of
Concordia, 9 How. 280-289.

See, also, Richards, Acting At.-Gen., Oct. 21, 1898, 22 Op. 249.

While the United States, by the cession of Louisiana, succeeded to the sovereign rights of France and Spain in that province, this succession did not authorize the Government to exercise prerogatives inconsistent with the Constitution.

New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662.

The doctrine "that Congress in legislating for territory outside the boundaries of the several States of the Union is not bound by the limitations imposed by the Constitution," is maintained by Mr. Magoon, law officer, Division of Insular Affairs, War Department, Magoon's Reports, 37-120, 121–173,

It is true that in a treaty for the cession of territory, its national character continues for all commercial purposes, but full sovereignty for the exercise of it does not pass to the nation to which it is transferred until actual delivery. But it is also true that the exercise of sovereignty by the ceding country ceases, except for strictly municipal purposes, especially for granting lands. And for the same reason in both cases, because after the treaty is made there is not in either the union of possession and the right to the territory which must concur to give plenum dominium et utile. To give that there must be the jus in rem and the jus in re, or what is called in the common law of England the juris et seisinae conjunctio.

Davis r. Concordia, 9 Howard, 280.

Conditions which are attached to a grant by a prior sovereign, and which are inconsistent with the policy of the United States, will not be enforced by the United States after the conquest of the territory containing the land granted.

United States v. Vaca, 18 Howard, 556.

"The 6th article of the treaty contains the following provision: "The inhabitants of the territories which His Catholic Majesty cedes to the United States by this treaty shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States.' This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States. It is unnecessary to inquire whether this is not their condition, independent of stipulation. They do not, however, participate in political power; they do not share in the Government till Florida shall become a State."

Marshall, C. J., Am. Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 542, on the treaty between the United States and Spain of Feb. 22, 1819.

A nation acquiring territory, by treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject to the constitution and laws of its own government, and not according to those of the government ceding it.

It can not be admitted that the King of Spain could, by treaty or otherwise, impart to the United States any of his royal prerogatives; and much less can it be admitted that they have capacity to receive or power to exercise them. Every nation acquiring territory, by treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject to the laws of its own government, and not according to those of the government ceding it.

Pollard r. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 225.

H. Doc. 551-20

The rights and powers of sovereignty of a nation over its territory cease on the transfer of that sovereignty to another government by a cession of the territory. The power to preserve peace and order may remain in the officers previously appointed by the ceding state until the actual presence of the agents of the succeeding government, but this does not imply that sovereign power remains in the former nation. United States . Reynes, 9 Howard, 127; Davis r. Concordia, id. 280; United States v. D'Auterive, 10 Howard, 609; Montault v. United States, 12 id. 47. The War Department, by a circular of Feb. 11, 1899, authorized persons holding the office of notary public in territory subject to military government by the military forces of the United States to continue to hold that office and perform its functions. (Mr. Adee, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Rooker, Feb. 24, 1899, 235 MS. Dom. Let. 131.)

By the joint resolution of July 7, 1898, for the annexation of Hawaii, all the civil, judicial, and military powers exercised by the officers of the existing Government of the islands were vested in such persons as the President should appoint, till Congress should provide a government for the islands. See, as to Porto Rico, the act of May 1, 1900.

The authority and jurisdiction of Mexican officials in California are to be regarded as having ceased on the 7th of July, 1846, the political department of the Government of the United States having designated that as the day when the conquest of California was completed and the Mexican officials displaced.

United States . Yorba, 1 Wall. 412. See Stearns v. United States, 6 Wall.

589; United States v. Pico, 23 How. 321; More v. Steinbach, 127 U. S. 70.

By the conquest of California by the United States Mexican rule was displaced, and with it the authority of Mexican officials to alienate the public domain. Until Congress provided a government for the country it was in charge of military governors, who, with the aid of subordinate officers, exercised municipal authority; but the power to grant land or confirm titles was never vested in these military governors, nor in any person appointed by them.

Alexander v. Roulet, 13 Wallace, 386. See Mumford v. Wardwell, 6 id. 423. The doctrine "that the laws of a conquered or ceded country, except so far as they may affect the political institutions of the new sovereign, remain in force after the conquest or cession till changed by him,

has no application to laws authorizing the alienation of any portions of the public domain, or to officers charged under the former government with that power. No proceedings affecting the rights of the new sovereign over public property can be taken except in pursuance of his authority on the subject. The cases in the supreme court of California and in this court which recognize as valid grants of lots in the pueblo or city of San Francisco by alcaldes appointed or elected after the occupation of the country by the forces of the United

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »