Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

I. SUPREMACY OF TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGN-Continued.

5. Police and other regulations—Continued.

(4) Freedom of speech and of the press. $ 193.

(5) Religious freedom. $ 194.

(6) Learned professions. 8 195.

6. Martial law. $ 196.

Military law.

Martial law.

Cases in the United States.

Protocol with Spain, 1877.

Uprising in Hawaii, 1895.

Case of Waller.

II. TERRITORIAL OPERATION OF Laws.

1. Municipal legislation. $197.

2. Judicial decisions. $198.

3. Questions of international right. $ 199.

III. EXTRATERRITORIAL CRIME.

1. Miscellaneous opinions and cases.

$ 200.

2. Cutting's case.

201.

3. Legislation and judicial decisions. $ 202.

IV. JURISDICTION OVER PORTS.

1. Entrance of foreign vessels. $ 203.

2. Jurisdiction over merchant vessels.

(1) Application of local law. $ 204.

(2) Questions of internal order and discipline. $ 205.

(3) Authority of consuls. $206.

Treaties and legislation.

Treaties: Austria-Hungary, July 11, 1870, Art. XI.

Belgium, March 9, 1880, Art. XI.

Germany, Dec. 11, 1871, Arts. XII., XIII.

Italy, May 8, 1878, Art. XI.

Sweden and Norway, 1827, Art. XIII.

3. Protests against onerous exactions. 8 207.

Fines, taxes, and seizures.

Custody of ship's papers.

4. Involuntary entrance, as ground of exemption. $ 208.

Judicial decisions.

Official opinions.

Cases of Comet and Encomium.

Cases of Enterprise and Hermosa.

Case of the Creole.

Decision in cases of Enterprise, Hermosa, and Creole.

Case of the York.

V. INVIOLABILITY OF TERRITORY.

1. Rule of inviolability. $ 209.

2. Breaches by military and naval authorities. $ 210.

3. Breaches by civil authorities. $ 211.

4. Breaches by private persons. $ 212.

5. Permission for passage of foreign forces. $213.

Circumstances of necessity or convenience.

International exhibitions.

Social occasions.

Questions of control.

6. Landing of forces for protection against violence. $ 214,

V. INVIOLABILITY OF TERRITORY-Continued.
7. Plea of necessary self-defense.

(1) Invasions of west Florida. $ 215.
(2) Amelia Island. $ 216.
(3) Destruction of the Caroline. $ 217.
(4) Bombardment of Greytown. $ 218.

(5) Pursuit of predatory Indians and other marauders. $ 219.

8. State aided and compulsory emigration. $ 220. VI. DUTY TO RESTRAIN INJURIOUS AGENCIES.

1. Repression of criminal or hostile acts. $ 221.
2. Indians and other marauders.

(1) Indians. $ 222.

(2) Other marauders. $ 223.
3. Unneutral acts. 224.
4. Unauthorized, or counterfeit, money. $ 225.

5. Question as to running water. $ 226. VII. LANDING OF SUBMARINE CABLES. $ 227. VIII. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

1. Prevention of the slave trade. $ 228.
2. Restriction of traffic in firearms and liquor. $ 229.
3. Geneva and Hague conventions. $ 230.
4. Rules of navigation. $ 231.
5. Protection of submarine cables. $ 232.

6. Other subjects of cooperation. $ 233. IX. MARRIAGE.

1. an institution. $ 231.
2. Matrimonial capacity. § 235.
3. Solemnization.

(1) Consensual marriages. $236.
(2) Law of place generally governs. $ 237.
(3) Question of extraterritoriality. $ 238.
(4) Limitations of diplomatic privilege. $ 239.
(5) Functions of consuls. $ 240.

(6) Certificates of law. $ 241.
4. Laws of various countries.

(1) Argentine Republic. $242.
(2) Belgium. $243.
(3) France. $ 254.
(4) Germany. $ 245.
(5) Italy: $ 246.
(6) Peru. 247.
(7) Russia. $ 248.
(8) Switzerland. $ 249,

I. SUPREMACY OF TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGN.

1. JURISDICTIOX.

(1) THE NATION'S ABSOLUTE AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT.

$ 175.

“ 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. This consent may be either express or implied."

Marshall, C. J., Schooner Exchange 1. McFaddon (1812), 7 Cranch, 116,

136. Church 1.. Hubbart, 2 Cranch, 187, 234. “ It is a settled principle of international law that a sovereign cannot be

permitted to set up one of his own municipal laws as a bar to a claim
by a foreign sovereign for a wrong done to the latter's subjects."
(Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. King, Oct. 13, 1886, MS. "Inst.

Colombia, XVII. 568.)
From the supremacy of the territorial sovereign is derived the right to

expel aliens and to regulate their immigration, as is hereafter more
fully explained in this work.

A seizure within the waters of the United States, by a British cruiser, of a Spanish vessel alleged to be a slaver, is an invasion of the sovereignty of the United States.

Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Vaughan, Brit. min., Feb. 18, 1828, MS.

Notes For. Leg. III. 430.

“ The jurisdiction of every independent nation over the merchant vessels of other nations lying within its own harbors” being “absolute and exclusive, nothing but its authority can justify a ship of war belonging to another nation in seizing and detaining a vessel thus situated for any cause or pretext whatever."

Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wise, min. to Brazil, Sept. 27, 1815,

MS. Inst. Brazil, XV. 119. This statement related to the action of
Commodore Turner, U. S. S. Raritan, in seizing the American vesse)

Porpoise at Rio de Janeiro on suspicion of her being engaged in the 4

slave trade. It appeared that Commodore Turner in the first instance placed a marine guard on board the vessel, at the instance of the United States consul and with the consent of a Brazilian police officer, until the Brazilian authorities could be apprized of the case, but that he afterwards refused to remove the guard when requested by the local authorities to do so. With reference to this circumstance Mr. Buchanan said: * The moment that these authorities had manifested their desire that the vessel should no longer remain in the custody of the commodore, the guard ought to have been instantly removed. After this decision of the supreme authority, its continuance on board was a violation of the territorial jurisdiction of Brazil."

“ When a foreign territorial jurisdiction has been violated in the seizure of an American vessel (by officers of the United States), and process of the United States courts, it has been decided by our Supreme Court, in affirming the condemnation of a vessel so seized, that the offense thereby committed against the foreign power did not invalidate the proceedings against the vessel. (Ship Richmond, 9 Cranch, 102.)”

Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, letter to Committee of Claims, Mar. 4, 1816,

MS. Report Book, VI. 172. The seizure of an American vessel by an American ship-of-war, within the jurisdiction of a foreign government, for an infringement of our revenue or navigation laws, is a violation of the territorial authority of the foreign government, though this is a mater of which such government alone can complain.

Nelson, At.-Gen. (1813), 4 Op. 285. “ Nations are bound to maintain respectable tribunals, to which the subjects of states at peace may have recourse for the redress of injuries and the maintenance of their rights. If the character of these tribunals be respectable, impartial, and independent, their decisions are to be regarded as conclusive. The United States have carried the principle of acquiesence, in such cases, as far as any nation upon earth, and in respect to the decisions of Spanish tribunals quite as frequently, perhaps, as in respect to the tribunals of any other nation. In almost innumerable cases reclamations sought by citizens of the United States against Spain for alleged captures, seizures, and other wrongs committed by Spanish subjects, the answer has been, that the question has been fairly tried before an impartial Spanish tribunal, having competent jurisdiction, and decided against the claimant; and in the sufficiency of this answer the Government of the United States has acquiesced. If the tribunal be competent, if it be free from unjust influence, if it be impartial and independent, and if it have heard the case fully and fairly, its judgment is to stand as decisive of the matter before it. This principle governs in regard to the decisions of courts of common law, courts of equity, and especially courts

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »