Wheaton (D), 42–49; (L), 48-53; Creasey, 144-146; Phillimore, I., 211; Woolsey,

38.)

21. Effect of change of Sovereignty upon private rights. (Case of U. S. v. Percheman, Cases and Op., 21; Opinion of Bayard, Ib., 22.)

(b) De Facto States.

22. What are de facto States, or Belligerent Communities? (Hall, 31-33; Halleck, I., 68.)

23. Recognition of Belligerency. (Opinion of Dana, Cases and Op., 24; The Lilla, Ib., 27; and see Wheaton (L), 40 note, (D), note 15; Hall, 35-37; Wharton's Digest, I., § 69; Woolsey, § 41.)

24. Have Belligerent Communities any legal right to recognition by Sovereign States ? (Hall, 33-35; Bluntschli, Art. 512, n.)

25. Forms of recognition. (Hall, 37-39; Wheaton (D), 37, n.)

26. Recognition of the Confederate States, 1861. (Hall, 39-42; Woolsey, 180; Bluntschli, in R. D. J., II., 462; Wheaton (D), 37, note.)

27. Succession to the rights of Belligerent Communities. (U. S. v. Prioleau, Cases and Op., 28; U. S. v. McRae, Пb., 32, n.)

28. When a Belligerent Community becomes independent, what are its relations to the contract rights and duties of the parent State, as to (1) Treaty obligations, (2) Property, (3) Debts. (Hall, 94-102; Bluntschli, Arts., 47, 48.)

29. Right of the United States to the British American Fisheries. (Hall, 97-99; Wharton's Digest, III., § 302.)

II. THE TERRITORIAL PROPERTY OF A STATE.
(a). Extent and Nature of Territorial Property.

30. In what does the territorial property of a State consist? (Hall, 104, § 30; Wheaton (D), § 162.)

31. What is the nature of the proprietary title of a State in (1) the land owned by individuals, (2) public lands, (3) navy yards, arsenals, etc., (4) lakes and rivers, (5) the marginal sea. (Halleck, I., 128-131; Bluntschli, Arts. 276277; Wheaton (D), § 164; Hall, 151.)

32. Eminent Domain; "Absolute " and "Paramount" rights in the soil; "Property" and "Domain." (Halleck, I., 128-130;

Wheaton (D), § 163.)

(b). Acquisition of Territory.

33. Modes of acquiring territory. 131; Wheaton (D), § 161.)

(Hall, 31; Halleck, I.,

34. Title to territory based on discovery. (Case of Johnson v. McIntosh, Cases and Op., 6.)

35. Title to territory, based on prior discovery of the coast, of mouths of rivers, upon occupation, exploration, and contiguity. (1) The Oregon Territory, Cases and Op., 9; (2) Delagoa Bay, Ib., 11; (3) Texas, Hall, 111-113.)

36. Inchoate title acquired by discovery. Occupation, to give title, requires (1) intention to occupy, (2) continuous occupation, (3) to be a State act, or one adopted by the State. (Hall, 106-107; Bluntschli, Arts. 278-279: Phillimore, I., 329; Walker, 159, 160.)

37. Abandonment of territory once occupied. Cases and Op., 12; Hall, 118.)

(Santa Lucia,

38. To what extent inland does the discovery of the coast give rights? The discovery of the mouth of a river? (Cases and Op., 12, note; Hall, 108-110, and 108, note 2 ; Walker, 161.)

39. Tendency to change the law of occupation-Berlin Conference, 1885. (Hall, § 33.*)

40. Does prescription give a valid title to territory by the rules of International Law? (Hall, 121-122, § 36; Philli

more, I., 353-368; Wheaton (D), 239, and note 101 (L), 303; Creasey, 249–255.)

41. Acquisition of territory by accretion. (Cases: The Anna, Cases and Op., 393; Opinion of Attorney-General Cushing, Ib., 16; Phillimore, I., 342-345; Hall, 123; Creasey, 241-249; Bluntschli, Arts. 294-295.)

42. Acquisition of territory by conquest or cession. more, I., 369-387; Bluntschli, Arts., 285-286.)

(c) Acquisition of Rights in Foreign Territory.

(Philli

43. Servitudes in International Law. (Phillimore, I., 388-392; Bluntschli, Arts. 353-359; Hall, 157, note 2; Creasey, 255-259.)

44. The navigation of rivers. (Cases: 1. Opinion of Wheaton, Cases and Op., 32; 2. Navigation of the Mississippi, Ib., 33; 3. Navigation of the St. Lawrence, lb., 35; 4. European rivers, Ib., 40; Hall, 131-139 and notes; Bluntschli, Arts. 311-315; Woolsey, 79-83; Halleck, I., 147–152.)

45. Protectorates

$ 38.*)

over semi-civilized peoples. (Hall, 127,

(d) Boundaries.

46. The Political Department of the Government, in the United States, determines what are the boundaries under treaties. (Foster v. Neilson, Cases and Op., 14; in re CooperThe Sayward Case, 143 U. S. Rep., 472.)

47. River boundaries are how determined? (Opinion of Attorney-General Cushing, Cases and Op., 16; Bluntschli, Arts. 298-300.)

48. How are boundaries usually determined in the case of lakes and mountains? (Hall, 125-126; Bluntschli, Arts., 297, 301-303.)

(e). Territorial Waters of a State.

49. The history of attempts to appropriate the seas, or por

tions of them; the contest between mare clausum and mare liberum. (Hall, 139-151, 40; Wheaton's History of the Law of Nations, 152-162; Calvo, I., 471-476; Phillimore, I., 247-256; Creasey, 226-231; Woolsey, $59; Cauchy (Ed., 1862), II., 92-124; Wheaton (D), note No. 113; Walker, 163–171.)

50. The origin of the rule limiting the territorial right of a State in the sea to a marine league from the shore. Terrae dominium finitur ubi finitur armorum vis." (Phillimore, I., 274 et seq.; Hall, 151-153; Wheaton (D), § 189 and note No. 105; Creasey, 233-240; Walker, 171-175; The Case of The Queen v. Keyn, Cases and Op., 55; Woolsey, 68-70; Halleck, I., §§ 13-14; Calvo, I., 477-480; Wharton's Dig., $ 32.)

51. Bays, Gulfs, and Straits, which are more than six miles wide. (1. The Sound Dues, Cases and Op., 41; 2. The Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, Ib., 43; 3. Regina v. Cunningham, Ib., 44; 4. Cable Co. v. Telegraph Co., Ib., 45; 5 Manchester v. Massachusetts, Ib., 47; 6. The Grange, Ib., 47 n., see also: Hall, 153-156; Bluntschli, Art. 309; Perels, 42-46; Woolsey, 76-79; Halleck, I., 139-145; Calvo, I., 480-506; Wharton's Dig., § 28, 29.)

52. Interoceanic Canals-Suez Canal neutralized.

(Calvo, I., 507

516; Boyd's Wheaton, § 205 b. & c. ; T. J. Lawrence, Essays, 37.)

III. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

(a) Doctrine of Exterritoriality-Exception to the Rule of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction.

53. Sovereigns are exempt in their persons and property from the jurisdiction of foreign courts of law. (1. Vavasseur v. Krupp, Cases and Op., 72; 2. De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, Ib., 76; 3 Prioleau v. U. S. and Andrew Johnson, Ib., 77; 4. U. S. v. Wagner, Ib., 79; 5. other cases, Ib., 82, note. And see Hall, 162-167; Phillimore, II., 133-155; Bluntschli, Arts. 129-134.)

54. Diplomatic Agents-Immunities from Criminal Jurisdiction.

(1. Bishop of Ross, Cases and Op., 83; 2. Mendoza, Ib., 85; 3. Da Sa. Ib., 86; 4. Gyllenborg, Ib., 87; 5. Cellamare, Ib., 88. And see Hall, 168-170; Halleck, I., 287 298; Phillimore, II., 199-218.)

55. Diplomatic Agents-Immunities from Civil Jurisdiction. (1. Ambassador of Peter the Great, Cases and Op., 89; 2. Taylor v. Best, Ib., 90; 3. Wheaton's Case, Ib., 94; 4. Baron de Wrech, Ib., 97; 5 Dubois, Ib., 98; 6 Dillon, T., 99; 7. Other cases, Ib., 102, note. See also: Hall, 170-179; Halleck, I., 285-287; Bluntschli, Arts. 135-153; Phillimore, II., 219-240; Wheaton, (D), 299-320, (L), 392416.)

56. Armed Forces and Ships of War in foreign territory are not subject to the local jurisdiction. (1. Exchange v. McFaddon, Cases and Op., 103; 2. The Constitution, Ib., 114 and 115, note. And see: Hall, 182-195; Wheaton (D), § 100 and notes, Nos. 61 and 63; Wharton's Dig., § 36; Halleck I., 176-190; Bluntschli, Art. 321; Phillimore, I., 476-483.)

57. Public ships other than ships of war are not subject to civil process in foreign ports. (The Parlement Belge, Cases and Op., 116 and 120, note; Hall, § 57.)

58. Merchant vessels are not, as a general rule, exempt from the local jurisdiction, in foreign ports. (1. The Newton and the Sally, Cases and Op., 121; 2. The Tempest, Ib., 122; 3. L'Anemone, Ib., 124; 4. Wildenhus, Ib., 126; 5 Ellis v. Mitchell, Ib., 133; 6. The Creole, Ib., 136; 7. Other cases, Ib., 132, note. And see Hall, 198-201; Halleck, I., 190-192; Bluntschli; Phillimore, I., 483-487.)

59. Reasons for the fiction of Exterritoriality-The reasons usually given criticised. (Hall, 196, 197; Wheaton (D), 303, 304, note.)

(b) Right of Asylum.

60. Legations do not, as a rule, grant asylum to political refugees nor to fugitives from justice-Exception, in the case of Spanish American States. (1. Duke of Ripperda, Cases and Op., 139; 2. U. S. v. Jeffers, Ib., 140; 3. Opinion of Secretary Fish, Ib., 142. See also: Hall, 176-179; Bluntschli, Arts. 151, 200, 201.)