The United States has always taken the position that as to the treatment of, and rights accorded to, the inhabitants of territory ceded to it, the United States must be sole judge and is entirely free from any interference by the former sovereign.

When, therefore, the United States has ceded, or relinquished sovereignty over, territory its jurisdiction has forthwith ceased and that of the new sovereign has attached; thus the inhabitants of the territory ceded are relegated to the courts of the new sovereign for protection of their rights, and those courts are bound in the same manner by their local laws and customs as the courts of the United States are bound by the laws and customs of this country.

If territory is ceded by one power to another by a treaty containing stipulations as to the treatinent of the inhabitants, and the acquiring power disregards or violates such stipulations, it might be proper for the ceding power to intervene on behalf of the inhabitants suffering by reason of such violations, but that would be a high political act and would have to be asserted through the political side of the Government and the right to so intervene could not be judicially determined in the courts of either country.

Cessions of territory have been made by the United States on a few occasions, but always as the result of boundary settlements, and as such have been more in the nature of relinquishment of sovereignty over, than actual cession of, the territory, although words of cession have been used.

Whether the United States has the power to cede terri

eignty over certain territory, which had been considered as parts of Maine and other boundary states, by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, settling the Northeastern boundary. See § 474, pp. 387, et seq., post, and notes thereunder for details in regard to this settlement and indemnity. The indemnity that was paid was the result of congressional appropriation and not judicial determination.

In the analytical indices of the various treaty volumes already re

ferred to (U. S. Tr. and Con. 1889, and U. S. Treaties in Force, 1899) full lists of all treaties containing stipulations as to boundaries between the United States and Nations owning adjoining territory will be found. Consult also INDEX to this book and the TREATIES APPENDIX at end of this volume, in which all treaties made by United States are arranged alphabetically according to the names of the foreign countries.

tory, either belonging to the United States or to one of the States, is largely an academic question. At present there does not seem to be any prospect of its becoming a practical one. It has been discussed by many writers and reference is made to their views in a subsequent chapter.?

It is apparent that courts of the United States would have no jurisdiction over questions which might arise from the cession of territory by the United States to other powers or which relate to the effect of the transfer on the inhabitants of the ceded territory so far as the rights of persons and property within the ceded territory are concerned; and therefore the subject is not within the scope of this book.

The foregoing is simply the converse of the proposition that at the present time courts in Spain which formerly had jurisdiction over Porto Rico and the Philippines cannot now enforce their decrees in those Islands, and that a decision by such courts on questions arising since April 11, 1899, affecting the rights of property and persons within such territory would be a mere nullity.

If the United States should ever be obliged to cede any of

7 Art. III of the Adams-de Onis treaty of 1819 with Spain (U. S. Tr. and Con. 1889, p. 1016) after describing the then boundary line west of the Sabine river to the Pacific Ocean concludes as follows (p. 1017):

"The two high contracting parties agree to cede and renounce all their rights, claims and pretensions, to the territories described by the said line, that is to say: The United States hereby cede to His Catholic Majesty, and renounce forever, all their rights, claims, and pretensions, to the territories lying west and south of the abovedescribed line; and, in like manner, His Catholic Majesty cedes to the said United States all his rights, claims, and pretensions to any territories east and north of the said line, and for himself, his heirs, and

successors, renounces all claim to the said territories forever."

By this treaty the United States renounced, or ceded, a large tract which included the whole of Texas, as well as a great deal of the Mexican territory which was ceded to the United States by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 after the Mexican War.

The Northeastern boundary was settled by the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842. The Northwestern boundary was settled by the Buchanan-Pakenham treaty of 1846. See TREATIES APPENDIX at end of this volume under Great Britain.

The controversy between the United States and Great Britain over the Northeastern boundary is discussed at length in §§ 474 et seq., pp. 387, et seq., of chapter XVI, post See special provisions, however,

its territory, or that of any of the States, the burning question will not be the legal power to make the cession, but the lack of physical power to retain the territory. Fortunately it will not be necessary for us to cross that river until we reach it.

in Article XII of the Treaty of 1898 | case arose." The Treaty of 1898 is with Spain, as to the judicial de- printed in full in the INSULAR crees in pending cases and for their CASES APPENDIX at end of volexecution by the "competent auume I. thority of the place in which the

ADDITIONAL CASES ON CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY.

Other cases involving the effect | Sup. Ct. 1899, 175 U. S. 509, Mcof change of sovereignty are:

CHAPTER XIV.

THE TREATY-MAKING POWER OF THE UNITED STATES AS IT HAS BEEN EXERCISED WITH INDIAN TRIBES.

SECTION

423-Supreme Court has always afforded protection to

Indians both as to rights

of property and of person.

§ 401. Difficulty of adhering closely to subject; opportunities to digress.-One of the greatest difficulties that an author has to contend with, while attempting to write a book upon a single branch of a great subject, is the oftrecurring temptation to digress from the main path of discussion into those numerous cross-roads and by-ways which constantly intersect, or diverge from, the straight course which he should follow. The opportunities for rambling which have presented themselves during the preparation of this book have been numerous and enticing, but the author has conscientiously endeavored to avoid all digression from the main points under consideration, to wit: the treatymaking power of the United States, what it is, as to extent and scope, how it has been, and how it can be, exercised, and the relative effects of treaty stipulations and State and Congressional legislation.

It was the author's intention to close this volume with a few remarks upon the limitations of the treaty-making power, leaving many interesting questions in regard to the construction of treaties, the effect of treaty stipulations upon public and private rights of States and individuals, as well as numerous other interesting points which have constantly presented themselves, for consideration in their proper order in the subsequent work under contemplation, which was referred to in the Introduction, and in which he hopes to discuss those questions at length, as principal, and not as subsidiary, divisions of the "Treaty Law of the United States."1

$402. Necessity of referring to Indian treaties and Indian status. It does not seem possible, however, to close this volume without making some reference to the treatymaking power, as it has been exercised by the United States Government with those aboriginal tribes of Indians which inhabited this land before the advent of the English, the Spaniards or the French, and which were far more numerous in 1787 in the States and Territories east of the Mississippi, § 401.

1 See § 10 to Introduction, vol. I.