agree to place no obstructions upon the use of the canal, either in peace or war; they also agree that the canal shall not be made the subject of a hostile blockade; that military obstructions shall not be placed in the waters of the canal or those of its feeders, and that no acts of hostility shall be permitted in the canal itself or within a marine league of its terminal ports.1

Submarine Telegraph Cables. The question of submarine cables can perhaps be best discussed in connection with the high seas and the jurisdiction of the coasts at which they terminate. The principle of the freedom of the high seas has long been recognized at international law; if, therefore, the surface of the high seas be free, for purposes of commerce and navigation, their use beneath the surface, for any economic or commercial purpose, must, from the nature of the case, be equally free. When a cable reaches soundings, however, within the three mile limit, it passes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state within whose territory its terminal station is located. Questions in respect to the construction and maintenance of oceanic cables, and of their protection from injury in time of peace, like their neutrality in war, can only be effectively regulated by the concerted action of the maritime powers; the former of these questions, indeed, has already been made the subject of treaty stipulation.

With a view to secure such international action, a conference of thirty-one states, convened upon the invitation of the French Government, met at Paris on October 16, 1882, and drew up a project, having for its purpose the maintenance of submarine cables and their preservation from injury. As a result of this conference, a protocol was signed by the representatives of thirty-one states, and submitted to their respective governments for consideration. In pursuance of this agreement a second conference was held at Paris, where, on March 14, 1884, a convention was entered into which was signed by the

1 For a discussion of the neutrality of the Suez Canal, see Revue de Droit International, vol. xvii. p.

615; vol. xviii. p. 159; vol. xx. p. 529.

duly authorized representatives of twenty-five independent states. In order to give the contracting parties an opportunity for the adoption of the requisite municipal legislation, the 1st of January, 1884, was agreed upon as the date when the convention was to become operative. The ratifications of seventeen states were exchanged at Paris on April 16, 1885.

The treaty applies to such legally established submarine cables as are, or may be landed, on the territory of the signatory powers. It gives to the act of wilfully injuring or destroying such cables the character of a penal offence; confers certain rights of way and position upon vessels engaged in the construction or repair of submarine cables, and requires other ships to keep at a distance of one nautical mile from vessels so engaged; it also requires all vessels (including fishing craft) to pass buoys, marking the position of cables, at a distance of one-quarter of a nautical mile. Offences created by the treaty are triable in the courts of the state to which the vessel committing the offence belongs, and proceedings and trials are to take place as summarily as the laws of such state will permit. No provision is made for the neutrality of submarine cables, or for their use in war; indeed, the convention contains a clause providing that its stipulations shall “in nowise affect the liberty of action of belligerents.""

1 Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1776–1887, pp. 1176– 1185. By a clause of this treaty the commanding officers of public armed vessels of the contracting parties, if they have reason to believe that a merchant vessel has committed an offence in violation of the treaty, are authorized to require the captain of such vessel to furnish evidence of nationality, and such reports in respect to offences against the treaty as they may submit may be used in evidence in the courts of the state whose flag and papers such offending vessel may carry. A subsequent declaration respecting the

interpretation of articles ii. and vi. of the convention was signed at Paris on December 1, 1886, and a final protocol, signed at Paris on July 7, 1887, fixing upon May 1, 1888, as the date upon which the instrument was to become finally operative, were ratified by the United States on May 1, 1888.-Treaties and Conventions of the United States, pp. 1184, 1185. For other correspondence in respect to the execution and operation of this convention, see Foreign Relations of the United States, 1883, pp. 253258, 294-296, 285-291, 296–298, 304, 305; Ibid. 1887, pp. 360-368. The United States, by an Act of Con

Acquisition of Territory. Territory may be acquired in several ways, of which the principal are:

(a.) By Occupation. This method is applied to the acquisition of those portions of the earth's surface which are either unoccupied by man, or are inhabited by savage or uncivilized races, who are unable, or who have not the desire, to establish those relations of intercourse with other states which are recognized by the rules of international law. As little territory remains in the world which is absolutely unoccupied, it follows that future acquisitions can only be made at the territorial expense of weak or uncivilized races;' such, indeed, are the acquisitions which are now being made by the different states of Europe in the continents of Asia and Africa. In some instances the title to territory thus acquired is purchased from the prior occupants; in a great majority of cases, however, it is obtained by an exercise of superior force.

(b.) By Accretion. This method of acquiring territory results from an operation of the laws of nature, and consists in the acquisition of soil, on the banks of rivers, due to the erosive action of the current. Such an increase in the territory of a state implies a corresponding diminution in the territory of another."

(c.) By Treaty. This method of acquisition corresponds to the alienation of real estate among private individuals; the treaty of cession corresponding to the deed of conveyance, which operates to transfer the ownership of land from one

gress which was approved by the President on February 29, 1888 (25 Statutes at Large, p. 41), made suitable provision for the enforcement of the treaty, in so far as its citizens or other persons subjected to its jurisdiction were concerned. See vol. xii. Revue de Droit International, pp. 247-275; xv. ibid. pp. 17-43.

One of the paragraphs in President Monroe's message in 1823, which has sometimes been erroneously regarded as a complete statement of the Monroe doctrine,

contained the declaration that "the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power. See also Revue de Droit International, vol. xviii. p. 236; vol. xx. p. 605; Jones vs. United States, 137 United States, 202; Smith vs. United States, 137 United States, 224.

See the article, p. 46, entitled "Rivers as Boundaries."

person to another. The consideration actuating the transfer may be pecuniary, or there may be an exchange of portions of territory, or the transfer may be made in deference to the wishes of the inhabitants of the ceded district.'

(d.) By Conquest, or by Conquest Completed by a Treaty of Peace. Such acquisitions of territory are in the highest degree involuntary, being accomplished, in every case, by an exercise of superior force; such transfers, however, are none the less recognized at international law, and titles based upon conquest are as valid as those obtained by the consent of the interested states."

SERVITUDES

Origin and Application of the Term. The term servitude is borrowed from the Roman law, and is applied in the international relations of states to express an obligation upon the part of one state to permit a thing to be done or a right to be enjoyed, by another state, within or upon its territory. The thing done, or the right enjoyed, however, must not be sufficient in amount or importance to constitute a restriction upon the sovereignty or independence of the servient or subordinate state. The state enjoying the benefit or privilege of the servitude is called the dominant state. The state lying under the obligation involved is called the servient state. The existence of a servitude is not inconsistent with entire sovereignty and independence on the part of the servient state. The following examples are illustrations of servitudes: Suppose two states, A and B, to be separated by a river; A may lie under a servitude to B not to construct works of improvement upon the boundary river which shall injure the opposite bank. Suppose two states, C and D, to be situated, one above the other, upon the course of a navigable river, the mouth and lower waters being situated in the territory of C; C may lie under a servitude to D of allowing its citizens the privilege of navi gating the river to the sea; D may lie under an obligation to C not to use the banks of the river within the territory of C for the purpose of loading and unloading cargoes.

How Created and Terminated. Servitudes may exist by immemorial prescription, such existence being tacitly or expressly recognized by other states. Such, in great part, was the case of the Danish Sound Dues. They may also be created by treaty, and may be amended, increased, or modified in

the same manner. They may be extinguished by treaty, by

'Under the name of easements the principle of servitudes is recognized by the common law, with this difference, however, that whereas a servitude could have been imposed upon an individual or his property

by the sovereign authority of the state, an easement must, according to the common law, originate in an agreement between the interested parties.