goods, she was detained several days. Claim being made for compensation for such detention, held, that the article of the treaty above given has reference to captures and detentions after a voyage has commenced, and not to detentions in port to enforce port regulations. United States v. Diekelman, 2 Otto, 520.

$ 299. June 16, 1852.- Evidence of the forging of checks on the commercial chest of Breslau, in Prussia, is sufficient cause for the issue of a warrant for judicial inquiry with a view to the extradition of the party under the treaty between the United States and Prussia of June 16, 1852. International Extradition,* 6 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 761.

$300. Under the treaty of June 16, 1852, between the United States and Prussia and other states of the Germanic Confederation, which provides for the extradition of persons who, having committed certain crimes "within the jurisdiction of either party, shall seek an asylum, or shall be found, within the territories of the other," Prussia cannot rightfully demand the surrender by this government of a fugitive, a citizen of Prussia, charged with the commission of a crime in Belgium, although, by the law of Prussia, at the time of the demand and at the date of the treaty, Prussian subjects may be tried and punished in Prussia for crimes, regardless of the place of their commission. Under the treaty the locus delecti is material, and must be within the jurisdiction of the party demanding the extradition. Extradition,* 14 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 281.

§ 301. Russia, March 30, 1867.- The sixth article of the treaty of March 30, 1867, by which Russia ceded to the United States the Russian possessions in North America, declares the cession to be "free and unincumbered by any reservations, privileges, franchises, grants or possessions, by any associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate, Russian or any other, or by any parties, except merely private individual property holders;" and it is further declared to convey all the rights, franchises and privileges belonging to Russia in the said territory or dominion and appurtenances thereto. By the second article the cession includes "all public buildings, fortifications, barracks and other edifices which are not private individual property." As to the property rights, under the above provisions, of the purchasers of certain warehouses, storehouses, cooper-shops, etc., from the Russian American Company, a trading company chartered by the emperor of Russia, held, that the title to the structures in question passed to such purchasers and not to the United States; but that neither the Russian American Company nor its vendees could by reason of their ownership of such buildings occupy the land on which they stood, except by the sufferance of the United States. Case of Hutchinson, Kohl & Co.,* 14 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 302.

§ 302. Spain. The stipulation in the treaty between the United States and Spain "that free ships shall make free goods" does not imply the converse proposition that "enemy ships shall make enemy goods; " hence, under the above treaty, which contains no stipulation, expressly or by implication, that enemy ships shall make enemy goods, the goods of a neutral on board one of the enemy's ships is not liable to condemnation upon the capture of such ship. The Nereide, 9 Cr., 388.

$303. The Spanish owners of negro slaves who were shipped from Havana for Pensacola in an American vessel, which was captured under the guns of the fort at Barrancas, then occupied by an American force, and while proceeding to adjudication were seized, with the vessel, by a revenue vessel and carried into the port of Mobile, where restitution of the slaves was awarded and the vessel condemned, have not a claim embraced within the treaty of Spain, which stipulates that "the United States will cause satisfaction to be made for the injuries, if any, which by process of law shall be established to have been suffered by the Spanish officers and individual Spanish inhabitants by the late operations of the American army in Florida." Claim under Treaty with Spain,* 2 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 198.

§ 304. October 27, 1795.- By the twentieth article of the treaty of October 27, 1795, between Spain and the United States, free access to the courts of justice in each nation is stipulated and reciprocally granted to the inhabitants of the other, but the jurisdiction of our courts is not extended to offenses committed in Spain nor vice versa. Territorial Rights,* 1 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 68.

§ 305. The seventeenth article of the treaty with Spain of 1795, which provides for certain passports and certificates as evidence of property on board of the ships of both states, is in its terms applicable only to cases where either of the parties is engaged in war. This article required a certain form of passport to be agreed upon by the parties and annexed to the treaty. It never was annexed, and therefore it was held inoperative. United States v. The Amistad, 15 Pet., 518.

§ 306. The sixth article of the Spanish treaty of 1795 applies exclusively to the protection and defense of Spanish ships within our territorial jurisdiction, and provides only for their restitution when captured within the same. The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat., 283.

$307. The fourteenth article of the treaty of 1795 between the United States and Spain provides that no subject of Spain "shall apply for or take any commission or letter of marque

for arming any ship or ships to act as privateers" against the United States or their citizens or their property from any prince or state with which the United States shall be at war, and that no citizen of the United States "shall apply for or take any commission or letters of marque for arming any ship or ships to act as privateers" against the king of Spain or his subjects or their property from any prince or state with which the said king shall be at war. "And if any person of either nation shall take such commission or letter of marque he shall be punished as a pirate." In the Spanish counterpart of the treaty the word "privateers in the first clause has the corresponding word "corsarios,” but in the second clause no such word is to be found. Held, that both clauses were intended to receive, and ought to receive, the same construction, and that the penalty provided for in the article is confined to private armed vessels, and does not extend to public ships. Ibid.

§ 308. Under the treaty of October 27, 1795, between the United States and Spain, stipulating that free ships shall make free goods, the want of a sea-letter or passport "expressing the name, property and bulk of the ship, as also the name and place of habitation of the master or commander of the said ship," as described in the seventeenth article, is not a substantive ground of condemnation. It only authorizes capture and sending in for adjudication, and the proprietary interest in the ship may be found by other equivalent testimony. The Pizarro, 2 Wheat., 227.

$309. The fifteenth article of the treaty of October 27, 1795, between the United States and Spain provides that “it shall be lawful for all and singular the subjects of his catholic majesty, and the citizens, people and inhabitants of the said United States, to sail with their ships with all manner of security," etc. The term "subjects" in the above article, when applied to persons owing allegiance to Spain, must be construed in the same sense as the term "citizens" or "inhabitants" when applied to persons owing allegiance to the United States, and extends to all persons domiciled in the Spanish dominions. Ibid.

$310. The ninth article of the treaty of October 27, 1795, between the United States and Spain, provides that all ships and merchandise which shall be rescued out of the hands of any pirates and robbers on the high seas which shail be brought into some port of either state shall be restored entire to the proprietary as soon as proof shall be made concerning the property thereof. Held, that in a case where negroes, kidnaped by a Spanish vessel in Africa, obtained mastery over the ship by killing most of the crew, and were finally picked up in a port of the United States, the provisions of the above article did not require a surrender of the negroes to the alleged Spanish proprietors. United States v. The Amistad,* 15 Pet., 518.

§ 311.

February 22, 1819.— According to the stipulation in the eighth article of the treaty between the United States and Spain of February 22, 1819 (8 Stat. at L., 252), all complete grants of land from the king of Spain, made prior to the date of the treaty, gave valid titles to the grantees, and all land thus previously granted was excepted out of the grant to the United States. United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet., 691.

§ 312. The two originals of that treaty, one in Spanish and one in English, not agreeing in all particulars, the language of the former is to be taken as expressing the intention of the grantor as to the grants and reservations made. Ibid.

§ 313. By the eighth article of the Florida treaty, no grants of land made after the 24th of January, 1818, were valid; nor could a survey be valid on lands other than those authorized by the grant. United States v. Clarke, 16 Pet., 228.

§ 314. The language of the second article of the treaty between the United States and Spain of February 22, 1819, "His catholic majesty cedes to the United States in full property and sovereignty all the territories which belong to him situated to the eastward of the Mississippi by the name of East and West Florida," couforms to the principle that the right of property in all those who became subjects or citizens of the new government should be unaffected by the change. United States v. Percheman, 7 Pet., 51.

§ 315. The meaning of the words "lawful authorities," in the eighth article of the treaty between Spain and the United States, by which the former ceded Florida to the latter, or "competent authorities," in the ratification, must be taken to be " by those persons who exercised the granting power by the authority of the crown." Mitchel v. United States, 9 Pet., 711. § 316. The eighth article expressly recognizes the existence of these lawful authorities in the ceded territories, designating the governor or intendant, as the case might be, as invested with such authority, which is to be deemed competent till the contrary is made to appear. Ibid.

§ 317. The eleventh article of the treaty with Spain of 1819 directs that the records and papers mentioned in that article are to be deposited in the state department, and the whole context shows that they were intended permanently to remain there. The secretary of state cannot deliver them to claimants, and any law of congress authorizing such delivery would be a violation of the treaty. Depository of Records,* 2 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 515.

$318. The ninth article of the treaty between the United States and Spain of February 22, 1819, provides that "the United States will cause satisfaction to be made for the injuries, if any, which by process of law shall be established to have been suffered by the Spanish officers and individual Spanish inhabitants by the late operations of the American army in Florida." The extraordinary expense ($3,750) of a party, incurred in living at St. Mary's, whither he retired after the destruction of his property in Florida, is a matter too remotely consequential to the proper subject of damages under the above provisions. Damages under the Florida Treaty,* 6 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 530.

§ 319. In virtue of the acts of congress which provide for the execution of the ninth article of the treaty between the United States and Spain for the cession of Florida, which awards damages in certain cases to inhabitants of Florida, the secretary of the treasury has lawful authority to determine whether the awards of the judge of the district court of Florida `are “just and equitable” or not, and to allow or disallow the same accordingly, at his discretion. Claims under the Florida Treaty,* 6 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 533.

§ 320. The decision of preceding secretaries of the treasury that interest is not allowable on such claims is to be considered as res adjudicata, and binding on their successors. Ibid. § 321. The sixth article of the treaty of February 22, 1819, by which Spain ceded Florida to the United States, provided that "the inhabitants of the territories which his catholic majesty cedes to the United States by this treaty shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the federal constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights and immunities of the citizens of the United States." This provision, as the supreme law of the land, admitted the inhabitants of Florida to the privileges, etc., of citizens of the United States, but gave them no right to participate in political power until Florida should become a state. American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet., 511.

§ 322. Under the treaty of February 22, 1819, between the United States and Spain, and the act of congress passed to carry out its provisions, the apprehension and delivery of a Spanish seaman alleged to have deserted in an American port is a judicial duty, in regard to which the judges must be left to act upon their own separate responsibility, and the state department is powerless to change what a judge has done. Spanish Deserters,* 9 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 96.

§ 323. The treaty requires the name of the deserter to appear on the ship's roll and to be exhibited by the Spanish consul before an arrest is warranted. An extract from the roll certified by the consul is not sufficient to warrant an arrest. Ibid.

§ 324. It is the settled doctrine of the judicial department of the government that the treaty of February 22, 1819, with Spain, ceded to the United States no territory west of the river Perdido, such territory having been already acquired by the United States under the Louisiana treaty of 1803. But in the interval between the Louisiana treaty and the time when the United States took possession of the country west of the Perdido, the Spanish government had the right to grant permits to settle and improve by cultivation, or to authorize the erection of establishments for mechanical purposes. Pollard v. Files, 2 How., 591.

§ 325. Sweden, April 3, 1783.- By the treaty of April 3, 1783, between the United States and Sweden, the contracting parties engage not to grant thereafter any particular favor to other nations in respect to commerce and navigation which shall not become common to the other party. By the seventeenth article of the treaty of July 4, 1827, with Sweden and Norway, the above agreement was revised and made applicable to all the countries under the dominion, at that time, of the two contracting powers. By the treaty last cited the contracting parties engage not to impose upon the navigation between their respective territories, in the vessels of either, any tonnage or other duties of any kind or denomination which shall be higher or other than those which shall be imposed on every other navigation, except coastwise between the ports of Sweden and Norway. By virtue of the above stipulations the provisions of the treaty of July 17, 1858, between the United States and Belgium, exempting steam-vessels of the United States and Belgium engaged in regular navigation between their respective countries from payment of duties of tonnage, anchorage, buoys and light-houses, became applicable to steam navigation between the United States and Sweden and Norway at the time the last-mentioned treaty went into effect. Hence owners of steamers of the Norse-American line, being Swedish and Norwegian vessels, plying regularly between Norway and the United States, are entitled to have refunded to them all moneys paid by them to the customs officers of the United States since July 17, 1858. Norse-American Line of Steamers,* 14 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 468.

§ 326. Switzerland. Under the convention for extradition between the United States and Switzerland (11 Stat. at L., 593, 594), which provides that persons shall be delivered up according to the provisions of the convention who shall be charged with the crimes therein specified, "when these crimes are subject to infamous punishment," held, that when one of

the specified crimes has been committed, and the extradition of the person who has committed it is demanded, it is sufficient if such crime is subject to infamous punishment in the country where it was committed, without its being necessary that it should also be subject to infamous punishment in the country from which the extradition of such person is demanded. In re Farez, 7 Blatch., 345.

$327. November 25, 1850.- The treaty of November 25, 1850, between the United States and Switzerland (10 Stat. at L., 587), provided that "in case real estate situated within the territories of one of the contracting parties should fall to a citizen of the other party he shall be at liberty at all times to withdraw and export the proceeds thereof without difficulty and without payment to the government of any other charges than those which, in a similar case, would be paid by an inhabitant of the country in which the real estate may be situated." Held, that the above provision entitled A., next of kin to B., who died intestate and without issue in Virginia, both A. and B. being citizens of Switzerland, to recover and sell the lands belonging to B.'s estate, and withdraw and export the proceeds thereof, such lands having been sold by the escheator of that district. Hauenstein v. Lynham, 10 Otto, 483.

§ 328. The first and third clauses of article 5 of the treaty of 1850 between the United States and Switzerland provide as follows, viz.: The citizens of each one of the contracting parties shall have power to dispose of their personal property within the jurisdiction of the other, by sale, testament, donation or in any other manner; and their heirs, whether by testament or ab intestate, or their successors, being citizens of the other party, shall succeed to the said property or inherit it, and they may take possession thereof, either by themselves or by others acting for them; they may dispose of the same as they may think proper, paying no other charges than those to which the inhabitants of the country wherein the said property is situated shall be liable to pay in a similar case. The foregoing provisions shall be applicable to real estate situated within the states of the American Union, or within the cantons of the Swiss confederation in which foreigners are entitled to hold or inherit real estate." Held, that, under the above provisions, citizens of Switzerland could inherit of citizens of the United States the same as citizens of the United States. Jost v. Jost,* 1 Mackey, 487.

§ 329. November 25, 1860.- When by the laws of Switzerland a private citizen may maintain an action against the confederation in its federal tribunal, if the object of the litigation is of the value of at least three thousand france, and when by treaty of November 25, 1860 (11 Stat. at L., 587), citizens of the United States "shall be at liberty to prosecute and defend their rights before courts of justice in the same manner as native citizens," the government of Switzerland will be deemed to "accord to citizens of the United States the right to prosecute claims against such government in its courts" within the meaning of the act of July 27, 1868, chapter 276, section 2 (15 Stat. at L., 243). Hence a citizen of Switzerland may maintain an action for the proceeds of captured property in the court of claims. Lobsiger v. United States,* 5 Ct. Cl., 687.

§ 330. Turkey. The provisions of the eighteenth section of the act of August 11, 1848, to carry into effect certain provisions in the treaties between the United States and China and the Ottoman Porte, do not apply to Turkey. Act of 1848 and Treaty with the Ottoman Porte,* 5 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 67.

§ 331. Whether the above act embraces Egypt and the Barbary states, which are under the dominion of the Ottoman Porte, is a political question, which cannot be solved without the aid of the department of state. Ibid.

§ 332. The act of August 11, 1848, to carry into effect certain provisions in the treaties between the United States and China and the Ottoman Porte, giving certain judicial powers to ministers and consuls of the United States in those countries, not having designated any particular place for the confinement of prisoners arrested for crime, the same is left for regulation under the fifth section, or, in the absence of any such regulation, to the discretion of the acting functionary. Ibid.

§ 333. May 7, 1830.- The treaty of May 7, 1830, between the United States and the Ottoman Porte provides that, "if litigations and disputes arise between the subjects of the Sublime Porte and citizens of the United States, the parties shall not be heard, nor shall judgment be pronounced, unless the American dragoman be present. Causes in which the sum may exceed five hundred piastres shall be submitted to the Sublime Porte, to be decided according to the laws of equity and justice. Citizens of the United States of America, quietly pursuing their commerce, and not being charged or convicted of any crime or offense, shall not be molested; and even when they may have committed some offense they shall not be arrested or put in prison by the local authorities, but they shall be tried by their minister or consul, and punished according to their offense, following in this respect the usage observed

towards other Franks." "Commerce" in the above article means any subject or object of residence or intercourse whatever; and as to all civil affairs to which no subject of Turkey is a party, Americans are wholly exempt from the local jurisdiction, and in civil matters, as well as criminal, Americans in Turkey are entitled to the benefit of "the usage observed towards other Franks." Americans in Turkey,* 7 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 565.

$334. Under the above treaty, citizens of the United States, in common with all other foreign christians, enjoy the privilege of exterritoriality in Turkey, including Egypt, the same in the Turkish regencies of Tripoli and Tunis, and also in the independent Arabic states of Moroco and Muscat. Ibid.

§ 335. The treaties of 1830 and 1862 with Turkey place our government on a footing with the most favored nations, giving the same rights and privileges to our people in that country that are conceded by the Sublime Porte to the subjects of other christian states, and among the rights thus secured is that of establishing consular courts with jurisdiction to hear and determine all classes of cases between American citizens to the exclusion of the local jurisdiction. Dainese v. Hale,* 1 MacArth., 86.

§ 336. 1862.— The treaty between the United States and Turkey made in 1862, which provided that "all rights, privileges or immunities which the Sublime Porte now grants, or may hereafter grant to or suffer to be enjoyed by, the subjects, ships, commerce or navigation of any foreign power, shall be equally granted to and exercised and enjoyed by the citizens, vessels, commerce and navigation of the United States of America," guaranties to citizens the same right to have their civil controversies decided by their own minister and consuls as that enjoyed by subjects of other christian nations in Turkey. Dainese v. Hale, 1 Otto, 13; 8 Ch. Leg. N., 97.

§ 337. United States of Colombia.- The sixth article of the treaty with the republic of Colombia provides that “whenever the citizens of either of the contracting parties shall be forced to seek refuge in the rivers, bays, etc., of the other with their vessels, whether merchant or of war, public or private, through stress of weather, pursuit of pirates or enemies, they shall be received and treated with humanity, giving to them all favor and protection for repairing their ships, procuring provisions and placing themselves in a situation to continue their voyage without obstacle or hindrance of any kind," and further, that "nothing in this treaty contained shall be construed or operate contrary to former and existing public treaties with other sovereigns." Under this treaty Colombian vessels are entitled to make repairs in our ports when forced into them by stress of weather, but they cannot enlist recruits there, either from among our citizens or foreigners, except such as may be transiently within the United States. Rights of Colombian Vessels,* 2 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 4.

§ 338. February 10, 1864.- In the convention of February 10, 1864, it is recited that "whereas the joint commission organized under the authority conferred by the first-named convention" (of September, 1857) “did fail . . . to decide all the claims laid before them under its provisions within the time to which their proceedings were limited, . . the time originally fixed for the duration of the commission should be so extended as to admit of the examination and adjustment of such claims as were presented to but not settled by the joint commission aforesaid." Held, that the new commission organized under the convention of 1864 had power to decide all claims properly presented to the former commission which had been left undecided, and hence could determine what claims had and what claims had not been decided by such former commission. Convention with United States of Colombia,* 11 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 402. § 339. Wurtemburg.

The treaty with Wurtemburg, providing that "citizens or subjects of each of the contracting parties shall have power to dispose of their personal property within the states of the other, by testament, donation, or otherwise, and their heirs, legatees and donees, being citizens or subjects of the other contracting party, shall succeed to their said personal property, and may take possession thereof, and dispose of the same at their pleasure, paying such duties as the inhabitants of the country where the property lies shall be liable to pay in like cases," does not regulate the testamentary dispositions of citizens or subjects of the contracting powers in reference to property within the country of their origin or citizenship; and hence has no application to the case of a former citizen of Wurtemburg dying in Louisiana, who before his death had become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Frederickson v. The State of Louisiana,* 23 How., 445.

TREES.

See TIMBER.