1101. United States v. Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690, 704-706; Gutierres v. Albuquerque Land and Irrigation Co., 188 U. S. 545, 553. So it is unnecessary to consider how far, if at all, the defendants represent an appropriation of the water before the patent was granted. For that reason we have not set forth the details found by the court below as to the dams, ditches and use of water, going back to 1877.

But, perhaps, the main contention of the plaintiff is based on the legislation of the Territory, and especially on the Howell Code of 1864, c. 61, § 7, as follows: "The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to, or inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or the bill of rights or laws of this Territory, is hereby adopted, and shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of this Territory." We assume that this section, however it may affect the case at bar, was within the power of the legislature to enact. United States v. Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690, 702, 703; Gutierres v. Albuquerque Land and Irrigation Co., 188 U. S. 545, 553. Act of June 17, 1902, c. 1093, § 8. 32 Stat. 388, 390. But we agree with the territorial court that, construed with the rest of the code, it is far from meaning that patentees of a ranch on the San Pedro are to have the same rights as owners of an estate on the Thames.

In the first place, this is merely the adoption of a general system as against another general system (the Spanish Mexican), that had been in force and that was repealed by § 1. If there were nothing more in the code, it would be going a great way to say that such a broad phrase forbade the courts to hold that the common law was adaptible and established the English rule of riparian rights only for English conditions, as suggested by Nave, J., below. It might be argued, with force, that an amendment, inserting the words "So far only as is consistent with and adapted to the natural and physical condition of the Territory, and the necessities of the people thereof," merely expressed what was implied before. Rev. Stats. 1887, § 2935. And the like might be urged with regard to § 3198 of the Re

vised Statutes of 1887, which, in terms, enacted or declared that "the common law doctrine of riparian water rights" should not obtain. But we are not left to rely upon reasonable implications and argument, for other parts of the original code are express upon the point. Therefore we need not consider whether, in any event, the statute could be supposed to confer property rights not previously possessed and not subject to legislative change. Compare Wisconsin & Michigan Ry. Co. v. Powers, 191 U. S. 379, 387, and Damon v. Hawaii, 194 U. S. 154, 160.

By the statutory bill of rights, Art. 22, all streams capable of being used for the purposes of irrigation are declared to be public property, and no one shall have the right to appropriate them exclusively, except under such equitable regulations as the legislature shall provide. And then chapter 55 “Of Acequias or Irrigating Canals," after again declaring streams of running water public, § 1, enacts that "All the inhabitants of this Territory who own or possess arable and irrigable lands, shall have the right to construct public or private acequias, and obtain the necessary water for the same from any convenient river, creek or stream of running water." §3. By § 4, when such acequias run through the lands of private persons not benefited, the damages are to be assessed by the probate judge in a summary manner, on application of the party interested. §4. Preference is given to irrigation over other uses. § 5. By § 7 the exclusive right to the water is given to the persons taking out a ditch for agricultural purposes, and a right to damages if the water afterwards is taken for mining. By § 17 precedence is given in time of scarcity to the oldest titles, and by § 25 “The regulation of acequias, which have been worked according to the laws and customs of Sonora and the usages of the people of Arizona, shall remain as they were made and used up to this day," and the chapter is to be enforced from the day of publication. There are many more details, but we have recited enough to show that the interpretation given by the court below to the general adoption of the common law by the Howell Code, and

the qualifications imposed upon it, were correct. They simply follow what has been understood to be the law for many years. Clough v. Wing, 2 Arizona, 371.

The right to use water is not confined to riparian proprietors. Gutierres v. Albuquerque Land and Irrigation Co., 188 U. S. 545, 556; Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colorado, 443, 449, 450; Willey v. Decker, 73 Pac. Rep. 210, 220. Such a limitation. would substitute accident for a rule based upon economic considerations, and an effort, adequate or not, to get the greatest use from all available land. Whether there are any limits of distance is a question not arising in this case.

A final objection urged is that the plaintiff's land is taken without compensation. It would seem that this is merely technical in this case. There does not appear to have been any discussion of the point below, and it is probable that the water is the only thing that has substantial value or really is cared for. But the plaintiff is authorized to have his damages assessed if he desires by ch. 55, § 4 (now Rev. Stat., § 3202), as we have mentioned. We think that it would be unjust to disturb the decree on this ground, although in other circumstances the objection might be grave.

Decree affirmed.

AMERICAN BANANA COMPANY v. UNITED FRUIT

COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND

CIRCUIT.

No. 686. Argued April 12, 13, 1909.-Decided April 26, 1909.

While a country may treat some relations between its own citizens as governed by its own law in regions subject to no sovereign, like the high seas, or to no law recognized as adequate, the general rule is that the character of an act as lawful or unlawful must be determined wholly by the law of the country where it is done.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

213 U.S.

Law is a statement of the circumstances in which the public force will be brought to bear upon men through the courts; but the word commonly is confined to such prophecies or threats when addressed to persons living within the power of the courts.

A statute will, as a general rule, be construed as intended to be confined in its operation and effect to the territorial limits within the jurisdiction of the lawmaker, and words of universal scope will be construed as meaning only those subject to the legislation.

The prohibitions of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209, do not extend to acts done in foreign countries even though done by citizens of the United States and injuriously affecting other citizens of the United States.

Sovereignty means that the decree of the sovereign makes law; and foreign courts cannot condemn the influences persuading the sovereign to make the decree. Rafael v. Verelst, 2 Wm. Bl. 983, 1055, distinguished.

Acts of soldiers and officials of a foreign government must be taken to have been done by its order.

A conspiracy in this country to do acts in another jurisdiction does not draw to itself those acts and make them unlawful if they are permitted by the local law.

166 Fed. Rep. 261, affirmed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Everett P. Wheeler, with whom Mr. Horace E. Deming was on the brief, for plaintiff in error:

The Circuit Court should have taken jurisdiction of this action. Section 7 of the Sherman Act expressly provides for the bringing of suits like the present one, "in any Circuit Court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found." See also § 2, Art. VI, Const. U. S. The suit at bar is a civil suit, arising under the laws of the United States and a treaty made under its authority. It is brought to recover for injuries done by defendant, and declared unlawful by the Sherman Act. The Circuit Court is a court of the United States and is bound to administer the jurisdiction conferred upon it.

No considerations of public policy or comity forbid the courts of the United States to exercise jurisdiction and decide this controversy on the merits.

213 U.S.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

The acts complained of were done in violation of an express statute of the United States. Costa Rica cannot give immunity to defendant for this offense, nor can exceptions be read into the Sherman Act not expressed in the act itself. United States v. Union Pacific, 91 U. S. 72, 91; French v. Spencer, 21 How. 238; Demarest v. Wynkoop, 3 Johns. Ch. 129, 142; S. P. Chamberlain v. The Western Transportation Co., 44 N. Y. 305, 309; Bank of Republic v. City of St. Joseph, 21 Blatch. 436, 439.

Whatever value the principles of comity may have, they cannot be extended so far as to cloak a violation of the laws of the nation whose comity is appealed to. The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283, 354; The Bello Corrunes, 6 Wheat. 152, 169; The Marianna Flora, 11 Wheat. 1; The Merino, 9 Wheat. 391, 405; La Jeune Eugenie, 2 Mason, 409; Underhill v. Hernandez, 65 Fed. Rep. 577, affirmed 168 U. S. 250, discussed as not being in point. See also People v. McLeod, 25 Wend. 483.

The courts of this country can consider and collaterally pass upon the legality of acts of a foreign nation, in a suit between its own citizens. Vasse v. Ball, 2 Dall. 270, 275; 3 Kent's Comm. 303, 304; The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283, 351, 354; The Estrella, 4 Wheat. 298; Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul &c. R. Co., 151 U. S. 119.

The extent of the rule is that a court cannot sit in judgment on the act of a foreign power where that act is directly drawn in question in a suit directly against such foreign power, or against an officer acting within its territory under its commands. Nabob of Arcot v. East India Co., 4 Brown Ch. 131 (180); The Duke of Brunswick v. The King of Hanover, 6 Beav. 1 (affirmed 2 H. of L. 1); Hatch v. Baez, 7 Hun, 596; Rafael v. Verelst, 2 Wm. Blackstone, 1055.

The supposed government authority under which the act is done is in itself invalid. The Costa Rican officers, in destroying plaintiffs' property and business, were acting outside the territory of Costa Rica, and were making an usurping inroad on the territory of an adjoining friendly power. 1 Kent's Comm. 120. In considering the defense that an act was done under authority