Court was not a really permanent tribunal, but was convoked only as far as business was pendent and the judges were not professional officers of the Confederation. Since 1874 the Federal Court is a fully equipped and standing court; the judges are excluded from other official functions and from business. The court is divided into several senates and sections, the most important of which are the section for civil cases and the section of cases in public law.

The jurisdiction of the Federal Court over intercantonal disputes is of a double nature disputes in civil law and disputes in public law. The practical difference between the two classes of lawsuits is, in the case of Cantons, of minor importance, because in both events the Federal Court acts as court of first and last instance. For private persons and corporations, however, the possibility of appeal in private and public law is fundamentally different.

A civil suit between two Cantons is a dispute on rights of private character such as a private person might possess. Not all disputes of a financial nature are civil, e. g., a process on the collection of taxes is a question of public law. The jurisdiction of the Federal Court over civil cases is established in conformity with international law, according to which no sovereign is bound to recognize the jurisdiction of another except in cases of property. The Federal Court, however, is always competent. The Constitution mentions among the civil cases to be submitted to the Federal Court disputes between communes of different Cantons concerning the citizenship of individuals. It is possible that the Cantons act instead of the communes and this jurisdiction ought logically to be placed under the competency of the section for public law. Interstate disputes on the "Heimathlosat" (people having no allegiance) - a matter formerly regulated by a concordat - are decided in the same way by the Federal Court.

Interstate disputes in public law are those in which the Cantons appear not only as parties but in their peculiar quality as political entities. The law on the organization of Federal justice mentions especially as interstate disputes those on boundaries, powers of the authorities of different Cantons, interpretations and application of interstate treaties, etc. In some matters which are of less judicial

but rather administrative character and which are in the main regulated by Federal law, the Federal Council instead of the court is authorized to settle interstate disputes (fisheries in intercantonal waters, police over rivers and torrents in the Alps, police of forests, etc.). But the presumption always militates in favor of the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

There can be a connexity of interstate disputes and conflicts between a private individual or corporation and a Canton foreign to them, e. g., if in one Canton the water is diverted to the detriment of a mill in another Canton or if the property of one territory is endangered or deteriorated by constructions or exploitations made in another Canton. In such cases the private plaintiff has no independent right of action against the Canton from the territory of which he is injured; the Canton alone to which the plaintiff belongs is entitled to appeal to the Federal Court in cases relating to nonconventional interstate law. The different situation in the case of violation of an intercantonal treaty has already been treated above. But if the dispute of the private plaintiff has — as it would have in the cases cited above the character of a civil process, the plaintiff might go before the Federal Court directly, because this tribunal has original jurisdiction in all cases between a Canton and any private individual or corporation, if one party requires it and the contested value amounts to at least 3,000 francs. This provision of the Federal Constitution makes superfluous a right of Cantons to intervene in favor of their citizens if those are engaged in disputes with other Cantons. If a Canton is neither interested as to its private rights. nor as to its public powers, it is excluded from intervention in interstate disputes of the inhabitants of its territory or its citizens. These are fully protected by Federal jurisdiction, both in matters of private and public character.

The law applied to interstate disputes by the Federal Court is in civil cases that private law, federal or cantonal, which in analogous cases between private parties would be applied according to the principles of intercantonal private law. In cases of public law Federal law takes precedence over all other legal prescriptions which might be in question. In second line conventional interstate law

peculiar to the parties will be applied and as subsidiary rule common intercantonal and in last resort international law.

Disputes between Cantons are not necessarily of a legal character. Interests not protected by law, and therefore not recoverable before a court, may be of no less importance than subjective right, and if menaced or injured by another Canton may cause serious difficulties. In such cases intervention would be justified according to the current doctrine of international law, but is impossible in the relations between Cantons. There may be other cases in which, though they can be decided according to law, such a decision, albeit unassailable from a legal point of view, may be most unsatisfactory from the standpoint of equity and national politics. As the Cantons are strictly forbidden to have recourse to self-aid and can not, as sovereign nations can do, refuse to accept judicial proceedings in cases where vital interests are engaged, another mean must be provided for such conflicts. It consists in the intervention of the Federal Assembly. Though the Constitution does not give to the Confederation special powers of this kind, the power to make the necessary provisions for keeping order and especially interstate peace belongs to the absolute implied powers of every compound state. It is impossible to suppose that the Constitution, by the prohibition of self-aid, would bring an interstate dispute simply to a deadlock or have it judged according to rules evidently not suiting the case. In this way the Federal Assembly intervened in 1884 at the request of the Canton of Zurich, when the Canton of Argovie refused to secure the payment of debts which some of its cities had guaranteed collectively with communes of the Canton of Zurich, while these latter had already been compelled to pay their share. The Confederation made an arrangement in making a favorable loan to the Cantons concerned prescribing the conditions of the payment and redemption of the debts.

If in spite of all constitutional provisions violence between Cantons is threatening or even breaks out, the Cantons concerned are obliged to give immediate notice to the Federal Council or in extreme cases are authorized to ask the aid of other Cantons. This latter provision, however, is obsolete. Though the Constitution

does not mention it, it is evident that in cases of interstate conflicts the Federal Council must intervene ex officio. The executive has, however, only limited power to settle the dispute. If armed intervention is necessary, the Federal Assembly is to be summoned, at least if more than 2,000 men are mobilized or the troops remain more than three weeks in active service.

5. Matters of interstate concern

Matters of interstate concern are matters which are ruled either by interstate law, Federal and intercantonal, or by pure Federal law, but having materially though not formally interstate character. To the first class of legal relations those belong in which Cantons are treated or recognized by Federal law as states, i. e., as essentially independent and coordinate commonwealths in their mutual relations; to the second class those provisions of Federal law pertain which establish uniform rules without reference to interstate relations, but relating to subjects in which a different treatment, by the Cantons, of citizens and noncitizens might be supposed. Thus, the right of taking a domicile anywhere, the liberty of trade and industry, etc., are guaranteed not only for intercantonal relations, but generally, viz., also for intercommunal relations. But if we look at these provisions of the Federal Constitution from the point of view of historical development, it is evident that Federal law points above all at an equal treatment of all Swiss citizens inside and outside their native Cantons.

a. Nationality.

In the following notes no thorough and complete investigation into the Federal law relating to interstate relations nor into the autonomous or conventional practice of Cantons is aimed at, but only a general survey of the most important matters of interstate concern. Federal law regulates only the naturalization of foreigners, i. e., it prescribes the conditions in which Cantons can naturalize aliens and in which they must recognize anew citizens who have lost personally or through their parents a former allegiance with a Swiss Canton. competent to regulate at liberty naturalization both of foreigners and of citizens of other Cantons. One important restriction is

Besides that the Cantons are

laid upon Cantonal legislation - no Canton is allowed to expel from its territory one of its citizens or deprive him of his right of citizenship. If there are people belonging to no Canton the Federal authorities decide definitely which Canton has to recognize them as citizens. Cases of double allegiance to two Cantons are of no legal interest except in questions of intercantonal private law. Conflicts, unavoidable with international sujets mixtes, do not exist in intercantonal relations, because the Cantons do not exercise rights over their citizens outside their own territory, and especially because military service is uniformly regulated for all Swiss. The question of cantonal citizenship is not of considerable importance in intercantonal relations, because the Federal Constitution guarantees to the citizens of one Canton domiciled on the territory of another Canton an almost perfectly equal treatment with the citizens of that Canton. The only matter in relation to citizenship which has been settled by a concordat is the "Heimatschein " (certificate of cantonal citizenship); this or an equivalent paper is sufficient for a Swiss to claim freedom of settlement in any place in Switzerland.

b. Different treatment in legislation of cantonal citizens and other Swiss citizens. The Constitution forbids, in principle, all differential treatment, as has been stated above. However, such differences as are justified by the fact of residence and nonresidence are lawful. But all residents and all nonresidents are respectively to be treated equally; the fact of cantonal citizenship or of allegiance to another Canton is of no influence except in the cases reserved by the Federal Constitution. Some cases of differential treatment formerly general and only restricted by concordats have been explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, viz, the exit duty on property (traite foraine) translated from one Canton to another in consequence of emigration or succession, and the right of redemption (preemption) in favor of the citizens of the Canton where the property is situated. These relics of medieval law had already been abolished by interstate conventions since the beginning of the nineteenth century.

If in principle all Swiss are to be treated equally, the same law is not necessarily applied to all. The Constitution provided Federal legislation on the application of private law to persons residing out