made, they could not perceive it while the process was going on, and that it was alluvion whether the addition was made on a stream which overflowed its banks or on one which did not.” Jefferis . East Omaha Land Co. (1890), 134 U. S. 178, 191, citing Jones v. Title by accretion may be maintained in respect of an island or dry land gradually formed upon that part of the bed of a river which is owned in fee by the riparian proprietor, who in such case retains title > the land previously owned by him together with the new deposit ereon. But the formation of a bar at the foot of an island in a river by the transfer of a quarter of a mile of land in a single night does not confer a title by accretion; nor can the right of accretion to an island in a river be so extended lengthwise of the stream as to exclude riparian proprietors as such, above or below the island, from access to the river. St. Louis v. Rutz (1891), 138 U. S. 226, 245, 250, 251. To a movable island, traveling for more than a mile and from one State to another, title by accretion does not arise, since its progress is not imperceptible in the legal sense. 66 St. Louis r. Rutz (1891), 138 U. S. 226, 251. By the act of August 4, 1846, 9 Stats. at L. 52, the western boundary of Iowa was declared to be "the middle of the main channel of the Missouri River;" by the act of April 19, 1864, the eastern boundary of Nebraska was declared to be the same channel, or, in the words of the statute, "the middle of the channel of said Missouri River.” (13 Stats. at L. 47.) Between 1851 and 1877 there occurred in the course of the channel various changes, in consequence of which the State of Nebraska filed an original bill in the Supreme Court of the United States against the State of Iowa for the purpose of having the question, as to the effect of these changes on the common boundary, determined. The court, Brewer, J., delivering the opinion, observed that it was "settled law, that when grants of land border on running water, and the banks are changed by that gradual process known as accretion, the riparian owner's boundary line still remains the stream, although, during the years, by this accretion, the actual area of his possessions may vary" (New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662, 717; Jones v. Soulard, 24 How. 41; Banks v. Ogden, 2 Wall. 57; Saulet v. Shepherd, 4 Wall. 502; St. Clair County v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. 46; Jefferis v. East Omaha Land Co., 134 U. S. 178), and that it was "equally well settled, that where a stream, which is a boundary, from any cause suddenly abandons its old and seeks a new bed, such change of channel [which is termed in law ‘avulsion'] works no change of boundary," the boundary remaining as it was, "in the center of the old channel, although no water may be flowing therein" (Gould on Waters, § 159; 2 Bl. Com. 262; Angell on Water Courses, § 60; Trustees of Hopkins' Academy . Dickinson, 9 Cush. 544; Buttenuth e. St. Louis Bridge Co., 123 Illinois, 535; Hagan v. Campbell, 8 Porter (Ala.), 9; Murry v. Sermon, 1 Hawks (N. C.), 56); and that these propositions were "universally recognized . . . where the boundaries between States or nations are, by prescription or treaty, found in running water" (quoting, at great length, the opinion of Attorney-General Cushing, 8 Op. 175, 176). It was contended, however, that the law of accretion was not applicable to the Missouri River. The court replied that the contrary had already been decided, in a question between individuals, touching claims in the very place in controversy, in Jefferis v. Land Company, 134 U. S. 178, 189, and that this decision applied to the pending case. "The Missouri River," said the court, "is a winding stream, coursing through a valley of varying width, the substratum of whose soil, a deposit of distant centuries, is largely of quicksand. . . The current is rapid, far above the average of ordinary rivers; and by reason of the snows in the mountains there are two well-known rises in the volume of its waters, known as the April and June rises. The large volume of water pouring down at the time of these rises has great and rapid action upon the loose soil of its banks. Frequently the washing out of the underlying sand causes an instantaneous fall of quite a length and breadth of the superstratum of soil into the river; so that it may, in one sense of the term, be said that the diminution of the banks is not gradual and imperceptible, but sudden and visible. Notwithstanding this, two things must be borne in mind, that, while there may be an instantaneous and obvious dropping into the river of quite a portion of its banks, such portion is not carried down the stream in a solid and compact mass, but disintegrates and separates into particles of earth borne onward by the flowing water, and giving to the stream that color which . has made it known as the 'muddy' Missouri; and, also, that while the disappearance, by reason of this process, of a mass of bank may be sudden and obvious, there is no transfer of such a solid body of earth to the opposite shore, or anything like an instantaneous and visible creation of a bank on that shore. The accretion, whatever may be the fact in respect to the diminution, is always gradual and by the imperceptible deposit of floating particles of earth. There is no heaping up at an instant, and while the eye rests upon the stream, of acres or rods on the forming side of the river. No engineering skill is sufficient to say where the earth in the bank washed away and disintegrating into the river finds its rest and abiding place. The only thing which distinguishes this river from other streams, in the matter of accretion, is in the rapidity of the change caused by the velocity of the current; and this in itself, in the very nature of things, works no change in the principle underlying the rule of law in respect thereto. . The boundary, therefore, between Iowa and Nebraska is a varying line, so far as affected by these changes of diminution and accretion in the mere washing of the waters of the stream. "It appears, however, from the testimony, that in 1877 the river above Omaha, which had pursued a course in the nature of an ox-bow, suddenly cut through the neck of the bow and made for itself a new channel. This does not come within the law of accretion, but of that of avulsion. By this selection of a new channel the boundary was not changed, and it remained as it was prior to the avulsion, the center of the old channel; and that, unless the waters of the river returned to their former bed, became a fixed and unvarying boundary, no matter what might be the changes of the river in its new channel." Nebraska v. Iowa (1892), 143 U. S. 359, 368. The court, besides quoting the opinion of Attorney-General Cushing, quoted Vattel, Book 1, ch. 22, §§ 268, 269, 270. 3. CESSION. The effects of a cession of territory are determined by the instrument by which it is made, and by such principles of international and constitutional law as may be applicable to the case. The effect of the transfer of sovereignty on the national status of the inhabitants of the ceded territory is discussed in the chapter on nationality. The effect of a change of sovereignty on treaty relations is discussed in the chapter on treaties. "The Constitution confers absolutely on the Government of the Union the power of making war and of making treaties; consequently, that Government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty." Marshall, C. J., American Insurance Co. v. Canter (1828), 1 Peters, 511. (1) CONSENT OF THE POPULATION. § 83. "The principle that the wishes of a population are to be consulted when the territory which they inhabit is ceded has not been adopted into international law, and can not be adopted into it until title by conquest has disappeared." Hall, Int. Law, 4th ed. 49. See this author's discussion of the question, id. 48-50. "Before passing in review the objections which you, under instructions from Count Okuma, renew to the proposed annexation [of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States], I desire to notice a declaration in the opening of your note which can not be passed over in silence. In referring to the sentiments of the population of Hawaii, you say: 'It is understood that only a small fraction of their number favor annexation. You omit to state how this understanding has been ascertained, nor is it clear what is the purpose for which the statement is introduced. "It can not be that one so well informed in the history of international relations as Count Okuma could have wished to suggest thereby the propriety of appealing from the action of the Government to the population. In international comity and practice the will of a nation is ascertained through the established and recognized government, and it is only through it that the nation can speak. This is shown in the relations of the United States with Japan. The first intercourse of this Government with the Empire was had, with an authority which held a divided, if not disputed, sovereignty. Later, when all power and legislation was centered in the Emperor, this Government recognized him as the sole exponent of the public will. When parliamentary government was established the changed relation was accepted by the United States. No inquiry was thought proper to ascertain whether these various changes received the sanction of the population.' The present Government of the Hawaiian Islands, recognized by Japan and other countries, has been in existence for a series of years, during which time public peace and social order have been maintained, and the country has enjoyed an era of unprecedented prosperity. The Government of the United States sees no reason to question its complete sovereignty, or its right to express the national will." Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Toru Hoshi, Jap. min., Aug. 14, 1897, MS. (2) PROTECTION OF TERRITORY PENDING ANNEXATION. § 84. "In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 13th instant requesting to be informed whether, since the commencement of the negotiations which resulted in the treaty now before the Senate for the annexation of Texas to the United States, any military preparation has been made or ordered by the President for or in anticipation of war, and, if so, for what cause, and with whom was such war apprehended, and what are the preparations that have been made or ordered; has any movement or assemblage or disposition of any of the military or naval forces of the United States been made or ordered with a view to such hostilities; and to communicate to the Senate copies of all orders or directions given for any such preparation or for any such movement or disposition or for the future conduct of such military or naval forces,' I have to inform the Senate that, in consequence of the declaration of Mexico communicated to this Government and by me laid before Congress at the opening of its present session, announcing the determination of Mexico to regard as a declaration of war against her by the United States the definitive ratification of any treaty with Texas annexing the territory of that Republic to the United States, and the hope and belief entertained by the Executive that the treaty with Texas for that purpose would be speedily approved and ratified by the Senate, it was regarded by the Executive to have become emphatically its duty to concentrate in the Gulf of Mexico and its vicinity, as a precautionary measure, as large a portion of the home squadron, under the command of Captain Conner, as could well be drawn together, and at the same time to assemble at Fort Jesup, on the borders of Texas, as large a military force as the demands of the service at other encampments would authorize to be detached. For the number of ships already in the Gulf and the waters contiguous thereto and such as are placed under orders for that destination, and of troops now assembled upon the frontier, I refer you to the accompanying reports from the Secretaries of the War and Navy Departments. It will also be perceived by the Senate, by referring to the orders of the Navy Department which are herewith transmitted, that the naval officer in command of the fleet is directed to cause his ships to perform all the duties of a fleet of observation and to apprise the Executive of any indication of a hostile design upon Texas on the part of any nation pending the deliberations of the Senate upon the treaty, with a view that the same should promptly be submitted to Congress for its mature deliberation. At the same time it is due to myself that I should declare it as my opinion that the United States having by the treaty of annexation acquired a title to Texas which requires only the action of the Senate to perfect it, no other power could be permitted to invade and by force of arms to possess itself of any portion of the territory of Texas pending your deliberations upon the treaty without placing itself in a hostile attitude to the United States and justifying the employment of any military means at our disposal to drive back the invasion. At the same time, it is my opinion that Mexico or any other power will find in your approval of the |