and foreign powers, so far at least as those treaties were inconsistent with the Constitution of this country, which requires customs duties to be uniform throughout the United States." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Aristarchi Bey, Sept. 18, 1876. MSS. Notes, As to Texas, see further, infra, § 72, et seq., § 154. As to effect of annexation on treaties, see infra, § 36. Chili, in taking possession, at the close of the late war with Peru, of the guano deposits belonging to Peru, took them subject only to such liens as were binding under Peruvian law at the time of cession. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cowie, June 10, 1885. MSS. Dom. Let. By the formation of the North German Union, after the battle of Sadowa, the entire navy of the union was placed under the command of Prussia. It was held that the provision of the treaty of May 1, 1828, between the United States and Prussia, for the arrest of deserters from the public vessels of the respective countries, applied to public vessels sailing under the flag of the North German Union. 12 Op., 463, Evarts, 1868. VI. BUT SUCH COUNTRY NOT AFFECTED BY ACTS OF PRIOR SOVEREIGN AFTER CESSION. § 5a. Grants made by the Spanish Government in the Mississippi Territory after the ratification of the treaty by which the land was ceded to the United States are void; and, though a patent were dated before, unless delivered before, it fails to carry title. 1 Op., 108, Lincoln, 1802. Grants of contested territory made flagrante bello by the party who fails, can only derive validity from treaty stipulations. Harcourt v. Gaillard, 12 Wheaton, 523. An adjudication as to title to certain lands in Louisiana, made by a Spanish tribunal in that territory after its cession to the United States, but before actual possession had been surrendered, the territory being de facto in the possession of Spain, and subject to Spanish laws, was held valid as the adjudication of a competent tribunal having jurisdiction of the case. Keene v. McDonough, 8 Peters, 308. The authorities of Spain had power to make grants of the public domain in Florida in accordance with their own ideas of the merits of the grantee, and the court can only consider the questions whether a grant was made and what was its legal effect. U. S. v. Hanson, 16 Peters, 196; U. S. v. Acosta, 1 Howard, 24. Grants made by the Spanish authorities of lands in Louisiana, after its cession to France, and before its cession by the latter to the United States, are void. U. S. v. Reynes, 9 Howard, 127; Davis v. Concordia, id., 280. Grants made by the Spanish authorities in territory which, upon the subsequent settlement of a disputed boundary line, was determined to belong to one of the United States, are void. Robinson v. Minor, 10 Howard, 627. Grants made by the French authorities in Louisiana after the treaty of Fontainebleau are void, unless continued possession laid a foundation for presuming a confirmation by the authorities of Spain. U. S. r. Pillerin, 13 Howard, 9. 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. U. S. r. Vaca, 18 Howard, 556. A grant of lands in California, while it was a Mexican province, made by the chief of an administration, during an intestine war, when he was in flight from the seat of Government, and his cause, soon afterwards completely overthrown, in extremity, cannot be sustained, its validity never having been acknowledged by the grantor's successors, and no sanction ever having been given it by the United States. U. S. v. Sutter, 21 Howard, 170. U. S. v. Rose, 23 id., 262. 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. U. S. v. Yorba, 1 Wallace, 412. (See Stearns v. U. S., 6 id., 589. U. S. v. Pico, 23 Howard, 321.) The fact that Mexico declared through her commissioners who negotiated the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo that no grants of land were issued by the Mexican governors of California after May 13, 1846, does not affect grants actually made after that date by those governors, while their authority and jurisdiction continued. U. S. v. Yorba, 1 Wallace, 412. By the conquest of California by the United States Mexican rule was displaced, and with it the authority of Mexicans 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.) "Suffice it to say, that the Government of the United States, ever since the acquisition of Louisinia, in its legislative, executive, and judicial departments, has always held in theory, and by repeated acts of Congress and judicial decisions asserted in practice, that the territory between the Perdido and the Iberville rightfully constituted a portion of the province of Louisiana, as ceded by France to the United States on the 30th of April, 1803; and that the treaty between His Catholic Majesty and the United States, of the 22d February, 1819, has, in no respect whatever, strengthened the claims of Spanish grantees to lands embraced within these limits. This being the fact, it therefore follows, as a necessary consequence, that the grant by the Spanish intendent, Morales, of land within this territory, on the 24th March, 1804, bad been made after the date of the Louisiana treaty, was without authority and is void." Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Calderon de la Barca, July 27, 1847, MSS. See infra, § 148, as to treaty for annexation of Louisiana. VII. COLONIES BECOMING INDEPENDENT RETAIN THEIR BOUNDARIES AND OTHER RIGHTS. § 6. "It has never been admitted by the United States that they acquired anything by way of cession from Great Britain by that treaty (of 1783). It has been viewed only as a recognition of pre-existing rights, and on that principle the soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour. By reference to the treaty it will be found that it amounts to a simple recognition of the independence and the limits of the United States, without any language purporting a cession or relinquishment of right on the part of Great Britain. In the last article of the treaty of Ghent will be found a provision respecting grants of land made in the islands then in dispute between the two states, which affords an illustration of this doctrine. By that article a stipulation is made in favor of grants before the war, but none for those which were made during the war." Johnson, J., Harcourt v. Gaillard, 12 Wheaton, 527. As to fisheries, see infra, §§ 302 ff. Under the treaty with Great Britain of 1783 the United States succeeded to all the rights in that part of old Canada which now forms the State of Michigan that existed in the King of France prior to its conquest from the French by the British in 1760; and, among those rights, to that of dealing with the seigniorial estate of lands granted out as seigniories by the said king, after a forfeiture had occurred for nonfulfillment of the conditions of the fief. U. S. v. Repentigny, 5 Wallace, 211. As to effect of treaty of independence see further, infra, § 150. "The United States regard it as an established principle of public law and of international right that when a European colony in America becomes independent it succeeds to the territorial limits of the colony as it stood in the hands of the parent country." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dallas, July 26, 1856. MSS. Instruc., Great "Whether the treaty of 1783 was the origin of the territorial sovereignty of the States of the American Union was discussed during the long pending controversy in relation the northeastern boundary of Maine. The British secretary of state for foreign affairs, Lord Aberdeen, having assumed, in his note of August 14, 1828, as the ground for claiming exclusive possession till the award of the arbiter was rendered, that the American title to the territory in dispute was to be deduced solely from the treaty of peace, it was replied: * * 'Before the independence of the United States not only the territory in dispute but the whole of the adjoining province and state was the property of a common sovereign. To use the words of a celebrated authority, When a nation takes possession of a distant country, and settles a colony there, that country, though separated from the principal establishment or mother country, naturally becomes a part of the state equally with its ancient possessions.' "From the principle here established, that the political condition of the people of the mother country, and of the colonies during their union, is the same, the inference is unavoidable that when a division of the empire takes place the previous rights of the common sovereign, on matters equally affecting both of the states, accrue as well to the one as to the other of them. Mr. Lawrence to Lord Aberdeen, August 22, 1828." Lawrence's Wheaton, ed. 1863, 37,977. As to treaty of independence, see infra, § 150. As to northwestern boundary, see dispatch No. 287 of Mr. Bancroft, minister to Prussia, and comments of Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, to Mr. Bancroft, November 27, 1871. MSS. Instruc., Prussia. Same to same, March 29, 1872, id. As to treaty with Great Britain as to boundary, see infra, § 150. As to Alaska boundary, see Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps, November 20, 1885. As to treaty purchasing Alaska, see infra, § 159. As to Russian claim to northwestern waters, see infra, §§ 32, 159. 27 VIII. TITLE OF DE FACTO GOVERNMENT TO OBEDIENCE. § 7. The legislatures of the seceded States during the late civil war are to be regarded, even by the Government of the United States, as exercising de facto authority in all cases in which their domestic power was absolute, and in which their action did not impair the supremacy of the national authority or the rights of citizens under the Constitution of the United States. Texas v. White, 7 Wall., 700; Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall., 570; Sprott v. U. S., 20 Wall., 459. (See U. S. v. Insurance Company, 22 Wall., 99.) Amelia Island, on the Florida coast, at the time belonging to Spain, was seized and occupied by the United States in 1817, on the ground that this was necessary to root out certain buccaneers who were there congregated. This possession, it was held, could not be contested by a third power, and could only be contested by Spain; and hence the seizure by the United States, for violation of its territorial law, of a vessel of a third power within the territorial waters of Amelia Island could not be contested by such third power. Mr. Gallatin, minister at Paris, to Baron Pasquier, French minister of foreign affairs, June 28, 1821; 2 Gallatin's Works, 187. As to seizure of Amelia Island, see infra, § 50. “When a colony is in revolt, and before its independence has been acknowledged by the parent country, the colonial territory belongs, in the sense of revolutionary right, to the former, and in that of legitimacy, to the latter. It would be monstrous to contend that in such a contingency the colonial territory is to be treated as derelict, and subject to voluntary acquisition by any third nation. That idea is abhorrent to all the notions of right which constitute the international code of Europe and America. "And yet the assumption that, pending a war of colonial revolution, all territorial rights of both parties to the war become extinguished and the colonial territory is open to seizure by anybody, is the foundation of most of the disputed pretensions of Great Britain in Central America." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dallas, July 26, 1856. MSS. Instruc., Great Britain. As to effect of revolution on treaties, see infra, § 137. "It is the duty of foreigners to avoid all interference under such circumstances (in cases of civil war), and to submit to the power which exercises jurisdiction over the places where they resort, and, while thus acting, they have a right to claim protection, and also to be exempted from all vexatious interruption, when the ascendancy of the parties is temporarily changed by the events of the contest. Undoubtedly the considerations you urge respecting the true character of an armed opposition to a government are entitled to much weight. There may be local |