boundary line designated in the treaty of 1819 became the line between the United States and Mexico."

Harlan, J., delivering the opinion of the court, United States v. Texas (1892), 143 U. S. 621, 633. The statement as to the date of Mexican independence was merely made in the course of a recital of facts and did not affect the merits of the case.

2. ON PUBLIC LAW.

§ 93.

"Those laws of the former Government which have for their object a certain governmental public policy, of which character are laws for the disposition of the public domain and the granting of quasi-public franchises, rights and privileges to private individuals or corporations, ceased to have any force or effect after the sovereignty of the former Government ceased."

Harcourt. Gailliard, 12 Wheat. 523, cited by Griggs, At.-Gen., Sept. 9, 1899,
22 Op. 574, 577; Nov. 21, 1899, 22 Op. 627, 631.

"In case of an uninhabited country newly found out by English subjects,
all laws in force in England are in force there; so it seemed to be agreed.
.. They held that in the case of an infidel country their laws by
conquest do not entirely cease, but only such as are against the laws of
God; and that in such cases where the laws are rejected or silent, the con-
quered country shall be governed according to the rule of national
equity." (Blankard v. Galdy (1693), 2 Salkeld, 411.)
"Where Englishmen establish themselves in an uninhabited or barbarous
country, they carry with them not only the laws but the sovereignty
of their own state; and those who live amongst them and become mem-
bers of their community become also partakers of and subject to the same
laws." (Advocate-General v. Ranee Surnomoyee Dossee (1863), 2 Moore
P. C. 22.)

The term "municipal legislation" embraces only such laws as relate to the internal affairs of the country and the relation of the people to one another.

Griggs, At.-Gen., Nov. 21, 1899, 22 Op. 627, 631, citing Davis v. Police Jury of
Concordia, 9 How. 280-289.

See, also, Richards, Acting At.-Gen., Oct. 21, 1898, 22 Op. 249.

While the United States, by the cession of Louisiana, succeeded to the sovereign rights of France and Spain in that province, this succession did not authorize the Government to exercise prerogatives inconsistent with the Constitution.

New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662.

The doctrine "that Congress in legislating for territory outside the boundaries of the several States of the Union is not bound by the limitations imposed by the Constitution," is maintained by Mr. Magoon, law officer, Division of Insular Affairs, War Department, Magoon's Reports, 37-120, 121-173.

It is true that in a treaty for the cession of territory, its national character continues for all commercial purposes, but full sovereignty for the exercise of it does not pass to the nation to which it is transferred until actual delivery. But it is also true that the exercise of sovereignty by the ceding country ceases, except for strictly municipal purposes, especially for granting lands. And for the same reason in both cases, because after the treaty is made there is not in either the union of possession and the right to the territory which must concur to give plenum dominium et utile. To give that there must be the jus in rem and the jus in re, or what is called in the common law of England the juris et seisinae conjunctio.

Davis . Concordia, 9 Howard, 280.

Conditions which are attached to a grant by a prior sovereign, and which are inconsistent with the policy of the United States, will not be enforced by the United States after the conquest of the territory containing the land granted.

United States . Vaca, 18 Howard, 556.

The 6th article of the treaty contains the following provision: The inhabitants of the territories which His Catholic Majesty cedes to the United States by this treaty shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States.' This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States. It is unnecessary to inquire whether this is not their condition, independent of stipulation. They do not, however, participate in political power; they do not share in the Government till Florida shall become a State."

Marshall, C. J., Am. Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 542, on the treaty between the United States and Spain of Feb. 22, 1819.

A nation acquiring territory, by treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject to the constitution and laws of its own government, and not according to those of the government ceding it.

It can not be admitted that the King of Spain could, by treaty or otherwise, impart to the United States any of his royal prerogatives; and much less can it be admitted that they have capacity to receive or power to exercise them. Every nation acquiring territory, by treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject to the laws of its own government, and not according to those of the government ceding it.

The rights and powers of sovereignty of a nation over its territory cease on the transfer of that sovereignty to another government by a cession of the territory. The power to preserve peace and order may remain in the officers previously appointed by the ceding state until the actual presence of the agents of the succeeding government, but this does not imply that sovereign power remains in the former nation. United States. Reynes, 9 Howard, 127; Davis v. Concordia, id. 280; United States v. D'Auterive, 10 Howard, 609; Montault v. United States, 12 id. 47. The War Department, by a circular of Feb. 11, 1899, authorized persons holding the office of notary public in territory subject to military government by the military forces of the United States to continue to hold that office and perform its functions. (Mr. Adee, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Rooker, Feb. 24, 1899, 235 MS. Dom. Let. 131.)

By the joint resolution of July 7, 1898, for the annexation of Hawaii, all the civil, judicial, and military powers exercised by the officers of the existing Government of the islands were vested in such persons as the President should appoint, till Congress should provide a government for the islands. See, as to Porto Rico, the act of May 1, 1900.

The authority and jurisdiction of Mexican officials in California are to be regarded as having ceased on the 7th of July, 1846, the political department of the Government of the United States having designated that as the day when the conquest of California was completed and the Mexican officials displaced.

United States . Yorba, 1 Wall. 412. See Stearns v. United States, 6 Wall.

589; United States v. Pico, 23 How. 321; More . Steinbach, 127 U. S. 70.

By the conquest of California by the United States Mexican rule was displaced, and with it the authority of Mexican officials to alienate the public domain. Until Congress provided a government for the country it was in charge of military governors, who, with the aid of subordinate officers, exercised municipal authority; but the power to grant land or confirm titles was never vested in these military governors, nor in any person appointed by them.

Alexander v. Roulet, 13 Wallace, 386. See Mumford v. Wardwell, 6 id. 423. The doctrine "that the laws of a conquered or ceded country, except so far as they may affect the political institutions of the new sovereign, remain in force after the conquest or cession till changed by him, . . . has no application to laws authorizing the alienation of any portions of the public domain, or to officers charged under the former government with that power. No proceedings affecting the rights of the new sovereign over public property can be taken except in pursuance of his authority on the subject. The cases in the supreme court of California and in this court which recognize as valid grants of lots in the pueblo or city of San Francisco by alcaldes appointed or elected after the occupation of the country by the forces of the United

States, do not militate against this view. Those officers were agents of the pueblo or city, and acted under its authority in the distribution of its municipal lands. They did not assume to alienate or affect the title to lands which was in the United States. Welch v. Sullivan, 8 California, 165; White v. Moses, 21 California, 34; Merryman v. Bourne, 9 Wall. 592.

"It follows from what is thus said that it would be a sufficient answer to the contention of the defendants that the grant under which they claim to have acquired a perfect title conferred none. The grantees were not invested with such title, and could not be without an official delivery of possession under the Mexican Government, and such delivery was not had, and could not be had, after the cession of the country, except by American authorities acting under a law of Congress.

More Steinbach (1888), 127 U. S. 70, 81.

That laws relating to the alienation of the public domain pass away with the transfer of sovereignty, see Magoon's Reports, 467.

"It is contended that the mere change of sovereignty revoked all authority to make sales of the public lands, and United States v. Vallejo, 1 Black, 541, is cited, in which it was held that the decrees of the Spanish Cortes of 1813, in relation to the disposition of the crown lands, was inapplicable to the state of things which existed in Mexico after the revolution of 1820. And also More v. Steinbach, 127 U. S. 70, 81. . . It is doubtless true that a change of sovereignty implies a revocation of the authority vested by the prior sovereign in local officers to dispose of the public lands. And yet we think that rule is not controlling in this case, for the new sovereign made an order continuing the functions of the local officers, and one of those local officers making a sale in accordance with the provisions of the prior laws caused the money received therefrom to be paid into the treasury of the new sovereign, and that sovereign never returned the money thus received nor challenged the validity of the sale thus made."

Ely's Adm. v. United States (1898), 171 U. S. 220, 230–1.

Advised, that when Spain's sovereignty was withdrawn from Porto Rico the Spanish governor-general and all other officers of the Crown of Spain, whose authority consisted in the exercise of Royal prerogatives delegated to them, ceased to exercise such authority, and that the powers possessed by them under the Royal decree of August 16, 1878, in regard to the formation of corporations did not pass to the authority of the United States.

Mr. Magoon, law officer, Division of Insular Affairs, June 14, 1899, Magoon's
Reps. 490.

"The French occupation of the Island of Madagascar has been followed by the incorporation of the territory into the Republic as a formally proclaimed colony. This Government has been assured of the fullest extension to American citizens and interests in that quarter of all rights and privileges under the treaties between the United States and France. The extraterritorial jurisdiction of our agents in Madagascar will accordingly be relinquished as fast as effectively replaced by the jurisdiction of established French courts.

"An important commerce, fostered by treaties with the Hova Government, had been built up by American interests during recent years, and it remains to be seen whether the natural advantages of that traffic will outweigh the reserved trade of the colony with the mother country or enable it to enter into successful competition with the trade of other countries which enjoy the reciprocal benefits of the minimum customs tariff of France."

Report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, Dec. 7, 1896, For. Rel. 1896, lxvii.

"The establishment of French sovereigty and civil jurisdiction over the island of Madagascar puts an end to the extraterritorial rights of the United States in that country, and to the judicial powers of our consul dependent thereon. This changed condition is assumed to have gone into effect on the 16th of October, when, according to the statement of the French resident-general, the French courts were to have been opened for bussiness."

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Eustis, ambassador to France, Dec. 10, 1896,
For. Rel. 1897, 152, 153.

The French minister of the colonies instructed the French resident-general to
give all facilities to the foreign consuls for settling the cases brought
before their courts before October 16, 1896. (For. Rel. 1897, 154.)

"I have the honor to acknowledge your note of yesterday's date, asking information concerning the recognition of the consular officer of your government in Hawaii by the Government of the United States.

"Foreign consuls in the Hawaiian Islands may exercise their functions under the provisional régime now existing in Hawaii, but in consideration of the change of government there, it would be as well for the governments of such consuls to send their new credentials at a convenient time, upon which new exequaturs will be issued by the Government of the United States.

"With regard to your further inquiry touching the recognition of consuls in Puerto Rico, and the occupied ports of Cuba, I beg to state that, the territory of Puerto Rico being under the military control of the United States until Congress shall make other provision, there would seem to be no objection to the consuls of your Government continuing for the present, to act in their official capacity under existing