cisions bearing upon the application of the rules respectively, which were collated by him. IV. Where a treaty cannot be executed without the aid of an act of Congress, it is the duty of Congress to enact such laws. Congress has never failed to perform that duty. (Citing 6 Op. Att'y Gen'l 296, and cases cited, CUSHING.) See also chap. X, vol. I. V. But when it can be executed without legislation, the courts will enforce its provisions. (Citing Foster vs. Neilson, 2 Peters, 314; U. S. vs. Arredondo, 6 Peters, 735.) See also § 364, p. 66, et seq., ante. VI. Where a treaty is executed in two languages, each the language of the respective contracting parties, each part of the treaty is an original, and it must be assumed that each is intended to convey the same meaning as the other. (Citing U. S. vs. Arredondo, 6 Peters, 710.) VII. Treaties do not generally ipso facto become extinguished by war. Vested rights of property will not become divested in such cases. (Citing Society for Propogation of Gospel vs. Town of New Haven, 8 Wheaton, 464; Carneal vs. Banks, 10 Wheaton 182.) See also § 384, p. 129, ante. VIII. The constitution of the United States confers absolutely on the government of the United States the power of making war and of making treaties, from which it follows that that government possesses the power of acquiring territory either by conquest or by treaty. (Citing Am. Ins. Co. vs. 366 Bales of Cotton (Canter), 1 Peters, 542.) See also chap. II, vol. I. IX. Such acquisition does not impair the rights of private property in the territory acquired. (Citing U. S. vs. Morano, 1 Wallace, 400.) See also chap. XIII, post. X. A treaty of cession is a deed of the ceded territory by the Sovereign grantor, and the deed is to receive an equitable construction. The obligation of the new power to protect the inhabitants in the enjoyment of their property is but the assertion of a principle of natural justice. (Citing U. S. vs. Arredondo, 6 Peters, 710; Soulard vs. U. S., 4 Peters, 511; Delassus vs. U. S., 9 Peters, 117; Mitchell vs. U. S., Ib. 711; Smith vs. U. S., 10 Peters, 326. [U.S. vs. Percheman, 7 Peters, 86; Id. vs. Kingsley, 12 Id. 476; Id. vs. Auguisola, 1 Wallace, 352. Under the term "property" in this connection may be placed every species of title, legal or equitable, and rights which lie in contract, executory as well as executed. Bryan vs. Kennett, 113 U. S. 179. It has been held that upon a conquest of territory, those of the inhabitants who adhere to their old allegiance and continue in the service of the vanquished sovereign, forfeit the right to be protected in their property, except so far as it may be secured by treaty. U. S. vs. Repentigny, 5 Wallace, 211.]) See also chap. XII, post. XI. In an opinion on the legislation to carry into effect the Treaty of 1819 with Spain, Attorney-General Crittenden held that "An act of Congress is as much a supreme law of the land as a Treaty. They are placed on the same footing, and no superiority is to be given to the one over the other. The last expression of the law-giving power must prevail; and a subsequent act must prevail and have effect, though incon + sistent with a prior act; so must an act of Congress have effect, though inconsistent with a prior treaty." (5 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 345, Crittenden; but see Opinions of Justice CHASE, 3 Dallas, 236, and of MARSHAL, Ch. J., 1 Cranch, 109, each pronouncing the opinions of the Supreme Court.) See also § 378, pp. 84, et seq., ante. XII. Interest, according to the usage of nations, is a necessary part of a just national indemnification. (1 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 28 Wirt; 5 Op. Att'y Gen'l 350, Crittenden; Geneva Award, 4 Papers relating to Tr. of Wash. 53.) See also § 444, post. CONSTRUCTION OF FAVORED NATION CLAUSES: RECIPROCITY TREATIES. The construction of the treaty stipulations known as "favored nation" and "equal duty" clauses has to some extent been discussed in the sections of this chapter devoted to treaty and tariff cases (see $$ 365, et seq., pp. 67, et seq., ante). The effect of these clauses are more often the subject of diplomatic correspondence than of judicial inquiry, as the courts cannot extend by judicial decision the operation of a treaty against the construction placed thereon by the political departments (see cases collated under § 460, pp. 353, et seq., post). Mr. JOSEPH ROGERS HEROD, M. A., formerly Secretary of Legation and Chargé d'Affaires of the United States to Japan has published during the current year (Banks Law Publishing Co., New York, November, 1901) a valuable and interesting treatise on: Favored Nation Treatment, an analysis of the Most Favored Nation Clause, with Commentaries on its uses in Treaties of Commerce and Navigation. Mr. Herod analyzes and treats the subject as follows: 1. The favor granted to, 2, Citizens, subjects or inhabitants, in matters of, 3, commerce, and 4, navigation. He cites many authorities on international and constitutional law bearing upon the subject, as well as a great deal of diplomatic correspondence. The subject of reciprocity in tariff exactions is exciting considerable discussion at the present time. There are a number of treaties providing for reductions in duties which have been negotiated with France, Great Britain and other countries, but which have not yet been ratified by the Senate. The effect of favored nation clauses was recently discussed, in an able and comprehensive manner, by Hon. John A. Kasson, formerly Special Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, in an address before the Illinois Manufacturers' Association in Chicago, October 14, 1901, which has been printed at the Government Printing Office in pamphlet form entitled: Reciprocity. The benefits which will accrue to this Country by the Confirmation of the Treaties now Pending in the United States Senate. 148 CHAPTER XIII. TREATIES OF CESSION INVOLVING CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE CEDED TERRITORY AND THE EFFECT THEREOF ON LAWS, PERSONS AND PROPERTY. SECTION 392-Treatment of subject neces sarily brief and superficial; 393-Methods of acquisition of war. 394-Extent of power and property which passes to the new sovereign by treaties of cession. 395-The effect on inhabitants of ceded territory; subdivisions of subject in this chapter. 395a-The effect on local laws of the ceded territory. 3956-The effect on the allegiance of the inhabitants and their personal and political rights. SECTION 395c-The effect on property rights and on title to land. 396-Necessity for legislation to make treaties of cession 397-Necessity for compliance protection of property 400-Change of sovereignty discussed in this chapter only when to, and not from, the United States. § 392. Treatment of subject necessarily brief and superficial; wide scope of "change of sovereignty." The power of the United States to acquire and govern territory was discussed, and the authorities bearing thereon were collated, in a former chapter,1 and it is not necessary to repeat the conclusions then reached, or the historical data there referred to. The only branch of the subject, however, which was then considered was the power of the Central Government to acquire territory, and the extent to which Congress was limited by the Constitution in governing, or making § 392. Cases, pp. 117, et seq.; see also list 1 Chap. III, vol. I, and see espec- of acquisitions, note to § 44, on ially sections devoted to Insular | pp. 79, et seq., vol. I. rules and regulations therefor; it will be proper, therefore, at this point to consider the effect of the treaties of cession, by which the boundaries of the United States have been extended, upon the laws of the ceded territory, the civil and political rights of the inhabitants thereof, and the title to property situated therein. It will be impossible to cover all of these subjects in a single chapter; in fact little can be done beyond briefly summarizing some of the most important principles involved, and referring to a few of the leading authorities bearing thereon. The subject is composed of so many elements, and is so far-reaching in its effects, that if it were attempted to discuss it in a more than superficial manner this chapter would have to be expanded to the size of the volume itself in order to exhaust the general subject of change of sovereignty, and its effects on laws, persons and property. In the succeeding sections of this chapter a number of cases will be cited which involve questions relating to change of sovereignty. While an effort will be made to classify them under appropriate sections with as little unnecessary repetition as follows, complete success in that respect will be impossible as many of the cases cited are applicable to points covered by more than one of the subdivisions into which the subject has been divided. This applies particularly to cases involving grants of land which were made prior to the cession, the validity of whereof has depended upon the construction of laws of the former sovereign as well as those of the new one. $393. Methods of acquisition of territory; cessions during peace and at end of war.-The different methods by which territory can be acquired were stated in a previous section. There are other methods of acquisition than by treaty, but that is the only method which is the subject of 2 For a list of treaties by which the United States has acquired territory, with references to the editions of treaties in which they may be found see § 44 n., pp. 79, et seq., vol. I. See also TREATIES APPENDIX at end of this volume. 393. 1 See § 44, p. 78, et seq., vol. I. 2 Territory has been acquired by the United States on occasions by reciprocal legislation and not by treaty: In 1845 when the Republic of Texas was admitted as a state this chapter. The treaty may be negotiated during a time of peace or at the end of a war. The after effects on the inhabitants of the ceded territory are practically the same in either case. Treaties of peace are, as the Supreme Court has said on more than one occasion, often treaties of cession; wars are seldom terminated without altering the boundary lines of the belligerents, either by the defeated power recognizing the sovereignty of the victorious power over disputed territory, or by actually ceding to the victor territory, which, prior to the war, was a part of its domain. Cession of, or relinquishment of sovereignty over, territory, may be exacted by the victor as indemnity or for governmental purposes.3 The ownership of conquered territory may be asserted by the right of conquest by the power in military occupancy, and no treaty is absolutely necessary, but, as a general rule, the modern usage is to have the cession incorporated in the treaty of peace, so as to quiet all questions of sovereignty thereafter. by the joint action of the Congress | came territory of the United States, of the United States, and by the and the former government ceased acceptance of the terms stated to exist as an independent power. in the Resolution of March 1, In all other cases the other power 1845, 5 U. S. Stat. at L. p. 797, by ceded only a portion of its territory the Congress of the Republic of to the United States, and its existTexas. See Resolution of Congress ence as a sovereign power exercisadmitting Texas December 29, 1845, ing jurisdiction over other terri9 U. S. Stat. at L. p. 108. Also in tory was not affected in any manner 1898, when the Hawaiian Islands by the cession. were annexed as territory of the 3 After the war with Spain in United States by a Congressional 1898, Spain ceded Porto Rico, Guam resolution, July 7, 1898, 30 U. S. and the Philippine Archipelago to Stat. at L. p. 750, and the accept the United States for which the ance of the terms thereof by the United States relieved Spain from Hawaiian Republic. In both of all claims for indemnity national these instances treaties had been and individual on the part of the concluded for the purposes accom- United States, and paid $20,000,000, plished by legislation but had and gave certain commercial privifailed of ratification. These two leges in the Philippine Islands. instances, however, differ from all Spain also relinquished sovereignty other acquisitions of territory of over Cuba and withdrew therefrom. the United States in one very im- 4 Title by conquest and title by portant respect, viz: the entire prescription are discussed in Wheatterritory of the other power be-on (8th ed.), § 164, et seq., p. 239, et |