Right of a State to Change its Constitution and Form of Government. As an incident of its sovereignty and independence, a state has a perfect right to make such changes in its constitution, government, and laws as it may deem expedient or desirable; and these changes may be so radical in character as to effect a complete change in its form of government. The position of such a state in international law is in no way affected by such changes, so long as they are strictly internal in character. The new government succeeds to the powers and privileges, and becomes responsible for the obligations, of the government which has been displaced; none of which are abrogated, or in any way impaired in consequence of such purely internal changes. This follows from the principle that a state is a continuing body, capable of acquiring and enjoying rights, of exercising sovereign powers, of incurring obligations, and of performing duties. Of this body politic the government is the agent or representative, and a change of government is, therefore, but a change in the character of this agency; it gives the state no new powers or rights, and it absolves it from none of its duties or obligations. These ever remain unchanged.' chap. v. § 24; I Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 136-145. The United States observe as their rule of public law to recognize governments de facto and also governing persons de facto, without scrutiny of the question of legitimacy of origin or succession.-VII Opinions of Attorney-General, 582. When a question arises with reference to the existence or validity of an organization claiming to be the lawful government of a foreign country, the courts are bound by the decision of the executive power; such a question is political and not pudicial. The steamer Hornet having been seized upon a charge of violation of neutrality, a person claiming to be the agent of the "republic of Cuba" having applied to intervene : Held, that the question being a political one, and the republic of Cuba not having been publicly recognized, such claim could not be allowed.-The Hornet, 2 Abbott, 35. See also I Dig. Int. Law, § 70. Klüber, §§ 51, 52; Bluntschli, $$ 39-45; I De Martens, §§ 74-78; I Halleck, chap. iii. §§ 19-28; chap. iv. § 2; Wheaton, part ii. chap. i. § 72; Vattel, liv. i. chap. iii. §§ 3135; Grotius, book ii. chap. ix. § 8; I Kent, Com., pp. 25, 26; Hall, § 2; Creasy, §§ 104-153; Pomeroy, $$ 67-75; I Lorimer, book ii. chap. xii.; I Phillimore, §§ 126-137, 148, 149; I Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 149–163; Wildman, p. 68; II Dig. Int. Law, §§ 137, 236, 248. TERRITORY: BOUNDARIES Territory. It has already been seen that a state must exercise its sovereign powers within certain fixed and defined territorial limits; within those limits, as a consequence of its sovereignty and independence, its authority and jurisdiction are supreme, not only over all questions that can arise demanding governmental interference, but as to the acts of all persons whether citizens or aliens. Beyond its territorial limits, however, such jurisdiction ceases and that of another sovereign state comes into operation and becomes paramount. It is thus seen that sovereignty and territory are conterminous, and that the only possible line of demarcation that can effectually separate sovereign states is a territorial boundary. Where the sovereignty of one state begins that of another ends.' The territory of a state may therefore be defined as that portion of the earth's surface which is included within its boundaries, over which it exercises jurisdiction, and within which that jurisdiction is supreme. Boundaries. The boundaries of a state may be natural, consisting of oceans, seas, gulfs, lakes, or bays; or they may be artificial, consisting of parallels of latitude, or meridians of longitude, or imaginary lines described in treaties by their direction and length between terminal points. They are usually established by accurate surveys and marked in position by permanent monuments, What Constitutes the Territory of a State. All the land and all bodies of water, all inland seas, gulfs, lakes, rivers, and bays lying entirely within the external boundaries of the state, 'Walker, Manual, 8; Lawrence, Int. Law, $$ 90-91; Klüber, §.128; Walker, Science of Int. Law, p. 43. The United States Government cannot purchase a grant of land in, or concession of a right of way over, the territories of another nation as could an individual or private corporation, since, by the law of nations, one government can not enter upon the territories of another or claim any right whatever therein. - The Chiriqui Improvement Company, IX Opinions of Attorney-General, p. 286, Black (1859). * Heffter, § 66: I De Martens, $$ 38, 39. 72; Klüber, § 133; Hall, § 38; I Dig. Int. Law, § 22. are portions of its territory, and, as such, subject to its exclusive jurisdiction. All littoral islands belong to the state to which they are adjacent; all gulfs and bays, river mouths and estuaries included, or almost included, by the land, are also regarded as a part of the territory of a state., If the headlands be remote, the rule of possession is not yet fully determined, for the reason that no international understanding has as yet been reached as to the distance between headlands which shall determine ownership and jurisdiction in all cases. As claims are advanced to jurisdiction over particular bodies of water, they are usually adjusted by the states locally interested, and their decision, if just and equitable, is acquiesced in by other nations.' In some instances the changes are so numerous and important as to have made it necessary for the interested states to make provision for the constant observation and supervision of boundary rivers by means of permanent commissions. This is the case in respect to the Rio Grande, which forms a portion of the boundary between the United States and Mexico." 1 Lawrence, Int. Law, § 91; Heffter, § 65; Klüber, § 129; I De Martens, § 72; I Halleck, pp. 134-145; Revue de Droit International, vol. xxvi. pp. 209-214; Hall, §§ 30-33. 'The treaty of November 12, 1884, between the United States and Mexico, declares that the boundary line of the Rio Grande shall "follow the centre of the normal channel, notwithstanding any alterations in the banks or course of the river, provided that such alterations be effected by natural causes, through the slow and gradual erosion and deposit of alluvium, and not by the abandonment of an existing river-bed and the opening of a new one." The treaty provides that any other changes, whether wrought by the current in cutting a new bed, or due to artificial changes in the navigable course of the river, in consequence of the construction of bridges, jetties, piers, or other obstructions, or by the dredging of channels, shall not be permitted to alter or affect the dividing line as established by the boundary commission in 1852; but the protection of the banks on either side from erosion by revetments of stone, or other material not projecting into the current of the river, shall not be deemed an artificial change. Provision is also made in article iv. of the treaty for determining the boundary line upon any bridge that has been or may be built across the said river; such boundary being established at a point "exactly over the middle of the main channel." The boundary so established is to remain fixed, notwithstanding any subsequent changes in the channel which may thereafter supervene.Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1776-1887. p. 721. It is a sound principle of national law, Navigable Rivers. Where navigable rivers not only separate but also traverse the territory of several states, the question of boundary is necessarily affected by considerations of greater intricacy and difficulty having to do with their improvement and navigation.' In recent times the tendency has been to remove all restrictions upon the navigation of such rivers, and to throw them open to general commerce. These changes have been effected by treaties, to which the states interested in the navigation of particular rivers have been parties., In accordance with their stipulations uniform rates of toll have been established, unnecessary and burdensome charges have been abolished or modified, and the expenses of maintenance and improvement have been equitably assessed upon the riparian powers. To defray these expenses various expedients have been resorted to. In some of the earlier treaties the revenues derived from tolls were appropriated to the purpose. Later treaties provide for an apportionment of the expense of improvement among the riparian powers, and for the removal of all restrictions in the way of tolls and dues from the navigation of the river. In this way most of the navigable rivers of Europe, that are not entirely included within the territory of a single state, have been thrown open to general commercial use.' Rivers as Boundaries. Where a river forms the boundary between two states, the line of demarcation follows the midchannel. If the channel changes, there is some difference of opinion as to whether the boundary changes with it, or re and applies to the treaty-making power of this government, whether exercised with a foreign nation or an Indian tribe, that all questions of disputed boundaries may be settled by the parties to the treaty.Lattimer vs. Poteet, XIV Peters, p. 14; Heffter, § 66; I De Martens, §§ 38, 39: Hall, §§ 37, 38. For a discussion of the neutrality of boundary rivers, see Revue de Droit International, vol. xviii. pp. 96–159; see also Ibid. xix. p. 253. 'In this respect an important difference was made in the Roman law between rivers and the sea. The former were regarded as a portion of the public property of the state; the navigation of the latter was held to be the common right of all.-I Phillimore, p. 189. For a fuller discussion of this subject, see the article entitled River Navigation, p. 48; see also I De Martens, § 39. mains in the ancient bed: In most cases that have arisen the rules of the Roman law-in this matter the simple embodiment of long experience-have prevailed in the settlement of disputed questions of boundary. Those rules assume the midchannel of the river as the normal line of division. The experience of ages, however, proves that rivers are subject to constant modification, in respect to their course and direction, due to changes in the volume of their waters, the rapidity and strength of their currents, and the resisting power of the soil or material of which their banks are composed. These changes are attributable to two general causes; one, gradual, due to the constant erosive action of the current, by which soil is being constantly taken from one bank and deposited on the other; the other, casual or occasional, due to the sudden and violent action of the river, during a period of unusual high water, in which the current cuts new channels for itself at various points of its course. The rule in such cases is based upon the possibility of identifying the soil which has changed from one bank to the other. Soil lost by gradual erosion, not being capable of subsequent identification, becomes the property of the state upon whose territory it has been deposited; where the change in the channel has been due to the sudden action of the current, however, the land, being still possible of identification, is held to belong to its original owner, and the boundary line remains in the ancient bed.' When a great river is the boundary between two nations or states, if the original property is in neither and there be no convention respecting it, each holds to the middle of the stream. But where a state which is the original proprietor grants the territory on one side only, it retains the river within its own domains, and the newly erected state extends to the river only. In such case the lowerwater mark is its boundary, whether the fluctuations in the stream result from tides or from an annual rise and fall.-Handly vs. Anthony, na V Wheaton, p. 374; Heffter, § 66. |