in the relations of the United States with Japan. The first intercourse of this Government with the Empire was had, with an authority which held a divided, if not disputed, sovereignty. Later, when all power and legislation was centered in the Emperor, this Government recognized him as the sole exponent of the public will. When parliamentary government was established the changed relation was accepted by the United States. No inquiry was thought proper to ascertain whether these various changes received the sanction of 'the population.' The present Government of the Hawaiian Islands, recognized by Japan and other countries, has been in existence for a series of years, during which time public peace and social order have been maintained, and the country has enjoyed an era of unprecedented prosperity. The Government of the United States sees no reason to question its complete sovereignty, or its right to express the national will." 10

§ 271. Rules of international law.-It was contended by the government of Chile that a sovereign, when occupying a conquered territory, possessed, by the principles of international law, the right to test titles acquired under his predecessor, by applying to them the municipal law of his own government, and not the municipal law of its predecessor, or under which they were vested. Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, in answering this contention, cited the cases holding that the rights acquired under the prior Mexican and Spanish law were "consecrated by the law of nations," and said: "The Government of the United States, therefore, holds that titles derived from a duly constituted prior foreign government to which it has succeeded are 'consecrated by the law of nations' even as against titles claimed under its own subsequent laws. The rights of a resident neutral-having become fixed and vested by the law of the country cannot be denied or injuriously affected by a change in the sovereignty or public control of that country by transfer to another government. His remedies may be affected by the change of sovereignty but his rights at the time of the change must be measured and determined by the law under which he acquired them. . . . . The Government of the United States is therefore prepared to insist

" MS. Notes to Japanese Legation, I, 533, 535; 1 Moore Int. L. D.

on the continued validity of such titles, as held by citizens of the United States, when attacked by foreign governments succeeding that by which they were granted. Title to land and landed improvements is by the law of nations, a continuous right, not subject to be devested by any retroactive legislation of new governments taking the place of that by which such title was lawfully granted. Of course it is not intended here to deny the prerogative of a conqueror to confiscate for political offenses, or to withdraw franchises which by the law of nations can be withdrawn by governments for the time being. Such prerogatives have been conceded by the United States as well as by other members of the family of nations by which international law is constituted. What, however, is here denied is the right of any government to declare titles lawfully granted by its predecessor to be vacated because they could not have been lawfully granted if its own law had, at the time in question, prevailed. This pretension strikes at that principle of historical municipal continuity of governments which is at the basis of international law." 11

§ 272. Samoan and Gilbert Islands.-Mr. Bayard expressed' himself similarly when the operations of Germany in the Samoan Islands were reported. He said that there were islands in the Pacific Ocean known to be wholly in the undisturbed possession of American citizens as peaceable settlers, and others in which American citizens have established themselves in common with other foreigners. While the United States claimed no jurisdictional right by reason of such occupancy, and were not called upon to admit it in the case of like occupancy by others, he stated: "What we think we have a right to expect, and what we are confident will be cheerfully extended as a recognized right, is that interests found to have been created in favor of peaceful American settlers in those distant regions shall not be disturbed by the assertion of exclusive claims of territorial jurisdiction on the part of any power which has never put forth any show of administration therein; that their trade and intercourse shall not in any way be hampered or taxed otherwise than as trade and intercourse of the citizens or subjects of the power asserting such exclusive jurisdiction, and in short, that

"Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, to Mr. Roberts, March 20, 1886, MS.

Inst.

Chile, XVII, 196, 200; 1 Moore Int. L. D. 422.

12

the equality of their tenancy jointly with others or the validity of their tenancy where they may be the sole occupants, shall be admitted according to the established principles of equity and justice. In 1892 Mr. Foster, Secretary of State, wrote to Mr. White, chargé at London, with reference to the extension of a protectorate by Great Britain over the Gilbert Islands, asking him to take an early occasion to make the views expressed by him known to Lord Roseberry. "You will say to him that the government believes that it has a right to expect that the interests of the American citizens established in the Gilbert Islands will be as fully respected and confirmed under her Majesty's protectorate as they could have been had the United States accepted the office of protection not long since solicited by the rulers of those islands. To this Lord Roseberry replied that the rights and interests of American citizens would be fully recognized and respected by the British authorities.13

§ 273. Titles not devested.-Where a grant of land in Florida was binding upon Spain before the acquisition of Florida, it is also binding in the United States.14 The cession of Texas did not devest the title of a citizen of Mexico to lands.15 When New Mexico was acquired, the people retained their private vested rights and all other rights originating in contract or usage and which were not in conflict with the laws of the United States.16 A title is valid which was acquired under a Spanish grant, after the cession of Louisiana to the United States, but before the taking of possession.17 When Texas acquired its independence, alienage alone did not forfeit the title to land in that state.18

12 Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, to Mr. Pendleton, February 27, 1886, MS. Inst. Germany, XVII, 602; 1 Moore Int. L. D. 423. Similar expressions were made by Mr. Bayard in reference to the exereise of a protectorate by Portugal over the entire sea coast of Dahomey. Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, to the Viscount das Nogueiras, Portuguese Minister, March 3, 1886, For. Rel. 1886, 772; and also in reference to the placing of the groups known as Marshall, Brown and Providence under the protection of Germany. Mr.

Bayard, Secretary of State, to Mr.
von Alvensteben, German Minister,
March 4, 1886, For. Rel. 1886, 333.
13 For. Rel. 1892, 237, 239, 246.
14 United States v. Clarke, 16 Pet.
(U. S.) 232, 10 L. ed. 947.

15 Arihart v. Massieu, 98 U. S. 496, 25 L. ed. 215.

16 Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 177, 15 L. ed. 891.

17 Pollard v. Kibbe, 14 Pet. 375, 10 L. ed. 501.

18 Jones v. McMasters, 20 How. (U. S.) 20, 15 L. ed. 810.

The act of Congress confirming a title which existed before the territory was ceded is equivalent in its effect to a conveyance of grant or quitclaim.19

§ 274. Tide lands previously granted. In the United States supreme court the law is well settled that absolute property in and dominion and sovereignty over the land under tide waters in the original states were reserved to the several states. New states admitted into the Union possess the same rights, sovereignty and jurisdiction in relation to the soils under tide waters as belong to the original states within their respective limits.20 When the United States acquired title to territory from Mexico, it acquired title both to tide lands and to upland. But it held the title to the tide lands only in trust for the future states that

might be created out of such territory. This rule, however, has no application to lands previously granted to other parties by the former government, or made subject to trusts requiring some other disposition of such lands. There is no doubt that when California was acquired from Mexico by the United States, under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States was obligated to protect all rights of property in California proceeding from the government of Mexico before the execution of the treaty.21 The eighth article of that treaty contains a stipulation to that effect;22 but even if such provision was absent, the obligations resting upon the United States, in so far as the protection of property right is concerned, would, under the principles of international law, have been the same.23

$275. Grants made by states in case of disputed boundaries.The only government having power to make a valid grant of lands is that state in whose territory the land actually lies, and hence grants of land made by a government in territory over which it exercises political jurisdiction de facto, but to which it rightfully has no claim, are not valid as against the government which has the right to exercise jurisdiction over such territory. In the case of disputed boundaries between two states, the title to the land will depend upon the decision ultimately of which

Knight v. United States Land Assn., 142 U. S. 184, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 258, 35 L. ed. 982; Teschemacher v. Thompson, 18 Cal. 11, 79 Am. Dec. 151; Beard v. Federy, 3 Wall. 478, 18 L. ed. 88; San Francisco v. Le Roy, 138 U. S. 656, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 364, 34 L. ed. 1096.

9 Stats. at Large, 922. Knight v. United States Land Assn., 142 U. S. 184, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 258, 35 L. ed. 982; Soulard v. United States, 4 Pet. 511, 7 L. ed. 938; United States v. Percheman, 7 Pet. 51, 8 L. ed. 604; Strother v. Lucas, 12 Pet. 410, 9 L. ed. 1137; United States v. Repentigny, 5 Wall. 211, 18 L. ed. 627. Title to tide lands in California is in the state, except

where, before cession to the United States by the Mexican government, grants were made by the latter. Coburn v. United States, 75 Fed. 528. And see Tripp v. Spring, 5 Saw. 209, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,180; Coburn v. San Mateo County, 75 Fed. 520; People v. San Francisco, 75 Cal. 388, 17 Pac. 522; Valentine v. Sloss, 103 Cal. 215, 37 Pac. 326; Ward v. Mulford, 32 Cal. 365; Teschemaker v. Thompson, 18 Cal. 11, 79 Am. Dec. 151. See, also, United States v. Chaves, 159 U. S. 457, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 59, 40 L. ed. 218. As to the rights reserved of Indians in parts of territory ceded to the government, see Godfrey v. Beardsley, 2 McLean, 418, Fed. Cas. No. 5497.