ing government transfers a part of its possessions and continues to exercise sovereignty over the balance of its dominion, although its sovereignty absolutely ceases over the portion ceded. In such cases the acquiring government does not assume the obligation of any indebtedness of the ceding government, even if contracted in connection with the territory ceded, unless specifically so stated in the treaty.

These rules do not necessarily apply in cases where terri

constituted and legitimate author- | The right of the Russian governity of the United States, therefore, has acquired and received this land as public property. In that character it became a part of the United States, and subject to and governed by their laws. And as the treaty is by the constitution the supreme law, and that law declared it public domain when it came to the possession of the United States, the courts of justice are bound so to regard it and treat it, and cannot sanction any title not derived from the United States."

ment to make disposition as to certain property was involved. Held by the Supreme Court that it would not go into the question whether the Russian government had or had not the right to make the disposition, but that the court would hold as against the United States the Russian government had no right to convey a title or any property to any person and it was held that under the stipulations of the treaty this was not private property, the title to which would be unaffected by a cession. The effect of certain schedules of property annexed to documents transferring the territory was involved in this action.

In this case prior to the ratification of the treaty the Spanish claimant made a transfer to an American citizen but it was held that this did not, in any way, affect the grant, as 3 See the treaties of cession reup to the time of the ratification of ferred to in note 3 to § 44, p. 80, et the treaty it was a part of Spanish seq., vol. I, and examine for the territory and subject to the laws special stipulations affecting propof Spain, and that whatever rights erty; for the provisions affecting the American grantee might have recent cessions from Spain, see from the Spanish claimant were TREATIES APPENDIX at end of this extinguished by the Spanish gov-volume where the treaty of 1898 is ernment in the declarations ex- printed in full. changed in the ratifications of the treaty.

4 For a full discussion of this subject see the record of the Peace Commission in Paris in which the position of the commissioners of the United States declining to assume any indebtedness of Spain on account of Cuba or the Philippines is set forth. Senate Document, No. 62, (3 parts) 55th Congress, 3d

2 Kinkead vs. United States, Ct. Claims, 1883, 18 Ct. of Clms, 504, DRAKE, Ch. J., s. c., 1889, 24 Ct. of Clms, 459, SCHOFIELD J., affirmed, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1893, 150 U. S. 483, BROWN, J. Claims to certain property conveyed by the Russian government to the United States. Session. Message of President

tory having its own government is absorbed into the United States, and, owing to the peculiar division of local and national sovereignty in this country, the local affairs can be administered under a local State constitution as in the case of Texas or of a territorial government as in the case of Hawaii. In those cases the reciprocal legislation already referred to determines many of these points. In such cases, however, the United States immediately becomes the only power having any general or national jurisdiction over the acquired or absorbed territory.5

It has also been held that in cases of acquisition of territory out of which States have subsequently been carved and admitted to the Union, that the United States meanwhile held the lands under water in trust for such States when finally admitted; this rule, however, is subject to exceptions where the land has been granted to an individual.

McKinley transmitting treaty of peace between United States and Spain, January 4, 1899.

"See the resolutions in regard to Texas and Hawaii referred to in note 2 to § 393, p. 150, ante, and as to when laws of the United States took effect in Texas. See note 3 to § 395a, p. 163, post.

Knight vs. United States Land Association, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1891, 142 U. S. 161, LAMAR, J. This case involved the San Francisco titles to Pueblo lands and in that respect the court held, as to tide waters, that the well-settled doctrine, that on the acquisition of territory from Mexico the United States acquired title to the lands under tide water in trust for the future States that might be erected out of the territory, does not apply to lands that had been previously granted to other parties by the former government, or had been subjected to trusts that would require their disposition in some other way.

"The patent of the United States is evidence of the title of the city of San Francisco under Mexican laws to the Pueblo lands, and is conclusive, not only as against the United States and all parties claiming under it by titles subsequently acquired, but also as against all parties, except those who have a full and complete title acquired from Mexico anterior in date to that confirmed by the decree of confirmation."

Illinois Central Railroad Company vs. Illinois, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1892, 146 U. S. 387, FIELD, J. This case involved the title to the Chicago water front on Lake Michigan. The general rule is stated in the first point of the syllabus as follows:

"The ownership of and dominion and sovereignty over lands covered by tide waters, within the limits of the several States, belong to the respective States within which they are found, with the consequent right to use or dispose of any por

Although sovereignty over ceded territory and the ownership of the public domain is thus transferred, the acquiring government obtains nothing by the cession that was not governmental property or prerogative at the time of the transfer. The cession does not carry with it any private property or deprive any of the inhabitants or owners of property of any private rights which they possess. Under both international and municipal law those rights are protected and must be respected by the new sovereign.

This subject will be discussed in the following sections under appropriate subdivisions. Other points, such as when treaties of cession take effect, to what extent grants can be made by the ceding, or must be recognized by the accepting, government, will be referred to in the notes.

§ 395. The effect on inhabitants of ceded territory; subdivisions of subject in this chapter.-We have seen that when one government cedes to another territory forming part of its domain, and over which it has exercised sovereignty, the consent of the inhabitants is not required to validate the transfer,1 and that as soon as the transfer has been completed, and the new sovereign has been put in possession, the inhabitants must submit to the new government; in fact, as Chief Justice Marshall said in the Florida Case, "to such conditions as the new master shall impose."? Change of sovereignty, however, results in so many changed conditions that it is impossible to briefly summarize its ef

ders of the sea, and the lands are held by the same right in the one case as in the other, and subject to the same trusts and limitations."

tion thereof, when that can be done | lands under tide waters on the borwithout substantial impairment of the interest of the public in the waters, and subject always to the paramount right of Congress to control their navigation so far as may be necessary for the regula- | tion of commerce with foreign nations and among the States.

See also Shively vs. Bowlby, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1894, 152 U. S. 1, GRAY, J., and the Pollard cases, cited in note to § 395a, p. 165, post. § 395.

"The same doctrine as to the dominion and sovereignty over and 1 See § 46, pp. 83, et seq., vol. I. ownership of lands under the navi- 2 American Ins. Co. vs. Canter, gable waters of the Great Lakes U. S. Sup. Ct. 1828, 1 Peters, 511, applies, which obtains at the com- MARSHALL, Ch. J.; and see exmon law as to the dominion and tracts from opinion in notes to sovereignty over and ownership of § 395a, p. 160, post.

fects in any single sentence. The elements of the subject of change of sovereignty by treaty, which will be referred to in this chapter, are first, the effect on the local laws of the ceded territory; second, the effect on the allegiance of the inhabitants and their personal and political rights; third, the effect on property rights and on title to land.5

395a. The effect on local laws of the ceded territory.— This is also a subject which is properly within the domain of a treatise on international law and to which only a passing reference can be made. The general rule is that the laws of the former sovereignty continue until altered by the law-making power of the new sovereignty; but in each case the special features of the law and its application under the new conditions must be considered. The condition of the inhabitants remains the same except as to their allegiance. As Chief Justice Marshall declared after the cession of Florida: "The same act which transfers their country transfers the allegiance of those who remain in it, and the law, which may be denominated political, is necessarily changed, although that which regulates the intercourse, and general conduct of individuals, remains in force, until altered by the newly created power of the state." This principle, which

8§ 395a, post.

4 § 3956, p. 166, post.

5 § 395c, p. 175, post. § 395a.

the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty.

"The usage of the world is, if a nation be not entirely subdued, to consider the holding of conquered territory as a mere military occu

1 American Ins. Co. vs. Canter, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1828, 1 Peters, 511, MARSHALL, CH. J. The Chief Jus-pation, until its fate shall be detice's remarks above quoted are on p. 541. They were prefaced by the following statement:

"The course which the argument has taken, will require, that, in deciding this question, the Court should take into view the relation in which Florida stands to the United States.

termined at the treaty of peace. If it be ceded by the treaty, the acquisition is confirmed, and the ceded territory becomes a part of the nation to which it is annexed; either on the terms stipulated in the treaty of cession, or on such as its new master shall impose. On such transfer of territory, it has "The Constitution confers abso- never been held, that the relations lutely on the government of the of the inhabitants with each other Union, the powers of making war, undergo any change. Their relaand of making treaties; conse- tions with their former sovereign quently, that government possesses are dissolved, and new relations

had already been enunciated by Sir William Scott as early as 1804,2 has often been followed with approval.3

are created between them and the thrown, the officer, General Keargovernment which has acquired ney, holding possession for the their territory."

2 The Fama, High Court of Admiralty, Great Britain, 1804, 5 Robinson, 106, SIR W. SCOTT.

3 Leitensdorfer vs. Webb, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1837, 20 Howard 176, DANIEL, J. In this case the validity of the provisional government of New Mexico was questioned in an action brought in a court established under what was known as the Kearney Code, or provisional government. As stated in the syllabus this point was decided as follows:

"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.

United States, in virtue of the power of conquest and occupancy, and in obedience to the duty of maintaining the security of the inhabitants in their persons and property, ordained, under the sanction and authority of the United States, a provisional or temporary Government for the acquired country. By this substitution of a new supremacy, although the former political relations of the inhabitants were dissolved, their private relations, their rights vested under the Government of their former allegiance, or those arising from contract or usage, remained in full force and unchanged, except so far as they were in their nature and character found to be in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with any reg

"The executive authority of the United States properly established a provisional Government which | ulations which the conquering and ordained laws and instituted a judicial system; all of which continued in force after the termination of the war, and until modified by the direct legislation of Congress, or by the Territorial Government established by its authority.

occupying authority should ordain. Amongst the consequences which would be necessarily incident to change of sovereignty, would be the appointment or control of the agents by whom and the modes in which the Government of the occu

"A suit brought in a court es- pants should be administered-this tablished by the provisional gov-result being indispensable, in order ernment was properly transferred to secure those objects for which to a court created by the act of such a Government is usually esCongress establishing the Territory tablished. of New Mexico, the jurisdiction of which was fixed by a Territorial statute." The opinion says in this respect (pp. 177-178):

"This is the principle of the law of nations, as expounded by the highest authorities. In the case of The Fama, in the 5th of Robinson's "Upon the acquisition, in the Rep. 106, Sir William Scott deyear 1846, by the arms of the Uni-clares it to be the settled principle ted States, of the Territory of New of the law of nations, that the inMexico, the civil Government of habitants of a conquered territory this Territory having been over-change their allegiance, and their