the principal cases decided in the British and American CASES FROM AMERICAN REPORTS. Foster v. Neilson, 2 Peters, p. 253. Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Massachusetts, p. 119. The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheaton, p. 283. Bolchos v. Three Negro Slaves, Bee, Admiralty Rep. p. 74. British Consul v. Ship Mermaid, ib. 69. Henderson v. Poindexter, 12 Wheaton, p. 530. Garcia v. Lee, 12 Peters, p. 511. M'Nair v. Ragland, 1 Devereux, Equity, p. 516. Orser v. Hoag, 3 Hill, p. 79. Miller v. Gordon, 1 Taylor, p. 300. And see especially the following cases, as to the construction of the Treaties between Spain and England of 1762 and 1783, giving privileges to cut mahogany, and the construction of the proclamation and by-laws relative to the trade under them, Graham v. Pennsylvania Ins. Co. 2 Washington C. C. P. 113. Under the second article of the Treaty with Great Britain of 1794, the precincts and jurisdiction of a port are not to be considered as extending three miles in every direction, by analogy to the jurisdiction of a country over that distance of sea upon its coasts, but they must be made out by further proof.-Jackson v. Porter, Paine, p. 457. The fourteenth section of the Spanish Treaty of 1795, which prohibits citizens of Spain or of the United States from taking commissions to cruise against either of those countries, does not extend the prohibition to public ships of war.-The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheaton, p. 283. No form of passport having been annexed to the seventeenth article of the Spanish Treaty of 1795, the immunity intended by that article never took effect.-The Amiable Isabella, 6 Wheaton, p. 1. The United States, by their alliance with France, existing in 1780, were not considered as parties in the capitulation made by the Marquis de Brouillé with the inhabitants of Dominica.-Miller v. The Resolution, Bee, Adm. Rep. p. 404. Where individual rights vest under a Treaty, the Treaty, in respect to them, is to be construed by the same rules as private contracts.— Anderson v. Lewis, 1 Freeman, Chancery, p. 178. Courts of Law, involving the interpretation and construction of Treaties. When a Treaty makes no special provision for deciding questions of individual identity, they must be decided by the judicial tribunals of the country.-Stockton v. Williams, Walker Chancery, p. 120. Savigny has a chapter on those Foreign Codes which contain specific enactments as to the Interpretation of Law.-R. R. i. s. 61. Aussprüche der neueren Gesetzbücher über die Auslegung. PART THE SIXTH. CHAPTER I. RIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNS. C. It was observed in an early part of this work (a) that there were certain subjects of International Law, which though only to be accounted as such mediately and derivatively, required a separate consideration; and it was said that these subjects of International Law were the following individuals, who are said to represent a State:- 1. Sovereigns. 2. Ambassadors. And another class of public officers, not clothed, accurately speaking, with a representative character, but who occupy a quasi diplomatic position—namely, 3. Consuls. We have now to consider the International Status of Sovereigns with respect to themselves and their families. CI. The Sovereign (b) represents in his person the (a) Vide ante, vol. i. p. 10. (b) Vattel, l. iv. c. 7, s. 108; 1. ii. c. 3, c. 4. Grotius places the exterritoriality of Ambassadors upon this ground:"Ut qui sicut fictione quadam habentur pro personis mittentium, ita etiam fictione simili constituerentur quasi extra-territorium.”—L. ii. c. xviii. 4, 5. Puffendorf, De Jure Nat. et Gent. 1. viii. c. 4, 21. Bynkershoek, De Foro Legatorum, c. 3. "Princeps in alterius Imperio quo jure censeatur, quod ad forum competens." C. 4.-"Principis bona collective power of the State. His person, as such representative, is the subject—by a custom, which, to say the least, approaches the border of positive law-of certain international rights. The recognition of his title and claims as the de jure ruler of the nation, of which he is the de facto governor, and the principles of International Law applicable thereto, have been already considered (c). CII. The Sovereignty of the State may be vested in a single individual, as in a monarch, a stadtholder, or a president; or in more than one, as in the Consuls of ancient Rome, or of republican France at the beginning of this century; or in various persons exercising the powers of regency pending the minority of the Sovereign (d). The Roman Law expresses the rule of International Law upon this subject-" Magistratus municipales, cum unum "magistratum administrent, etiam unius hominis vicem "sustinent" (e). CIII. Before we enter upon the discussion of the personal prerogatives incident to the Sovereign in a foreign country, it must be remembered that the honour and independence of nations are affected by the treatment of their Sovereign (ƒ). in alterius Imperio, an per arrestum forum tribuant." These two chapters contain the best dissertation on this subject. Zouch, De Jure Feciali inter Gentes, p. ii. s. 2, q. 6.-" Utrum Princeps in alium Principem in suo territorio imperium habet ?" Günther, ii. 473, præsertim, ss. 4, 5, 6. Martens, 1. v. ss. 164–175. Klüber, ss. 48-50. Heffter, 88. 48, 58. Fælix, s. 209. The subject of exterritoriality is again discussed under the subsequent title of Ambassadors. (c) Vide ante, part v. ch. iv. (d) "Einem wirklichen Mitregenten oder souveränen Reichsverweser gebühren mit Ausnahme der Titel gleiche Rechte wie dem eigentlichen Souverän selbst."—Heffter, 1. vi. s. 55. (e) Dig. L. 1. 25. (f) "Die Unabhängigkeit des Staates kommt auch der Person seiner Repräsentanten zu: dem Regenten.”—Klüber, s. 48. Zouch, p. i. s. v. 1, speaking of "Delicta inter eos quibuscum Pax The Sovereign is entitled to International rights belonging to his public character, both while resident at home, and while commorant abroad. At home he has a right 1. To be addressed by other States according to his proper and accustomed title. 2. To be treated in all communications, unless established usage or the positive stipulations of Treaty have made a distinction, in all respects on a footing of perfect equality with the rulers of other States. Abroad, the Sovereign de facto is entitled to be treated by all public functionaries of another State, in all public communications, with respect; and to have his proper titles assigned to him (g). Thus at the conferences holden in 1871 in London respecting the Treaty of Paris of March 30, 1856, the plenipotentiary of the King of Prussia claimed to be received as representative of the Emperor of Germany, a title lately conferred on the King. The claim was admitted by the plenipotentaries of the other Powers (h). If he be personally the subject of a libel on his character or be defamed, he is entitled to the same redress in the municipal Courts of Justice in the country of the libeller as any subject of that country. If he were shut out from such redress on the ground of his being a foreigner, or upon any technical ground, he would have just ground of complaint, unless, indeed, satisfaction were extra-judicially afforded to him. est," says, "In his delictis primum est cum status læditur vel personis injuria offertur;" e.g., when the Athenians defiled the statues of Philip. (g) Bluntschli, s. 124: "Le refus de ces titres est considéré, non sans raison, comme une offense, lorsque le nouveau gouvernement peut envisager qu'il existe seul de fait. Le fait que l'empereur Nicolas de Russie n'avait pas employé le terme habituel de 'frère' dans une lettre adressée à Napoléon III., a été profondément senti par ce dernier, qui s'en est cruellement vengé; et cependant il n'y avait point ici une violation du droit; il y avait tout au plus une atteinte aux usages des cours, car cette lettre reconnaissait expressément Napoléon comme souverain des Français." (h) See the Protocols in Papers laid before Parliament, 1871. |