embodies it. The Law of Waters of 1866, which became effective in the Philippines in September, 1871, and the validity of which we see no reason to doubt, after declaring like the Partidas that the shores (playas), or spaces alternately covered and uncovered by the sea, are part of the national domain and for public use, Arts. 1, 3, goes on thus: "Art. 4. The lands added to the shores by the accessions and accretions caused by the sea belong to the public domain. When they are not (longer) washed by the waters of the sea, and are not necessary for objects of public utility, nor for the establishment of special industries, nor for the coast guard service, the government shall [will?] declare them property of the adjacent estates, in increase of the same."

Notwithstanding the argument that this article is only a futile declaration concerning accessions to the shore while it remains such in a literal sense, that is, washed by the tide, we think it plain that it includes and principally means additions that turn the shore to dry land. These all remain subject to public ownership unless and until the government shall decide that they are not needed for the purposes mentioned and shall declare them to belong to the adjacent estates. The later provision in Article 9, that the public easement for salvage, &c., shall advance and recede as the sea recedes or advances, simply determines that neither public nor private ownership shall exclude the customary public use from the new place. The Spanish Law of Ports of 1880, like the Law of Waters, asserts the title of the State although it confers private rights when there is no public need.

The presumption that the foregoing provisions of the Law of Waters express the understanding of the codifiers as to what the earlier law had been, becomes almost inexpugnable when we find that the other leading civil law countries have adopted the same doctrine. The Code Napoleon, after laying down the Roman rule for alluvion in rivers, Art. 556, 557, adds at the end of the latter Article: Ce droit n'a pas lieu à l'égard des relais des la mer, which seems to have been adopted without controversy at the Conférence. See further Marcadé, Explication, 5th ed. vol. 2, p. 439. And compare 2 Hall's Am. Law Journal, 307, 324, 329, 333. The Civil Code of Italy, 1865, Art. 454, is to similar effect. See also Chile, Civil Code, Art. 650. The Supreme Court of Louisiana in like manner confines the private acquisition of alluvion to rivers and running streams, and denies the private right in the case of lakes and the sea. Zeller v. Yacht Club, 34 La. An. 837. And the provision of the Louisiana Code, Art. 510, is like those of France, Italy

and Spain. The court of first instance below refers to judgments of the Supreme Court of Spain that seems to look in the same direction. We have neither heard nor found anything on the other side that seems to us to approach the foregoing considerations in weight, not to speak of the respect that we must feel for the concurrent opinion of both the courts below upon a matter of local law with which they are accustomed to deal. Of course we are dealing with the law of the Philippines, not with that which prevails in this country, whether of mixed antecedents or the common law.

As the case was brought up on the single question that we have discussed the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice McKENNA, dissenting

I cannot agree with the conclusion of the court. It seems to be conceded that it is not necessarily determined by the authorities which are cited. I think the better deduction from them is that they only declare the constant integrity of the shore, and the dominion of the government over it whether it recede or advance. When it ceases to be washed by the tides or the seas it becomes part of the upland and belongs to the owner of the upland. And this is but the application of the principle, said to be of natural justice, that he who loses by the encroachments of the sea should gain by its recession. Banks v. Ogden, 2 Wall. 57, 67.

SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA 1
November 28, 1910

I, Licenciado Antonio E. Mesa y Dominguez, Secretario de Gobierno of the Plenary Court and of the Presidency of the Supreme Court of the Island of Cuba, hereby certify that at the session held by the Department of Government of this Supreme Court, on the 26th day of the present month, in which a report was made of the communication from the Secretary of Justice under date of the 21st of the present month, referring to this department the communication of the Department of State under date of the 15th, transmitting a note from the minister of

1 Gaceta Oficial de la Republica de Cuba, Nov. 29, 1910, No. 128, Vol. II, p. 5623. Translated from the Spanish by Mr. Antonio M. Opisso, of Washington, D. C.

His British Majesty, dated on the 11th of this month, in which he formulates the petition to which we shall refer later on, a resolution was passed which literally says:

Considering that, besides the fact that it is not proper to pass any opinion as to the justiciable nature of the act which originated the case for embezzlement, No. 1003, of the present year, in one of the courts of the district of Havana, to which facts the above mentioned communication of the Secretary of Justice of November 21st of the present year refers, said act consisting according to the denunciation made by J. Terptra and P. Louy, formerly of the crew of the British steamer, Celtic Princess, in the illegal retention by the British consul of the salary which was due to them for services rendered on board of the above-named vessel, since this Department of Government is not authorized to qualify the act denounced as such as the power to make such qualification belongs only to the judge or to the Department of Justice which has jurisdiction over the matter; furthermore, considering, that this department lacks the jurisdiction necessary to consider the same, even for the sole purpose of passing upon the request made regarding the same by the minister of His British Majesty, since this department is not cognizant of the precise terms in which the denunciation was made, and by which, and probably in virtue of other information or proceedings of which this department is likewise ignorant, they have proceeded to the institution of the case and to summon the vice consul as a witness; all of which, at first sight, does not show any lack of respect due to the foreign consular officials, nor do they constitute any violation of the recognized principles of international law, nor can it therefore be considered as a sufficient cause to take any measures in the sense requested by the minister;

Considering that, notwithstanding the fact that it is not proper to acknowledge the act complained of as a justifiable occasion for the object sought, there is no objection, in view of the well known convenience of preventing the possible commission of errors of that nature in the future, to grant the pretensions above referred to which seek to establish the principle that the charges preferred against foreign consular officials should not be admitted by the justice when it is evident that the subject matter of the same is an act executed by the consul in his official character and for which his government is the only one responsible, since, in accordance with the recognized principles of international law, such officials are not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the country

wherein they are accredited in all that relates to acts executed in the exercise of their official duties and in the name of the government whom they represent, as so expressed by the minister of His British Majesty as a basis for his claim in the note he addressed to the Secretary of State and referred by the latter to the Secretary of Justice, and by him referred, finally, for its resolution, to the President of this Supreme Court, who, in his turn, has referred it to this department of the government of the same court; therefore, the following notice should be made to the judges: It is resolved that the judges of instruction and correction of courts of the republic, as well as those judges of the municipal court having correctional jurisdiction, should be, and are hereby, advised that no charges preferred before them against foreign consular officials should be admitted, when it appears that jurisdiction over the matter which is the cause of the denunciation does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Cuban courts on account of being an act executed by the consul in his official capacity and for which only his government is responsible.

For this purpose this resolution must be published in the Gaceta Oficial of the Republic, and furthermore communicated to the Secretary of Justice.

And for the publication thereof in the Gaceta Oficial of the Republic, I execute these presents in the City of Havana, on the 28th day of November, 1910.

L. ANTONIO E. MESA Y DOMINGUEZ.

BOOK REVIEWS

Die Abkommen der Haager Friedenskonferenzen, der Londoner Seekriegskonferenz nebst Genfer Konvention. By Dr. jur. Hans Wehberg. Berlin: J. Guttentag. 1910. ix, 270 pp.

Sind die Ansprüche der Gebrüder Mannesmann nach Treu und Glauben in vollem Umfange zu rechtfertigen? By Dr. jur. Hans Wehberg. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. 1910. 34 pp.

Die internationale Friedensbewegung. By Dr. jur. Hans Wehberg. M. Gladbach: Volksvereins-Verlag GmbH. 1911. 48 pp.

Internationale Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit. By Dr. Hans Wehberg. Berlin: Carl Heymanns. 1910. 52 pp.

Ein internationaler Gerichtshof für Privatklagen. By Dr. jur. Hans Wehberg. Berlin: Liebheit & Thiesen. 1911. 35 pp.

Das Völkerrecht und das italienische Staatsversicherungsmonopol. By Dr. Hans Wehberg. Vienna: Manzsche k. ü. k. Hof-Verlags- und Universitäts-Buchhandlung. 1912. 25 pp.

Kommentar zu dem Haager "Abkommen betreffend die friedliche Erledigung internationaler Streitigkeiten" vom 18. Oktober, 1907. By Dr. Hans Wehberg. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. 1911. xi, 185 pp. Within the last few years no German writer has devoted himself more seriously to some of the great problems of international law and has treated them more brilliantly yet sanely than Dr. Hans Wehberg of Düsseldorf, whose "Commentary" upon the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of October 18, 1907, is the principal subject of the present review. Besides numerous articles in legal periodicals, some of which have been issued as reprints, and not a few brochures, Dr. Wehberg has published within the last three years three separate volumes: Das Beuterecht im Land-und Seekriege (1909), translated into English as Capture in War on Land and Sea, and favorably reviewed in the January, 1912, number of this JOURNAL, page 252; Die Abkommen der Haager Friedenskonferenzen, der Londoner Seekriegskonferenz nebst Genfer Konvention (1910); Kommentar zu dem Haager Abkommen betreffend die friedliche Erledigung internationaler Streitigkeiten vom 18