persons having such claims to present them for recognition, and to treat as abandoned all claims not thus presented. Barker v. Harvey (1901), 181 U. S. 481. Injunction will lie to restrain intrusion on lands granted by Russia in fee simple prior to the treaty of cession of 1867, by which the United States agreed to protect the inhabitants in their rights of property. Callsen v. Hope, 75 Fed. Rep. 758. "But the decision now made rests on an alleged rule of international law which, assumed, as it now is, by the Government Official opinions. of Chili, becomes a proper matter of discussion between ourselves and that Government. It is asserted by the Government of Chili (for, in international relations, and the maintenance of international duties, the action of the judiciary in Chili is to be treated, when assumed by the Government, as the act of the Government) that a sovereign, when occupying a conquered territory, has, by international law, the right to test titles acquired under his predecessor by applying to them his own municipal law, and not the municipal law of his predecessor under which they vested. The true principle, however, is expressed in the following passage cited in the memorialist's brief: "But the right of conquest cannot affect the property of private persons; war being only a relation of state to state, it follows that one of the belligerents who makes conquests in the territory of the other cannot acquire more rights than the one for whom he is substituted; and that thus, as the invaded or conquered state did not possess any right over private property, so also the invader or conqueror cannot legitimately exercise any right over that property. Such is to-day the public law of Europe, whose nations have corrected the barbarism of ancient practices which place private as well as public property under military law.' [C. Massé, Rapports du droit des gens avec le droit civil. Vol. I., p. 123, § 148-149.] "This doctrine has frequently been acted on in the United States. Thus it has been held by the Supreme Court that when New Mexico was conquered by the United States, it was only the allegiance of the people that was changed; their relation to each other, and their rights of property remained undisturbed. [Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176.] "The same has been held as to California. The rights acquired under the prior Mexican and Spanish law, so it was decided, were consecrated by the law of nations.' [U. S. v. Moreno, 1 Wall. 400. See U. S. v. Auguisola, 1 Wall. 352; Townsend v. Greeley, 5 Wall. 326; Dent v. Emmeger, 14 Wall. 308; Airhart v. Massieu, 98 U. S. 491; Mutual Assurance Society v. Watts, 1 Wheat. 279; Delassus v. U. S., 9 Peters, . 117; Mitchel v. U. S., 9 Peters, 711; Strother . Lucas, 12 Peters, 410; U. S. . Repentigny, 5 Wall. 211.] "The Government of the United States, therefore, holds that titles derived from a duly constituted prior foreign government to which it has succeeded are 'consecrated by the law of nations' even as against titles claimed under its own subsequent laws. The rights of a resident neutral having become fixed and vested by the law of the country— cannot be denied or injuriously affected by a change in the sovereignty or public control of that country by transfer to another government. His remedies may be affected by the change of sovereignty, but his rights at the time of the change must be measured and determined by the law under which he acquired them. The Government of the United States is therefore prepared to insist on the continued validity of such titles, as held by citizens of the United States, when attacked by foreign governments succeeding that by which they [were] granted. Title to land and landed improvements, is, by the law of nations, a continuous right, not subject to be divested by any retroactive legislation of new governments taking the place of that by which such title was lawfully granted. Of course it is not intended here to deny the prerogative of a conqueror to confiscate for political offenses, or to withdraw franchises which by the law of nations can be withdrawn by governments for the time being. Such prerogatives have been conceded by the United States as well as by other members of the family of nations by which international law is constituted. What, however, is here denied is the right of any government to declare titles lawfully granted by its predecessor to be vacated because they could not have been lawfully granted if its own law had, at the time in question, prevailed. This pretension strikes at that principle of historical municipal continuity of governments which is at the basis of international law." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Roberts, Mar. 20, 1886, MS. Inst. Chili. XVII. 196, 200. "My recent instructions to you show the deep concern which this Government feels in the reported operations of Germany in the Samoan Islands, with which we have treaty relations. We have no treaty relations with the Marshall or Gilbert groups. They are understood to belong to the large category of hitherto unclaimed islands which have been under no asserted administration, and where the traders of various nationalities have obtained lodgment through good relations with the natives. Of the Gilbert Islands we have no precise information. Mr. von Alvensleben recently stated in conversation that the German claim to the Caroline Islands having been decided adversely, Germany would, instead, take possession of the Marshall group. It is understood, but informally so, that an arrangement exists between Great Britain and Germany whereby the two powers will confine their respective insular annexations in the Pacific Ocean within defined areas or zones, and that under this arrangement the Marshall Islands fall within the zone where Germany can operate without coming into collision with Great Britain. "It is not easy to see how either Great Britain or Germany can assert the right to control and to divide between them insular possessions which have hitherto been free to the trade of all flags, and which owe the civilizing rudiments of social organization they possess to the settlement of pioneers of other nationalities than British or German. If colonial acquisition were an announced policy of the United States, it is clear that this country would have an equal right with Great Britain or Germany to assert a claim of possession in respect of islands settled by American citizens, either alone or on a footing of equality with British and German settlers. "There are islands in the Pacific Ocean known to be wholly in the undisturbed possession of American citizens as peaceable settlers, and there are many others where American citizens have established themselves in common with other foreigners. We, of course, claim no exclusive jurisdictional right by reason of such occupancy, and are not called upon to admit it in the case of like occupancy by others. "What we think we have a right to expect, and what we are confident will be cheerfully extended as a recognized right, is that interests found to have been created in favor of peaceful American settlers in those distant regions shall not be disturbed by the assertion of exclusive claims of territorial jurisdiction on the part of any power which has never put forth any show of administration therein; that their trade and intercourse shall not in any way be hampered or taxed otherwise than as are the trade and intercourse of the citizens or subjects of the power asserting such exclusive jurisdiction, and in short, that the equality of their tenancy jointly with others, or the validity of their tenancy where they may be the sole occupants, shall be admitted according to the established principles of equity and justice." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pendleton, Feb. 27, 1886, MS. Inst. Germ. "As to the outlying unattached groups of islands [in the Pacific], dependent As to the claims of American citizens for compensation for lands alleged to As to Webster's New Zealand land claims, see For. Rel. 1890, 344–356; For. "I had the honor to receive in due course your note of the 6th ultimo, whereby you are pleased to inform me that, in virtue of a treaty engagement between a representative of the governor of the Portuguese possession of São Thomé and the Kingdom of Dahomey, Portugal has undertaken to exercise a protectorate over the entire seacoast of Dahomey and to administer Portuguese jurisdiction over Europeans residing in those regions. "In the absence of information as to how this change may affect the interests of any citizens of the United States domiciled or doing legitimate business in that part of Dahomey thus taken under the direct protection of Portugal, I am unable to do more than make a simple acknowledgment of the receipt of your note. I observe, indeed, that your note announces that your Government has pledged itself to respect the legitimate and preexistent rights of foreign powers to the territories embraced in this protectorate, and that, in consequence, jurisdictional rights as to the port of Cotomnu are left in abeyance pending the settlement of the claim of France thereto. The United States have no jurisdictional claims of sovereignty in that region which it might invite Portugal to respect, but it is to be assumed that the rights of any American citizens in the protected district will be respected as though they pertained to the Government of the United States. If citizens of the United States, equally with the citizens or subjects of other powers, establish themselves in uncivilized regions and acquire vested interests there in the same way as foreigners of other nationalities through good relationship with the natives, it is not to be supposed that, in the event of any one power (among the several represented by settlers there) assuming control of the country, our citizens will be discriminated against, in residence or trade, as compared with the subjects of the protecting power. "This point is therefore necessarily reserved." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to the Viscount das Nogueiras, Portuguese min., "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 22d ultimo, whereby you convey to this Government official informa tion that the groups known as the Marshall, Brown and Providence Islands, situated in the eastern part of the Caroline group, have been placed under the protection of His Majesty the Emperor and King, in pursuance of treaties concluded with the chiefs of those islands, in token of which possession has been taken under the imperial flag; it being understood that 'well-established rights of third parties are to be duly respected.' "In the absence of precise knowledge as to where and to what extent the interest of citizens of the United States are among those well-established rights of third parties, which the Imperial Government declares its purpose to cause to be respected, I am unprepared to determine the importance to be attached to this announcement, although I believe I interpret it rightly as a frank and voluntary declaration that those American citizens who already have established or may hereafter establish themselves on those islands, in peaceful accord with the natives, and on a footing of perfect equality with settlers of German and other nationality, will not be disturbed in their rights of residence and intercourse, or discriminated against as compared with German subjects, by reason of this establishment of a German protectorate. This Government has never claimed for itself any exclusive privileges or rights in those regions growing out of the prior or contemporaneous settlements of American citizens, and it can not, of course, anticipate that any such exclusive privileges or rights will be claimed on behalf of other nationalities to the prejudice of Americans." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. von Alvensleben, German min., March 4, 1886, For. Rel. 1886, 333. For the German announcement of the regulation of the Solomon Islands, under the protectorate of the New Guinea Company, see Mr. von Alvensleben, German min., to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, Feb. 15, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 419. In 1899 Germany acquired from Spain the Caroline Islands, and all the Ladrones, except Guam, which had been ceded to the United States. (Ann. Reg. 1899 [334], 31.) See, as to the rights of American citizens in the Carolines, For. Rel. 1886, 831-834. In 1892 Captain Davis, H. B. M. S. Royalist, visited the Gilbert Islands and formally declared them to be under British protection. Citizens of the United States had during the preceding fifty years established themselves in the group, and on May 25, 1888, Mr. Adolph Rick was commissioned as United States commercial agent, accredited to the local authority, with residence at Butaritari. Captain Davis treated his commercial agency as having terminated on May 27, 1892, the day of the assumption of the British protectorate over the group, and declined to recognize him as a consular representative till he should be accredited to the Queen. With regard to this incident, and to the protection of the vested rights of American citizens in the islands, the Government of the United States said: "In the course of the last few years foreign protectorates have been |