In entering into the award, each government relied upon the honor of the other, for protection against fraudulent claims, and, hence, when a citizen presented a false claim, he imposed upon his own government, which might, as a matter of duty, when it became aware of the fraud, make reparation as far as it lay in its power so to do. $125. Liberal construction.-The general rule of the construction of treaties is that they shall be liberally construed for the purpose of effectuating the apparent intention of the parties to obtain equality and reciprocity between them, and words are to be taken in their ordinary signification as they are understood in the public law of nations. They are not to be understood in any artificial or special sense that may be placed upon them by local law, unless it is clear that such restricted sense was intended.30 Vattel says: "The reason of the law or of the treaty-that is to say, the motive which led to the making of it, and the object in contemplation at the time-is the most certain clue to lead us to the discovery of its true meaning; and great attention. should be paid to this circumstance, whenever there is question either of explaining an obscure, ambiguous, indeterminate pas such a tribunal must necessarily bear the impress of the entire good faith of the government from which they come, and it is not to be presumed that any government will for a moment allow itself knowingly to be made the instrument of wrong in any such proceeding. No technical rules of pleading as applied in municipal courts ought ever to be allowed to stand in the way of the national power to do what is right under all the circumstances. Every citizen who asks the intervention of his own government against another for the redress of his personal grievances must necessarily subject himself and his claim to these requirements of international comity. None of these eases cited by counsel are in opposition to this. They all relate to the disposition to be made of the pro ceeds of international awards after they have passed beyond the reach of the governments and into the hands of private parties. The language of the opinions must be construed in connection with this fact. The opinion of the Attorney General in Gibbs' Case, 13 Ops. Attys. Gen. 19, related to the authority of the executive officers to submit the claim of Gibbs to the second commission after it had been passed on by the first, without any new treaty between the Governments to that effect, not to the power to make such a treaty." 30 De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 295, 33 L. ed. 642; In re Wyman, 191 Mass. 276, 114 Am. St. Rep. 601, 77 N. E. 379. See, also, United States v. Auguisola, 1 Wall. 352, 17 L. ed. 613. sage in a law or treaty, or of applying it to a particular case. When once we certainly know the reason which alone has determined the will of the person speaking, we ought to interpret and apply his words in a manner suitable to that reason alone; otherwise, he will be made to speak and act contrary to his intention, and in opposition to his own views." 31 If two constructions can be placed upon a treaty, one favorable to rights claimed under it, the other restrictive, preference will be given to the favorable construction.32 § 126. Repugnant clauses.—As a treaty under the Constitution is equivalent to an act of Congress, a treaty repealing a prior act of Congress and an act of Congress repealing a prior treaty when they are in conflict, it follows that the rules of construction applied to two repugnant or inconsistent statutes will prevail. President Woolsey, in his treatise on International Law, lays down the following rules of construction in cases of repugnancy: "That earlier clauses are to be explained by later ones, which were added, it is reasonable to suppose, for the sake of explanation, or which at least express the last mind of the parties. So, also, later treaties explain or abrogate older ones. "Special clauses have the preference over general, and for the most part prohibitory over permissive. "In treaties made with different parties the inquiry in cases of conflict touches the moral obligation as well as the meaning. Here the earlier treaty must evidently stand against the later, and, if possible, must determine its import where the two seem to conflict. "In general, conditional clauses are inoperative, as long as the condition is unfulfilled; and are made null when it becomes im 31 Vattel, bk. II, c. 17, sec. 287. 32 Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483, 25 L. ed. 628. But it is also held that as treaties between nations are generally drafted with great care by men of learning and experience, accustomed to select words that will express precisely and fully the intent of the contracting parties, the construction to be placed upon the treaty should be a reasonable rather than a liberal one, and that there is no authority for reading into a treaty under the guise of construction, extraordinary provisions not necessary to give full effect to the intention expressed. The Neck, 138 Fed. 144. It was the purpose at the time of the signature of the treaty of. 1800 that all causes of difference should for the time being be disposed of. The Tom, 39 Ct. of Cl. 290. possible. Where things promised in a treaty are incompatible, the promisee may choose which he will demand the performance of, but here and elsewhere an act of expediency ought to give way to an act of justice." 33 § 127. Construed as a law.-A treaty is as much a part of the law of the land as the common law or statutes.34 Whatever private rights may exist, they must always be subject to treaties. made between sovereignties. Individuals seeking an indemnity under such circumstances for injuries committed must look to their respective governments.35 The boundary between Virginia and Tennessee which was established between these states, and to which Congress gave consent, will be given effect as the true boundary.3 Grants made by a de facto government of land in its possession, it was held in the state court, were valid as against the state which had the right,37 but on appeal to the supreme court of the United States reversed the decision, holding that the grants were invalid as against the government to which the territory rightfully belonged.38 § 128. Courts cannot question rights recognized by nation.— A treaty made by proper authority becomes the law of the land, and there is no power in the courts to question or in any manner to look into the powers or rights which the nation with whom it was made recognizes;39 nor can courts inquire whether a treaty was procured by undue influence;40 nor whether the person ratifying it on behalf of the foreign nation had authority.41 In case of doubt, the inconveniences that would result from a construction contended for by one party to the treaty may be used as an argument to show that that construction cannot be conformable to the intent of the parties, but a stipulation, though in states. Rhode Island v. Massachu- 38 Coffee v. Groover, 123 U. S. 1, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, 31 L. ed. 51. 30 Marden v. Ingersoll, 6 Mich. 373. 40 Leighton v. United States, 29 Ct. of Cl. 288. Doe v. Braden, 16 How. (U. S.) 635, 14 L. ed. 1090. convenient, must be fulfilled if it be explicit.42 It is not necessary that a person basing his claim upon the provisions of a treaty should make a formal claim of his rights under the treaty, because treaties are a part of the law of every state.43 § 129. Jurisdiction of crime on foreign ship.-When a merchant vessel of one country enters the ports of another for the purposes of trade, it is subject to the laws of such other country, unless the two countries have, by treaty or otherwise, reached some different understanding or agreement.4 44 The owner of the vessel is entitled to protection from the government, and owes such allegiance to it as is due to such protection. But experience has demonstrated that commerce would be benefited if the local government would refrain from interference with the internal discipline of the ship, and the general regulation of the rights and duties of the officers and crew among themselves. If crimes, however, are committed on board of the vessel of such a character that they disturb the peace and tranquility of the country to which the vessel has been brought, the local tribunals have the power to assert their authority, and the offenders cannot, by the principles of comity or usage, claim exemption from the operation of the local laws. While this is the general public law, it has been found convenient for nations having commercial intercourse to enter into treaties and conventions to settle and define the rights and duties of such nations, and thus obviate the embarrassment that would arise from the exercise of different jurisdictions. Under the convention entered into with France in 1788 for the purpose of defining and establishing the functions and privileges of their respective consuls, it was provided that the consuls should exercise police power over the vessels of their respective nations.45 42 Mr. Livingston, Secretary of State, to Baron Lederer, November 5, 1882, MS. Notes to For. Leg., V, 63. 43 Ehrlich v. Weber, 114 Tenn. 711, 88 S. W. 188. "The Exchange, 7 Cranch, 144, 3 L. ed. 296; United States v. Diekelman, 92 U. S. 520, 23 L. ed. 742; 1 Phillmore's International Law, 3d ed., 483, sec. CCCLI; Twiss' Law of Nations in Time of Peace, 229, Two cases arose under this convention, in one of which an assault was committed by one of the crew upon another, and the second was where a severe wound had been inflicted by the mate upon one of the seamen for having made use of the boat without permission.46 § 130. Rule declared by supreme court of United States.-The rule declared by the supreme court of the United States is: "Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on board are to be dealt with exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of the ship, but those which disturb the public peace may be suppressed, and, if need be, the offenders punished by the proper authorities of the local jurisdiction."' 47 The convention between the United States and Belgium, concluded March 9, 1880, contained a clause that consuls "shall have exclusive charge of the internal order of the merchant vessels of their nation, and shall alone take cognizance of all differences which may arise, either at sea or in port, between the captains, officers and crews, without exception, particularly with reference to the adjustment of wages and the execution of contracts. The local authorities shall not interfere except when the disorder that has arisen is of such a nature as to disturb tranquility and public order on shore, or in the port." This provision, it was held, did not deprive the local authorities of jurisdiction of a homicide which had been committed on board of a Belgian vessel moored to the dock in an American port, where the homicide was the consequence of an affray between two Belgians, both of whom belonged to the crew of the vessel, notwithstanding that it occurred below deck and was only seen by other members of the crew.48 "See for an account of these cases, over certain crimes committed on Wheaton's Elements of International Law, 3d ed., 153; 1 Phillmore's International Law, 3d ed., 484. "Mali v. Keeper of the Common Jail, 120 U. S. 1, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 385, 30 L. ed. 565. "Mali v. Keeper of the Common Jail, 120 U. S. 1, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 385, 30 L. ed. 565. State and federal authorities have concurrent jurisdiction board of vessels lying in a domestic port. Ex parte Byers, 32 Fed. 408. Only in cases of peculiar urgency should a person held in custody by state authorities be discharged by a federal judge on habeas corpus in advance of proceedings in state courts to determine the validity of the arrest: Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 242, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 40 L. ed. 412. |