said, March 17, 1899: American control of Cuba is essentially, and merely, that of a temporary military occupant. Our obligations, therefore, are those which arise from that fact. Benefits to the island and obligations local to the island, so far as becoming obligations of the United States, would seem from their very nature obligations of the island or its people, and not of a military occupant entering for a single and temporary purpose. Our Government is arranging the succession. merely an intervening power Opinions of the Attorney-General, XXII, 385. For general discussions of the principle of state succession see Borchard, sec. 83; Huber, Die Staatensuccession; Appleton, Des Effets des Annexions de Territories sur les Dettes de l'Etat démembré ou annexé; Westlake, I, 74; Keith, The Theory of State Succession; Sir H. Erle Richards, "The Liabilities of a Conqueror," Law Magazine and Review, XXVIII, 129; Cobbett, Cases and Opinions I, 73; Bonfils (Fauchille), sec. 214. As to the Fijian debt, see Moore, Digest, I, 347. As to the Cuban debt and the argument for and against its assumption, see Moore, Digest, I, 351. As to the debts of Hawaii, see 22 Opinions of the Attorney-General, 584. For the effect of a transfer of jurisdiction on treaties, see Crandall, 425; Moore, Digest, V, 341. As to the effect of the annexation of Algiers by France on treaties between Algiers and the United States, see Mahoney v. United States (1869), 10 Wallace, 62. When a man was arrested in the United States and held for extradition to Great Britain for an offense committed in the South African Republic before its annexation by Great Britain, it was held the treaty of extradition between Great Britain and the United States could not apply to offenses committed in places which were not under British jurisdiction at the time of their commission, and as there had been no extradition treaty between the United States and the South African Republic, the prisoner was released, In re Taylor (1902), 118 Fed. 196. For various questions arising out of the conquest of the Boer republics by Great Britain, see Keith, "Colonial Cases Relating to the Succession of States," Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht und Bundesstaatsrecht, III, 618. On the question as to whether a state is bound to recognize the contracts and concessions made by its predecessor in title, see Gidel, Des Effets de l'Annexion sur les Concessions; Sayre, "Change of Sovereignty and Concessions," Am. Jour. Int. Law, XII, 705; Republic of Peru v. Peruvian Guano Co. (1887), 36 Ch. D. 489; Report of the Transvaal Concession Commission, Blue Book, South Africa, June, 1901, parts of which are given in Moore, Digest, I, 411. As to Spanish concessions in Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines, see Magoon, Reports, and the opinions of Attorney-General Griggs in 22 Opinions of the Attorney-General, 384, 408, 520, 546, 551, 654, and 23 Ib. 181, 195, 425, 451. Some of these may also be found in Moore, Digest, I, 390 seq. As to the effect of the extinction of a state upon corporations formed under its laws, see Pennant, "The International Status of Modern Corporations,” Law Magazine and Review, XXVIII, 161. CHAPTER V. JURISDICTION. SECTION 1. THE TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE. CHAE CHAN PING v. UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 1889. [The appellant, a subject of the Emperor of China, had resided in the United States from 1875 to 1887, when he went to China, having in his possession a certificate which under the treaties and statutes then in force entitled him to return to the United States. Upon his arrival in San Francisco in 1888, the Collector of the Port refused to allow him to land on the ground. that his certificate had been annulled by the act of Congress of October 1, 1888. The appellant argued that the act was invalid (1) because it contravened the provisions of the treaty between the United States and China and (2) because it violated rights vested in citizens of China by earlier statutes. Only so much of the opinion as relates to the second point is here given.] MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court. There being nothing in the treaties between China and the United States to impair the validity of the act of Congress of October 1, 1888, was it on any other ground beyond the competency of Congress to pass it? If so, it must be because it was not within the power of Congress to prohibit Chinese laborers who had at the time departed from the United States, or should subsequently depart, from returning to the United States. Those laborers are not citizens of the United States; they are aliens. That the government of the United States through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power. As said by this court in the case of The Exchange, 7 Cranch, 116, 136, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall: "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories, must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source." While under our Constitution and form of government the great mass of local matters is controlled by local authorities, the United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory. The powers to declare war, make treaties, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, regulate foreign commerce, secure republican governments to the States, and admit subjects of other nations to citizenship, are all sovereign powers, restricted in their exercise only by the Constitution itself and considerations of public policy and justice which control, more or less, the conduct of all civilized nations. As said by this court in the case of Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 413, speaking by the same great Chief Justice: "That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the government of the Union. It is their government, and in that character they have no other. America has chosen to be in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes her government is complete; to all these objects, it is competent. The people have declared, that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can then in effecting these objects legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory. The constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void. These States are constituent parts of the United States. They are members of one great empire-for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate." The same view is expressed in a different form by Mr. Justice Bradley, in Knox v. Lee, 12 Wall. 457, 555, where he observes that "the United States is not only a government, but it is a national government, and the only government in this country that has the character of nationality. It is invested with power over all the foreign relations of the country, war, peace and negotiations and intercourse with other nations; all of which are forbidden to the state governments. The control of local matters being left to local authorities, and national matters being entrusted to the government of the Union, the problem of free institutions existing over a widely extended country, having different climates and varied interests, has been happily solved. For local interests the several States of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power. To preserve its independence, and give security against foreign aggression and encroachment, is the highest duty of every nation, and to attain these ends nearly all other considerations are to be subordinated. It matters not in what form such aggression and encroachment come, whether from the foreign nation acting in its national character or from vast hordes of its people crowding in upon us. The government possessing the powers which are to be exercised for protection and security, is clothed with authority to determine the occasion on which the powers shall be called forth; and its determination, so far as the subjects affected are concerned, are necessarily conclusive upon all its departments and officers. If, therefore, the government of the United States, through its legislative department, considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are subjects. The existence of war would render the necessity of the proceeding only more obvious and pressing. The same necessity, in a less pressing degree, may arise when war does not exist, and the same authority which adjudges the necessity in one case must also determine it in the other. In both cases its determination is conclusive upon the judiciary. If the government of the country of which the foreigners excluded are subjects is dissatisfied with this action it can make complaint to the executive head of our government, or resort to any other measure which, in its judgment, its interests or dignity may demand; and there lies its only remedy. The power of the government to exclude foreigners from the country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such exclusion, has been asserted in repeated instances, and never denied by the executive or legislative departments. In a dispatch to Mr. Fay, our minister to Switzerland, in March, 1856, Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State under President Pierce, writes: "Every society possesses the undoubted right to determine who shall compose its members, and it is exercised by all nations, both in peace and war. "It may always be questionable whether a resort to this power is warranted by the circumstances, or what department of the government is empowered to exert it; but there can be no doubt that it is possessed by all nations, and that each may decide for itself when the occasion arises demanding its exercise." In a communication in September, 1869, to Mr. Washburne, òur minister to France, Mr. Fish, Secretary of State under President Grant, uses this language: "The control of the people within its limits, and the right to expel from its territory persons who are dangerous to the peace of the State, are too clearly within the essential attributes of sovereignty to be seriously contested. Strangers visiting or sojourning in a foreign country voluntarily submit themselves to its laws and customs, and the municipal laws of France, authorizing the expulsion of strangers, are not of such recent date, nor has the exercise of the power by the government of France been so infrequent, that sojourners within her territory can claim surprise when the power is put in force." In a commnuication to Mr. Foster, our minister to Mexico, in July, 1879, Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State under President Hayes, referring to the power vested in the constitution of Mexico to expel objectionable foreigners, says: "The admission that, as that constitution now stands and is interpreted, foreigners who render themselves harmful or objectionable to the general government must expect to be liable to the |