3. NEUTRALIZED STATES. § 12. "A state is neutral which chooses to take no part in a war, and persons and property are called neutral which belong to a state occupying this position. The term has in recent times received a larger application. A condition of neutrality, or one resembling it, has been created, as it were, artificially, and the process has been called neutralization.' States have been permanently neutralized by convention. Not only is it preordained that such states are to abstain from taking part in a war into which their neighbors may enter, but it is also prearranged that such states are not to become principals in a war. By way of compensation for this restriction on their freedom of action, their immunity from attack is guaranteed by their neighbors, for whose collective interests such an arrangement is perceived to be on the whole expedient. Belgium, Ionian * * * Switzerland. "As early as 1803 France promised constantly to employ her good offices to procure the neutrality of Switzerland ; and by a declaration confirmed by the Isles, Savoy, Treaty of Vienna, art. 84, it was recited that the European powers acknowledge that the general interest demands that the Helvetic State should enjoy the advantage of a perpetual neutrality;' and such a neutrality was guaranteed to it accordingly. The ninety-second article, confirmed by the Treaty of Paris, 1815, art. 3, and the Treaty of Turin, 1860, art. 2, extended the neutrality of Switzerland to portions of Savoy. * * * "By the treaties of 1831 and 1839 Belgium was recognized as 'an independent and perpetually neutral state, bound to observe the same neutrality with reference to other states.' At the outbreak of the war of 1870, England made treaties with France and Prussia, respectively, with a view to further securing the neutrality of Belgium. "By the treaty of March 29, 1864, art. 2, 'the courts of Great Britain, France, and Russia, in their character of guaranteeing powers of Greece, declare, with the assent of the courts of Austria and Prussia, that the islands of Corfu and Paxo, as well as their dependencies, shall after their union to the Hellenic Kingdom enjoy the advantages of perpetual neutrality. His Majesty the King of the Hellenes engages on his part to maintain such neutrality.' Holland, Studies in Int. Law, 271-272; Rivier, Principes du Droit des Gens, By the treaty of London of May 11, 1867, Art. I, Luxemburg is declared to be a perpetually neutral state under the guarantee of the courts of Austria, Great Britain, Luxemburg. Prussia, and Russia. By Art. X, of the general act of Berlin, of February 26, 1885, the contracting parties bound themselves to respect the Congo. neutrality of the territories of the Congo, including the territorial waters, "so long as the Powers which exercise or shall exercise the rights of sovereignty or protectorate over those territories, using their option of proclaiming themselves neutral, shall fulfill the duties which neutrality requires." August 1, 1885, Leopold II. of Belgium having become the head of the Independent State of the Congo, M. von Estvelde, administrator-general of the department of foreign affairs, informed the United States that the King, the head of that State, had charged him to say, "that in conformity with article 10 of the general act of the conference of Berlin, the Independent State of the Congo hereby declares itself perpetually neutral, and claims the advantages guaranteed by chapter 3 of the same act, at the same time that it assumes the duties which neutrality imposes.' Correspondence in relation to the affairs of the Independent State of the Congo, Samoa. By the general act of Berlin, of June 14, 1889, between the United States, Germany, and Great Britain, the Samoan Islands were declared (Art. I.) to be "neutral territory in which the citizens and subjects of the Three Signatory Powers have equal rights of residence, trade, and personal protection." By the convention between the same powers, signed at Washington, December 2, 1899, the general act of June 14, 1889, "and all previous treaties, conventions, and agreements relating to Samoa, are annulled." Suzerain and subject. 4. SEMI-SOVEREIGN STATES, AND PROTECTORATES. (1) SEMI-SOVEREIGN STATES. § 13. A state which is not a member of a composite state, but which, while it retains a certain personality in international law, is subject to the authority of another state in its foreign relations, is commonly called a semi-sovereign state. The paramount state is called the suzerain, and its relation to the subject state is described as suzerainty. The extent of the authority or subordination comprehended by this term is not determined by general rules, but by the facts of the particular case. The foreign relations of a subject state may be wholly and directly conducted through the ministry of foreign affairs of the suzerain. It may, on the other hand, maintain diplomatic relations, and, subject to the veto of the suzerain, conclude treaties of all kinds; but, more frequently, its right of initiative, if it possesses any, is confined to a limited sphere; and a consul general accredited to it, though he may also bear the title of agent of even of diplomatic agent, exercises only consular powers. Transvaal, and A common example of a semi-sovereign state is Egypt, a tributary and vassal state, under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Egypt, Bulgaria, Porte. It has a hereditary ruler, called the Khedive, other examples. who receives investiture from the Sultan of Turkey. In fact the country is occupied and its affairs are practically administered by Great Britain. By the treaty of Berlin of July 13, 1878, Art. I., Bulgaria was "constituted an autonomous and tributary principality, under the suzerainty of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan," with "a Christian government and a national militia." By Art. IV. of the convention signed at London, Feb. 27, 1884, between Great Britain and the Transvaal, it was agreed that the South African Republic would "conclude no treaty or engagement with any other state or nation other than the Orange Free State, nor with any native tribe to the eastward or westward of the Republic until the same has been approved by Her Majesty the Queen," and that "such approval shall be considered to have been granted if Her Majesty's Government shall not, within six months after receiving a copy of such treaty (which shall be delivered to them immediately upon its completion), have notified that the conclusion of such treaty is in conflict with the interests of Great Britain or any of Her Majesty's possessions in South Africa." Art. III. of the same convention provided: "If a British officer is appointed to reside at Pretoria, or elsewhere within the South African Republic, to discharge functions analogous to those of a consular officer, he will receive the protection and assistance of the Republic." The South African Republic has, however, now ceased to exist. As to Egypt, the Khanates of Khiva and Bokhara, French Indo-China, Tunis, and Madagascar, see Rivier, Principes du Droit des Gens, I. 86. Treaty of Berlin, For. Rel. 1878, 895, 896. London Convention of 1884, Br. & For. State Papers, LXXV. 5, 10. (2) PROTECTED STATES AND PROTECTORATES. $14. There have been and there now exist various states which are specifically designated as protected states. In a sense, it is true, every semi-sovereign state may be regarded as a protected state; and protected states are regularly classed as semi-sovereign; but it is only in certain cases that the nature or origin of the particular relation has caused the suzerain to be generally described as a protector and his office as a protectorate. Nevertheless, the protectorate is capable of every variation, both in substance and in form, of which the suzerain relation, as described in the preceding section, is susceptible; and so convenient and accommodating has it proved to be in practice, that its name has been applied to cases that really do not lie within the domain of semi-sovereignty. The French protectorates in Indo-China and elsewhere are placed under the colonial minister, and are properly classed as colonies, and we have examples in Africa of protectorates where there was no recognized state to be protected. Rivier, Principes du Droit des Gens, I. 79-93. Protectorates, Colonies, and dorra, San Marino, Monaco. "The most important modern instance of a protected state is afforded by the United Republic of the Ionian Islands, estabIonian Islands, An- lished in 1815 under the protectorate of Great Britain. In this case the head of the government was appointed by England, the whole of the executive authority was practically in the hands of the protecting power, and the state was represented by it in its external relations. In making treaties, however, Great Britain did not affect the Ionian Islands, unless it expressly stipulated in its capacity of protecting power; the vessels of the republic carried a separate trading flag; the state received consuls, though it could not accredit them; and during the Crimean war it maintained a neutrality the validity of which was acknowledged in the English courts. The only protected states now existing in Europe are the republics of Andorra and San Marino, and possibly the principality of Monaco." Hall, Int. Law, 4th ed. 30. By a treaty between Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, signed at London Nov. 14, 1863, the Ionian Islands were united to Greece and were neutralized. "The commonest case by far is now that of a protectorate exercised Countries not pos- by a state of European civilization over one of other sessing European civilization, as that which France exercises over Tunis civilization. and that which England exercises over Zanzibar. "Where there is no state, that is to say, in an uncivilized region, there can be no protected state, and therefore no such protectorate as has been described in the last paragraph. But in recent times a practice has arisen by which in such regions civilized powers assume and exercise certain rights in more or less well-defined districts, to which rights and districts, for the term is used to express both the one and the other, the name of a protectorate is given by analogy. The dis tinctive characters of those rights are, first, that they are contrasted with territorial sovereignty, for, as far as such sovereignty extends, there is the state itself which has acquired it and not a protectorate exercised by that state; secondly, that the protectorate first established excludes all other states from exercising any authority within the district, either by way of territorial sovereignty or of a protectoratethat is to say, while it lasts, for the question remains whether a protectorate, like an inchoate title to territorial sovereignty, is not subject to conditions and liable to forfeiture on their non-fulfillment; thirdly, that the state enjoying the protectorate represents and protects the district and its population, native and civilized, in everything which relates to other powers. The analogy to the protectorate exercised over states is plainly seen in the last two characters, exclusiveness and representation with protection. It is less visible in the first character, for, where there is a protected state, the territorial sovereignty is divided between it and the protecting state, according to the arrangements existing in the particular case, while in an uncivilized protectorate it is in suspense.' Westlake, Int. Law, 178. See Hall, Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the By Art. 34 of the General Act of Berlin of Feb. 26, 1885, it was agreed that 5. AMERICAN INDIANS. (1) THEIR DEPENDENT RELATION. § 15. "The condition of the Indians in relation to the United States is perhaps unlike that of any other two peoples in existence. Domestic dependent In the general, nations not owing a common allegiance nations. are foreign to each other. * * * But the relation of the Indians to the United States is marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions which exist nowhere else. The Indian Territory is admitted to compose a part of the United States. * * * Though the Indians |