"No fair exception to this rule can be perceived, unless expressly provided for by treaty stipulations or the instrument of cession, when the absorbed territory becomes an integral part of the acquiring state, and is altogether merged in it. . . .

...

"Where the federal idea obtains, this is not so. If there is a distinct and independent civilized government, potent and capable within its territorial limits, conducted by a separate executive, not acting as the mere representative by appointment of the distant central administration, I perceive no reason to doubt that such government rather than the central authority should respond, out of its separate assets, to any valid claims upon it, whether accruing in the past, presently accruing, or to accrue in the future.

"There is nothing in the Hawaiian resolution of annexation which gives the negative to this theory. . . . In no respect, save a temporary delay in the process of adjustment, am I able to see that the situation as to Hawaii differs from that just stated, and I am hence of the opinion that the function of the State Department with relation to such foreign claims is to receive them through diplomatic channels, and transmit them to the government of Hawaii for adjustment."

Griggs, At.-Gen., Sept. 20, 1899, 22 Op. 583.

This opinion was given in reply to a letter of the Secretary of State, of Sept. 3, 1899, relating to certain claims against Hawaii, arising prior to annexation, which were afterwards presented to the Department of State as claims against the United States. The letter of the Secretary of State suggested the questions whether the claims were extinguished by the annexation, or whether they had thereby assumed the character of claims against the United States. Both these questions the Attorney-General, as has been seen, answered in the negative. The particular claims referred to were those mentioned in S. Doc. 116, 55 Cong. 3 sess. 111 et seq. See, also, Memorandum, 239 MS. Dom. Let. 109.

The Attorney-General declined to advise that they be referred to the Court of Claims.

As to the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, see United States v. New York, 160 U. S. 598, 615.

Hall finds in the "personality of the state" the "key" to the answer to be given to the question of the relation of a new state to the “contract obligations," property, and privileges of the parent state. With rights acquired and obligations contracted by the old state in a "personal" capacity, the new state has nothing to do. On the other hand, says Hall, "rights possessed in respect of the lost territory, including rights under treaties relating to cessions of territory and demarcations of boundary, obligations contracted with reference to it alone, and property which is within it, and which has therefore a local character, or which, though not within it, belongs to state institutions localized there, transfer themselves to the new state person." Likewise, the new state "is not liable for the general debt of the parent state,” but H. Doc. 551- 22

"it is saddled with local obligations, such as that to regulate the channel of a river, or to levy no more than certain dues along its course; and local debts, whether they be debts contracted for local objects, or debts secured upon local revenues, are binding upon it.

"When part of a state is separated from it by way of cession, the state itself is in the same position with respect to rights, obligations, and property as in the case of acquisition of independence by the separate portion. To a certain extent also the situation of the separated part is identical with that which it would possess in the case of independence. It carries over to the state which it enters the local obligations by which it would under such circumstances have been bound, and the local rights and property which it would have enjoyed. In other respects it is differently placed. In becoming incorporated with the state to which it is ceded it acquires a share in all the rights which the former has as a state person, and it is bound by the parallel obligations.

"When a state ceases to exist by absorption in another state, the latter in the same way is the inheritor of all local rights, obligations, and property."

Hall, Int. Law, 4th ed., 96, 97, 98, 104, 105.

In a note, at page 98, Hall says: "The subject is one upon which writers on international law are generally unsatisfactory. They are incomplete, and they tend to copy one another. Grotius, for example, says that if a state is split up anything which may have been held in common by the parts separating from each other must either be administered in common or be ratably divided;' De Jure Belli ac Pacis, lib. II. c. ix. §10. Kent (Comm. I. 25) does little more than paraphrase this in laying down that 'if a state should be divided in respect to territory, its rights and obligations are not impaired; and if they have not been apportioned by special agreement, those rights are to be enjoyed, and those obligations fulfilled, by all the parts in common.' Phillimore quotes Grotius and Kent, and adds, if a nation be divided into various distinct societies, the obligations which had accrued to the whole, before the division, are, unless they have been the subject of a special agreement, ratably binding upon the different parts.' I. § cxxxvii. It is difficult to be sure whether these writers only contemplate the rare case of a state so splitting up that the original state person is represented by no one of the fractions into which it is divided, or whether they refer also to the more common case of the loss of such portion of the state territory and population by secession that the continuity of the life of the state is not broken. If the former is their meaning, their doctrine is correct so far as property and monetary obligations are concerned; if not, it would be hard to justify their language even to this extent. No doubt the debt of a state from which another separates itself ought generally to be divided between the two proportionately to their respective resources as a matter of justice to the creditors, because it is seldom that the value of their security is not affected by a diminution of the state indebted to them; but the obligation is a moral, not a legal one. . . . The true rule is recognized by Halleck (I. 76), who distinguishes the case of a state which is so split up as to

lose its identity from that of a state which suffers dismemberment without losing its identity. Such a change,' he says, 'no more affects its rights and duties, than a change in its internal organization, or in the person of its rulers. This doctrine applies to debts due to, as well as from, the state, and to its rights of property and treaty obligations, except so far as such obligations may have particular reference to the revolted or dismembered territory or province.'" Again, in a note at page 104, Hall says: "There are one or two instances in which a conquering state has taken over a part of the general debt of the state from which it has seized territory. Thus in 1866 the debt of Denmark was divided between that country and Schleswig-Holstein . . . ; and in the same year Italy, by convention with France, took upon itself so much of the Papal debt as was proportionate to the revenues of the Papal provinces which it had appropriated. Lawrence, Commentaires sur les Elémens &c. de Wheaton, I. 214. . . . Fiore (§ 351 and note) and other writers confuse local with general debt, and elevate into a legal rule the admitted moral propriety of taking over, under treaty, the general debt in the proportion of the value of the territory acquired.”

Rivier, while stating that the simple diminution of territory does not impair the treaty obligations of a state, maintains that obligations of "private law," and in particular the public debt, should follow pro rata regionis the portions detached or ceded. Obligations which rest specially on those portions follow them a fortiori. And if a diminished state was subject to a servitude that concerned only a part of the territory, and that the part which passed to another state, the latter would be bound though the former was freed. Thus portions of foreign territory which are added to the territory of the state, carry all their charges.

Rivier, Principes du Droit des Gens, I. 63–65.

6. ON PUBLIC DEBTS.
§ 97.

The effect of a change of sovereignty on public debts is discussed with discrimination and exceptional fullness in Appleton's Des Effets des Annexions de Territoires sur les Dettes de l'État démembré ou annexé. See, also, Huber's Staaten Succession, in which the effects of a change of sovereignty are comprehensively examined. Various stipulations as to public debts may be found in European treaties relating to the transfer of territory, or to European treaties. other acts involving a change of sovereignty, each case being dealt with for the most part according to the particular conditions on which it depended.

By the Congress of Vienna treaty, June 9, 1815, provision was made for the apportionment of the debts of the former Grand Duchy of Frankfort (Art. XL.), of Poland and the Duchy of Warsaw (Annex II., Arts. XXXI,-XXXVII.), and of Saxony (Annex IV., Art. IX.).

With regard to Saxony, it was provided that “debts specially hypothecated upon provinces which pass or remain, entire, under one government, shall be assumed, entire, by the government to which the provinces belong." As to debts appertaining to divided provinces, or to divided Saxony in general, there was established between the kings of Prussia and Saxony the following principle: "Debts for the payment of the principal or interest of which certain specific revenues have been set apart, are to be distinguished from other debts. The first shall follow the revenues in such a manner that each government shall be liable for the same proportion of the debt as it receives of the revenues. With regard to debts for the payment of which certain revenues have not been set apart, the objects for which they were contracted ought to be an index to the funds on which they should be a charge; that is, the revenues which should be devoted to the payment. of the interest thereon, and the repayment of the capital. Prussia and Saxony will then contribute in the proportion in which they receive such revenues. If, contrary to all expectations, cases shall arise in which it shall be impossible to designate exactly the special funds which ought to be devoted to a debt, it shall be charged upon the totality of the revenues of the province, establishment, institution, or fund, for the benefit of which it may have been contracted; and it shall be a charge upon the two governments in proportion to the part of those revenues which each of them may receive."

By a treaty between France, Great Britain, and Russia, signed July 6, 1827, it was arranged that the Greeks should hold toward Turkey a tributary relation; and by a protocol of Dec. 12, 1828, the amount of the tribute was fixed at an ultimate maximum of 1,500,000 Turkish piastres. (See also protocol of March 22, 1829, Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, I. 771, 801.) By a protocol of Feb. 3, 1830, it declared that Greece should form an independent state, to which the three powers, by another protocol of the 20th of the same month, agreed to insure pecuniary aid, by guaranteeing a loan. The conditions of this loan were fixed by the convention of May 7, 1832, by which it was provided (Art. XIII.) that, in case a pecuniary compensation should result in favor of Turkey from the negotiations which the three powers had opened at Constantinople for the definitive settlement of the limits of Greece, the amount should be defrayed from the proceeds of the loan. By the treaty of July 31, 1832, between France, Great Britain, Russia, and Turkey, for the settlement of the continental limits of Greece, the indemnity to Turkey was fixed at from 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 Turkish piastres, according to the adjustment of the final line.

By the treaty of Zurich, Nov. 10, 1859, between Austria, France, and Sardinia, Sardinia assumed three-fifths of the Monte-LombardoVeneto debt, and a part of the Austrian national loan of 1854; and it

was provided that a commission should be appointed to supervise the division of the debts and assets. It was also stipulated that Sardinia succeeded to "rights and obligations resulting from the contracts regularly stipulated by Austrian administration in respect of all matters of public interests specially concerning the territories ceded” (Art. VIII.); that reimbursement should be made for sums deposited as security (Art. IX.); that various railway concessions should be confirmed (Art. X.); and that pensions, civil and military, inuring to the benefit of persons who should retain their domicil in the ceded territory, should be duly kept up by the new government.

Similar provisions in regard to the apportionment of debts and the preservation of other obligations of the former government may be found in the treaty between Austria, Prussia, and Denmark of Oct. 30, 1864, by which Denmark renounced her rights over the duchies of Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenberg. (See Articles VIII., IX., X., XI., XII., XIV., XV.-XVIII., XIX., and the convention between Austria and Prussia of Aug. 14, 1865).

By the treaty of London of 1864, by which Great Britain renounced her protectorate over the Ionian Islands and consented to their being. reunited to Greece, the King of Greece assumed all engagements legally concluded by the government of the islands, as well as the payment of various pensions and indemnities.

By the treaty of Frankfort of May 10, 1871, no apportionment was made of the national debt of France. On the contrary, France, besides ceding Alsace and Lorraine, agreed to pay an indemnity of 5,000,000,000 francs, or, approximately, $1,000,000,000. But by certain additional articles, signed the same day, the French Government. agreed to use its right to redeem the concession given to the Railway of the East, the German Government agreeing to pay therefor 325,000,000 francs. By an additional convention concluded Dec. 11, 1871, Germany agreed to assume all pensions, civil, military, and ecclesiastical, due to persons who should retain their domicil in the ceded territory; to repay moneys deposited as security; and to recognize and confirm concessions for ways, canals, and mines, as well as contracts for the renting or cultivating of demesnial property.

By the treaty of Berlin of July 13, 1878, Montenegro, Servia, and Roumania were declared to be independent, while Bulgaria became an autonomous and tributary principality. Stipulations were inserted as to the apportionment of the Ottoman debt, and as to the succession to Ottoman rights and obligations. No part of the Ottoman debt, however, was assumed by Russia on account of her acquisitions in Asia. It appears by the seventeenth protocol of the Berlin Congress that the Ottoman representative, on July 10, 1878, moved that Russia should assume that part of the Ottoman public debt which properly fell to the territory annexed by her. Count Schouvaloff replied that he