the sea, or straits, or rivers; neither are they natural channels of trade or commerce over which all nations have the right of innocent passage. Their neutrality in time of war is the most serious question that can arise with respect to them, and this can only be secured by a guarantee of the maritime powers, or by a sufficient number of them to secure the observance of such guarantee. The Suez and Panama Canals. The Suez Canal, triumphantly opened in 1869, was declared neutralized by the international treaty of October 29, 1888; that is to say, it was not to be subject to blockade, while, alike in time of war as of peace, it should be free to vessels of war or commerce without distinction of flag. The Anglo-French Agreement of April 8, 1904, opened the way to the treaty's practical execution at the same time that it adjusted important aspects of the Newfoundland fisheries, the Anglo-French spheres in Siam, the condominium in the New Hebrides, etc. The neutrality provisions of the Suez treaty of 1888 were incorporated in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of November 18, 1901, between Great Britain and the United States, by which treaty the United States was to have a free hand in the construction and maintenance of a ship-canal across he Isthmus of Panama or at Nicaragua. The neutrality f these or other Central American canal routes had been uaranteed by the United States in its treaty with New Grenada (Colombia), December 12, 1846, and in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty with Great Britain, April 19, 1850. Suez, therefore, is internationally neutralized; Panama, like the Strait of Magellan, is agreed to be open to vessels of all nations on equal terms and at all times. (The Suez Canal is exhaustively discussed by Dedreux in Der Suezkanal im internationalen Rechte, Tübingen, 1913; the Panama treaties and agreements, ratified and unratified, are set out fully in the United States Treaties and Conventions of 1909, together with Mr. Garfield Charles's supplementary volume. The Panama Canal is discussed by the late General Davis in "Fortification at Panama," American Journal of International Law, October, 1909. The diplomatic history of the canals is given by Professor Moore in Volume 3 of his Digest, pages 1-269.) Submarine Telegraph Cables. The question of submarine cables can perhaps be best discussed in connection with the high seas and the jurisdiction of the coasts at which they terminate. The principle of the freedom of the high seas has long been recognized at international law; if, therefore, the surface of the high seas be free, for purposes of commerce and navigation, their use beneath the surface, for any economic or commercial purpose, must, from the nature of the case, be equally free. When a cable reaches soundings, however, within the three-mile limit, it passes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state within whose territory its terminal station is located. Questions in respect to the construction and maintenance of oceanic cables, and of their protection from injury in time of peace, like their neutrality in war, can only be effectively regulated by the concerted action of the maritime powers; the former of these questions, indeed, has already been made the subject of treaty stipulation. With a view to secure such international action, a conference of thirty-one states, convened upon the invitation of the French Government, met at Paris on October 16, 1882, and drew up a project having for its purpose the maintenance of submarine cables and their preservation from injury. As a result of this conference, a protocol was signed by the representatives of thirty-one states, and submitted to their respective governments for consideration. In pursuance of this agreement a second conference was held at Paris, where, on March 14, 1884, a convention was entered into which was signed by the duly authorized representatives of twenty-five independent states. In order to give the contracting parties an opportunity for the adoption of the requisite municipal legislation, the 1st of January, 1884, was agreed upon as the date when the convention was to become operative. The ratifications. of seventeen states were exchanged at Paris on April 16, 1885. In the "Situations" of the United States War College for 1902, page 19, the position is taken that "a cable connecting one belligerent and a neutral territory and rendering unneutral service is liable to interruption by the other belligerent at any point outside of neutral jurisdiction. The treaty applies to such legally established submarine cables as are, or may be landed, on the territory of the sig natory powers. It gives to the act of wilfully injuring or destroying such cables the character of a penal offence; confers certain rights of way and position upon vessels engaged in the construction or repair of submarine cables, and requires other ships to keep at a distance of one nautical mile from vessels so engaged; it also requires all vessels (including fishing craft) to pass buoys, marking the position of cables, at a distance of one-quarter of a nautical mile. Offences created by the treaty are triable in the courts of the state to which the vessel committing the offence belongs, and proceedings and trials are to take place as summarily as the laws of such state will permit. No provision is made for the neutrality of submarine cables, or for their use in war; indeed, the convention contains a clause providing that its stipulations shall "in nowise affect the liberty of action of belligerents." Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1776–1887, pp. 11761185. By a clause of this treaty the commanding officers of public armed vessels of the contracting parties, if they have reason to believe that a merchant vessel has committed an offence in violation of the treaty, are authorized to require the captain of such vessel to furnish evidence of nationality, and such reports in respect to offences against the treaty as they may submit may be used in evidence in the courts of the state whose flag and papers such offending vessel may carry. A subsequent declaration respecting the interpretation of articles ii. and vi. of the convention was signed at Paris on December 1, 1886, and a final protocol, signed at Paris on July 7, 1887, fixing upon May 1, 1888, as the date upon which the instrument was to become finally operative, were ratified by the United States on May 1, 1888.-Treaties and Conventions of the United States, pp. 1184, 1185. For other correspondence in respect to the execution and operation of this convention, see Foreign Relations of the United States, 1883. pp. 253258, 294-296, 285-291, 296-298, 304, 305; Ibid. 1887, pp. 360–368. The United States, by an Act of Con Acquisition of Territory. Territory may be acquired in several ways, of which the principal are: (a.) By Occupation. This method is applied to the acquisition of those portions of the earth's surface which are either unoccupied by man, or are inhabited by savage or uncivilized races, who are unable, or who have not the desire, to establish those relations of intercourse with other states which are recognized by the rules of international law. As little territory remains in the world which is absolutely unoccupied, it follows that future acquisitions can only be made at the territorial expense of weak or uncivilized races;' such, indeed, are the acquisitions which are now being made by the different states of Europe in the continents of Asia and Africa. In some instances the title to territory thus acquired is purchased from the prior occupants; in a great majority of cases, however, it is obtained by an exercise of superior force. (b.) By Accretion. This method of acquiring territory results from an operation of the laws of nature, and consists in the acquisition of soil, on the banks of rivers, due to the erosive action of the current. Such an increase in the territory of a state implies a corresponding diminution in the territory of another.' (c.) By Treaty. This method of acquisition corresponds to the alienation of real estate among private individuals; the treaty of cession corresponding to the deed of conveyance, which operates to transfer the ownership of land from one gress which was approved by the President on February 29, 1888 (25 Statutes at Large, p. 41), made suitable provision for the enforcement of the treaty, in so far as its citizens or other persons subjected to its jurisdiction were concerned. See vol. xii. Revue de Droit International, pp. 247–275; xv. ibid. pp. 17–43. One of the paragraphs in President Monroe's message in 1823, which has sometimes been erroneously regarded as a complete statement of the Monroe doctrine, person to another. The consideration actuating the transfer may be pecuniary, or there may be an exchange of portions of territory, or the transfer may be made in deference to the wishes of the inhabitants of the ceded district.' (d) By Conquest, or by Conquest Completed by a Treaty of Peace. Such acquisitions of territory are in the highest degree involuntary, being accomplished, in every case, by an exercise of superior force; such transfers, however, are none the less recognized at international law, and titles based upon conquest are as valid as those obtained by the consent of the interested states.' 'The Louisiana territory, Florida, the Gadsden purchase, and the territory of Alaska are examples of acquisitions by treaty; the consideration in each case being pecuniary. into the dominions of that enemy, 'The territoryacquired from Mexico in consequence of the war with that power in 1845-1848, Cuba, Porto Rico, in the Western Continent, Alsace-Lorraine in Europe, and the territories acquired by Russia in Europe, and by the United States in Asia, are examples of acquisitions of territory by conquest perfected by treaty; the acquisition of territory from Mexico by the United States in 1848 was also made the subject of a pecuniary indemnity, as was the case with the acquisition of the Philippine Islands by the same power in 1898. The conquest of a country or portion of a country by a public enemy entitles such enemy to the sovereignty, and gives him civil dominion as long as he retains his military possession. Inhabitants and strangers who go there during the occupation of the enemy must take the law from him as the ruler de facto, and not from the government de jure which has been expelled.-IX Opinions of Attorney-General, p. 140. But a territory conquered by an enemy is not to be considered as incorporated. |