"as it were, its office but in the absence of other rules, "which are of some equity and humanity” (ƒ). XCVIII. It should be observed that the question as to the judicial proofs of the acts of a Foreign State is now, so far as England is concerned, regulated by statute (g). The 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 7, enacts, " All proclamations, "treaties, and other acts of State of any foreign State, or of 66 any British colony, and all judgments, decrees, orders, and "other judicial proceedings of any Court of Justice in any foreign State or in any British colony, and all affidavits, "pleadings, and other legal documents filed or deposited in "any such Court, may be proved in any Court of Justice, "or before any person having by law or by consent of "parties authority to hear, receive, and examine evidence, "either by examined copies or by copies authenticated as "hereinafter mentioned, that is to say, if the document "sought to be proved be a proclamation, treaty, or other "act of State, the authenticated copy to be admissible in "evidence must purport to be sealed with the seal of the foreign State or British colony to which the original "document belongs; and if the document sought to be 66 proved be a judgment, decree, order, or other judicial pro"ceeding of any foreign or colonial Court, or an affidavit, "pleading, or other legal document filed or deposited in any "such Court, the authenticated copy to be admissible in "evidence must purport either to be sealed with the seal of "the foreign or colonial Court to which the original docu"ment belongs, or, in the event of such Court having no seal, to be signed by the judge, or, if there be more than "one judge, by any one of the judges of the said Court, and "such judge shall attach to his signature a statement in 66 writing on the said copy that the Court whereof he is a 'judge has no seal; but if any of the aforesaid authenticated "copies shall purport to be sealed or signed as herein before. respectively directed, the same shall respectively be ad 66 (f) Maxims of the Law, Regula III. (g) As to former law, see Richardson v. Anderson, 1 Campbell, p. 65, n. (a). "mitted in evidence in every case in which the original "document could have been received in evidence, without "any proof of the seal where a seal is necessary, or of the signature, or of the truth of the statement attached thereto, "where such signature and statement are necessary, or of "the judicial character of the person appearing to have made "such signature and statement." XCIX. The effect of war, and of the subsequent restoration of peace upon the continuing force and validity of Treaties, contracted previously to the breaking out of the war, will be considered hereafter (h). The reader will find in the note (i) a reference to some of (h) Vol. iii. ch. ii. (i) CASES FROM THE ENGLISH REPORTS. Elphinstone v. Bedreechund, 1 Knapp's Privy Council Rep. p. 340. Lindo v. Rodney, Douglas' Rep. p. 340. Hotham v. East India Company, ib. p. 277. Chalmers' Collection of Opinions, ii. pp. 345-6. Marryat v. Wilson, 1 Bosanquet & Puller's Rep. pp. 436–9, Report of Sir Leoline Jenkins (December, 1668) on the Construction of the Treaty between the French and English, vol. ii. p. 735. The Diana, 5 Robinson's Adm. Rep. p. 60. In the same case, ib. p. 67. The Fama, ib. p. 106. The Charlotte, ib. p. 305. The Eliza Ann, 1 Dodson's Adm. Rep. P. 244. The Molly, ib. p. 394. The Ringende Jacob, 1 Robinson's Adm. Rep. p. 89. Richardson v. Anderson, 1 Campbell, 65, n. (a). There are besides some cases on the Construction of Extradition and International Copyright Treaties. CASES FROM AMERICAN REPORTS. Foster v. Neilson, 2 Peters, p. 253. Gordon v. Kerr, 1 Washington's C. C. p. 322. Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Massachusetts, p. 119. the principal cases decided in the British and American Courts of Law, involving the interpretation and construction of Treaties. The Pizarro, 2 Wheaton, p. 227. The Santisima Trinidad, 7 Wheaton, p. 283. Hylton v. Brown, 1 Washington's C. C. p. 343. Bolchos v. Three Negro Slaves, Bee's Admiralty, p. 74. British Consul v. Ship Mermaid, ib. 69. Henderson v. Poindexter, 12 Wheaton, p. 530. Garcia v. Lee, 12 Peters, p. 511. M'Nair v. Ragland, 1 Devereux's Equity, p. 516. Orser v. Hoag, 3 Hill, p. 79. Miller v. Gordon, 1 Taylor, p. 300. Wilson v. Smith, 5 Yerger, p. 379. Ware v. Highton, 3 Dallas, p. 199. Hamyltons v. Eaton, Martin, p. 79, and see especially the following cases, as to the construction of the Treaties between Spain and England of 1762 and 1783, giving privileges to vessels to cut mahogany, and the construction of the proclamation and by-laws relative to the trade under them, Graham v. Pennsylvania Ins. Co. 2 Washington's C. C. p. 113. Under the second article of the Treaty with Great Britain of 1794, the precincts and jurisdiction of a port are not to be considered as extending three miles in every direction, by analogy to the jurisdiction of a country over that distance of sea upon its coasts, but they must be made out by further proof.-Jackson v. Porter, Paine, p. 457. The fourteenth section of the Spanish Treaty of 1795, which prohibits citizens of Spain or of the United States from taking commissions to cruise against either of those countries, does not extend the prohibition to public ships of war.-The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheaton, p. 283. No form of passport having been annexed to the seventeenth article of the Spanish Treaty of 1795, the immunity intended by that article never took effect. The Amiable Isabella, 6 Wheaton, p. 1. The United States, by their alliance with France, existing in 1780, were not considered as parties in the capitulation made by the Marquis de Brouillé with the inhabitants of Dominica.-Miller v. The Resolution, Bee's Adm. p. 404. Where individual rights vest under a Treaty, the meaning of the Treaty, in respect to them, is to be construed by the same rules as private contracts.-Anderson v. Lewis, 1 Freeman's Chancery, p. 178. When a Treaty makes no special provision for deciding questions of individual identity, they must be decided by the judicial tribunals of the country. Stockton v. Williams, Walker's Chancery, p. 120. Savigny has a chapter on those Foreign Codes which contain specific enactments as to the Interpretation of Law.-R. R. i. s. 61. Ansprüche der neueren Gesetzbücher über die Auslegung. PART THE SIXTH. CHAPTER I. RIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNS. C. It was observed in an early part of this work (a) that there were certain subjects of International Law, which, though only to be accounted as such mediately and derivatively, required a separate consideration; and it was said that these subjects of International Law were the following individuals, who are said to represent a State : 1. Sovereigns. 2. Ambassadors. And another class of public officers, not clothed, accurately speaking, with a representative character, but who occupy a quasi diplomatic position—namely, 3. Consuls. We have now to consider the International Status of Sovereigns with respect to themselves and their families. CI. The Sovereign (b) represents in his person the (a) Vide ante, vol. i. p. 10. (b) Vattel, 1. iv. c. 7, s. 108; 1. ii. c. 3, c. 4. Grotius places the exterritoriality of Ambassadors upon this ground:"Ut qui sicut fictione quadam habentur pro personis mittentium, ita etiam fictione simili constituerentur quasi extra-territorium.”—L. ii. c. xviii. 4, 5. Puffendorf, De Jure Nat. et Gent. 1. viii. c. 4, 21. Bynkershoek, De Foro Legatorum, c. 3. "Princeps in alterius Imperio quo jure censeatur, quod ad forum competens.' C. 4.-" Principis bona collective power of the State. His person, as such representative, is the subject-by a custom, which, to say the least, approaches the border of positive law-of certain international rights. The recognition of his title and claims as the de jure ruler of the nation, of which he is the de facto governor, and the principles of International Law applicable thereto, have been already considered (c). CII. The Sovereignty of the State may be vested in a single individual, as in a monarch, a stadtholder, or a president; or in more than one, as in the Consuls of ancient Rome, or of republican France at the beginning of this century; or in various persons exercising the powers of regency pending the minority of the Sovereign (d). The Roman Law expresses the rule of International Law upon this subject" Magistratus municipales, cum unum magistratum administrent, etiam unius hominis vicem "sustinent" (e). 66 CIII. Before we enter upon the discussion of the personal prerogatives incident to the Sovereign in a foreign country, it must be remembered that the honour and independence of nations are affected by the treatment of their Sovereign (f). in alterius Imperio, an per arrestum forum tribuant." These two chapters contain the best dissertation on this subject. Zouch, De Jure Feciali inter Gentes, p. ii. s. 2, q. 6.-" Utrum Princeps in alium Principem in suo territorio imperium habet ?" Günther, ii. 473, præsertim, ss. 4, 5, 6. Martens, 1. v. ss. 164-175. Klüber, ss. 48-50. Heffters, ss. 48, 58. Fælix, s. 209. The subject of exterritoriality is again discussed under the subsequent title of Ambassadors. (c) Vide ante, ch. iv. (d) "Einem wirklichen Mitregenten oder souveränen Reichsverweser gebühren mit Ausnahme der Titel gleiche Rechte wie dem eigentlichen Souverän selbst.”—Heffters, 1. vi. s. 55. (e) Dig. L. 1, 25. (f) "Die Unabhängigkeit des Staates kommt auch der Person seiner Repräsentanten zu: dem Regenten.”—Klüber, s. 48. Zouch, p. i. s. v. 1, speaking of "Delicta inter eos quibuscum Pax |