and Scotland, the United States under the present Constitution, are examples of close political union.'

Rule for Determining the Strength of a Confederation or Union. Between these extremes there may exist many kinds of confederacies. To determine the political strength of any particular confederation its constitution must be examined, and an accurate account taken of the powers surrendered and retained by each component state. If the power of making political treaties, of sending and receiving ambassadors, and of making war and concluding treaties of peace are vested in the central government, the confederacy is said to be strong. If a considerable number of these powers are retained by the component states the confederation is said to be weak."

Protectorates. The term "protectorate" is applied to the relation established between a stronger and a weaker state, by which the weaker is protected from foreign aggression and interference, but suffers in consequence some diminution of its rights of sovereignty and independence. This relation is established by treaty, by the terms of which the extent and character of the protectorate are determined. In most protectorates the foreign relations of the protected state, including the power to engage in war, are in great part regulated by the protector. In so far as other nations are concerned, however, the relations of the interested states forming the protectorate are regarded as strictly internal in character; "the two constitute a single system, possessing and exercising all the powers which belong to civilized government, and not subject to the interference of any third state as to the distribution of those powers," which is regulated by the interested states to the exclusion of all others. The republic of San

1 Wheaton, part i. chap. ii. §§ 3959; I Halleck, chap. iii. §§ 10-17; Klüber, §§ 27, 28; Bluntschli, §§ 7073: I De Martens, §§ 20, 29; I Phillimore, §§ 100-123; Creasy, $$ 140-146; Ortolan, liv. i. pp. 13–38; Lawrence, §§ 45-51.

2 Lawrence, § 45; Woolsey, § 108;

Pomeroy, § 62: Dana's Wheaton, $$ 44-59; I Lorimer, pp. 182-215.

Westlake, p. 178; Ibid. 87-89; Lawrence, § 102-104: I De Martens, § 16; Hall, § 38, p. 127; I Ortolan, pp. 38-45; I Halleck, chap. iii. § 9; Heffter, § 22, par. iv.

Marino in Italy, and the relation existing between France and Tunis and England and Zanzibar are examples of protectorates in the modern sense of the term.'

SOVEREIGN POWERS

NATURE AND CLASSIFICATION

Extent of Sovereignty. From the definition of a sovereign state it follows that "the jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from any external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction." This jurisdiction extends to all subjects and over all persons within its territorial limits, it matters not whether those persons be native-born, or naturalized citizens, or aliens. It involves the right of maintaining any form of government, of administering that government in accordance with its own. views and methods, and of changing its form whenever such a change seems necessary or desirable. It implies the right of classifying the sovereign powers, and of distributing them among several departments, or of concentrating all of them in the hands of a single ruler or sovereign. It involves an immunity from interference, from external sources, in the enjoyment and exercise of its sovereign powers, and a corresponding obligation to abstain from similar interference in the internal affairs of other states."

Classification of Sovereign Powers. The right of sovereignty is inherent in the artificial body politic which we call the state. It is exercised, like other sovereign powers, through the government of the state, and the various rights of jurisdiction are usually classified and distributed among the different departments of government. The jurisdictional powers of a state are usually divided into:

(a.) The Legislative Department. In this department is vested the power to make, alter, and repeal laws. In states which recognize the people as the ultimate source of sovereignty, this department stands first in power and importance. It expresses, more directly than any other, the sovereign will upon any question coming within its jurisdiction. It determines the policy of the state upon all matters internal and external, and can change that policy at will. At the other extreme lie states in which the sovereign authority is held to reside in the person of a single ruler or sovereign. Here the legislative department does not exist, and the powers usually exercised by it are vested in the hands of the sovereign or executive.

(b.) The Executive Department. In this department is vested the power to execute the laws and to represent the state in its intercourse with foreign powers. In states which recognize the principle of popular sovereignty the executive himself represents the people in the exercise of that class of governmental powers which has to do with carrying the laws into effect. He is responsible to them for the manner in which he performs his duty; and, either directly or through his subordinates, represents them in all intercourse with foreign powers. In the exercise of the powers which are peculiar to his office

servance of their law who does not observe it strictly upon her own part, not only in the particular class of cases in which she makes the call, but throughout the whole system of that law; for that law presents an entire system of the relative rights and duties of na

tions, founded throughout on the purest morality and the most expanded philanthropy, and every part of it is equally obligatory on all nations. Sullivan's case, I Opinions of Attorney-General, 509 [51], Wirt (1821).

he is independent of the other departments of the government. He also represents in the highest degree the dignity and majesty of the state; an insult to him is an insult to the state, and attacks directed against his person or authority are usually given the character of treason.

(c.) The Judicial Department. In this department is vested the power to apply the laws in the decision of cases arising under them. The jurisdiction of the courts of a state is further classified into civil and criminal. The former extends to the decision of all suits or controversies in law or equity, arising between individuals out of contracts, claims, and services, as well as from torts and injuries. The latter includes the power to try and punish all offences against the state or its sovereign representative, or against society or the individuals who compose it.

Exclusive Jurisdiction, where Exercised. This right of jurisdiction is exclusive in all cases arising within the territorial limits of a state, or upon its public or private vessels on the high seas. It is of the most comprehensive character, and, within the territorial limits as above described, no offence can be committed, no act be done, no occasion arise for governmental interference of any kind that will not fall within the jurisdiction of some branch or department of the government of the state, or over which that jurisdiction will not be final and exclusive.'

Acquisition and Loss of Sovereignty. Of the states now acknowledged as sovereign, in the civilized world, some were in existence when international law began to assume importance as a separate science; others have since been added to the family of states. A new state may come into being in one of two ways.

The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a dim

inution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.Schooner Exchange vs. McFadden, 7 Cranch, 116 [136].

(a.) By separation from an existing state or states; and this may be brought about: (1) By peaceful methods, with the consent of the parent state, or with the mutual consent of the states from which the new state derives its territory and population; (2) By violent or hostile means, as by revolution or conquest. (b.) By the combination of two or more states into a permanent union, the component states abandoning their identity completely, or surrendering permanently most of their sovereign powers.'

A state may lose a part or the whole of its sovereign character. It may lose its identity completely, by absorption in another state; by peaceful methods of confederation or union, or by the hostile methods of conquest or subjugation. Sovereign rights and obligations, however, can never be destroyed. If they cease to be exercised by one state they pass with the population and territory into the corporate existence of another, which assumes them, and, while enjoying the rights, must recognize and be bound by the obligations."

Recognition of Sovereignty. When a new state comes into being, in accordance with any one of the methods above indicated, it becomes an acknowledged member of the family of nations as a consequence of its independence being recognized by states already in existence. The question of according such recognition-both as to time and method-is a matter which each state decides for itself; in some cases it is promptly accorded, in others it is delayed, either indefinitely, or until certain conditions have been fulfilled. Sooner or later, however, the independence of a state, being a question of fact, its separate and independent existence must be recognized, as a matter of fact, by the states of the civilized world.'

1I Halleck, chap. iii. § 18; Wheaton, part i. chap. ii. § 21; Hall, § 26; I Phillimore, § 62; Creasy, $$ 147-153; I Pradier - Fodéré, § 128; Ortolan, liv. i. p. 11; Revue de Droit International, vol. xx. p. 303; Klüber, § 23; Lawrence, 56-60.

ton, part i. chap. ii. §§ 22-27; Grotius, book ii. chap. ix. § 6; I Phillimore, §§ 124, 125; Creasy, $$ 151, 152; I Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 146148; Ortolan, liv. i. pp. 11, 12.

I Halleck, chap. iii. § 22; Hall, §§§ 26; Wheaton, part i. chap. ii. §§ 26, 27; Creasy. §§ 637-643; I Lorimer, book ii. pp. 93-152; I Ferguson,

2 I Halleck, chap. iii. § 23; Whea