sey. An affray occurred between Wildenhus and another while on board, and Wildenhus stabbed the other with a knife and wounded him so that he died. The police authorities arrested Wildenhus, and placed him in a common jail to await his trial. While thus imprisoned he brought a habeas corpus proceeding to get his freedom. He did this on the theory, that, he being on the Belgian ship when the deed was done, he had not broken the laws of New Jersey, but the laws of Belgium, if any. For violating the laws of the latter country he ought not be punishable in New Jersey. The conflict was created by the physical presence of the Belgian vessel, with its Belgian laws, in the territorial bounds of New Jersey. The court held the New Jersey law applied, explaining it thus: "By comity it came to be generally understood among civilized nations that all matters of discipline and all things done on board which affected only the vessel or those belonging to her, and did not involve the peace or dignity of the country (where the vessel was stopping), or the tranquillity of the port, should be left by the local government to be dealt with by the authorities of the nation to which the vessel belonged." From this case the rule is deducible that, generally, private vessels from another nation are governed by the laws of that nation, except as to acts which are of such grievous character that they disturb the public tranquillity. Those are governed by the law of the locality of the ship.

§ 17. Same: Public vessels. In the case of Forbes v. Cochrane (14) a British squadron was stationed at the

(14) 2 B. & C. 448.

mouth of St. Mary's river in Florida. At that time (1815) Florida was still a Spanish province and slavery was permitted there. Several of plaintiff's slaves escaped from him, took refuge on the ship "Terror Bomb," and Sir George Cochrane, the rear admiral, refused to make them return or to give the owner any assistance. Slavery was at that time prohibited in England. The owner brought suit in England against Cochrane, the admiral, for the injury sustained in the loss of his slaves. The defense made for the admiral consisted in an application of a principle of conflict of laws. The contention was made that the "Terror Bomb" was a part of British territory and was free soil, that as soon as the slaves came on board they were free men, and that the Spanish law of the neighboring territory where slavery prevailed had no force on board the ship. The court so held, saying, "The moment they got on board the English ship there was an end of any right the plaintiff had, by the Spanish law, acquired over them as slaves." In this case the vessel involved was a public vessel, a war vessel owned by the British government. The act of permitting the slaves to remain on board the vessel was not a crime and nothing occurred to disturb the tranquillity of the inhabitants of Florida as in the Wildenhus case. The rule is, however, in a case where the vessl involved is a war vessel, that only the nation to which the vessel belongs has the right to punish for such a crime, and it alone furnishes the law to be applied and determines whether under that law a crime has been committed.

§ 18. Only one law applicable to a single matter. In some cases, courts have taken the indefensible position

that the law, either of the vessel, or of the mainland near which it is, may be applied, and that those on board are amenable to both. In Regina v. Anderson (15) a merchant vessel sailing under the British flag had entered the Garonne River in France, bound for Bordeaux. It had proceeded about half way up the river to Bordeaux, which was ninety miles from the Atlantic, and at the time the offense charged was committed was about three hundred yards from the nearest shore, the river being about half a mile wide at that place. The vessel belonged to the port of Yarmouth, in Nova Scotia, but was registered in London and was flying the British flag. The defendant was an American citizen. The crime charged was murder, and this belonged to the class which disturbed public tranquillity of the French nation and made the French law applicable. The English court held that the defendant was subject to British law, and convicted him of manslaughter. It said: "Although the prisoner was subject to American jurisprudence as an American citizen, and to the law of France as having committed an offense within the territory of France, yet he must also be considered as subject to the jurisdiction of British law, which extends to the protection of British vessels, though in ports belonging to another country. The only effect of the ship being within the ambit of French territory is that there might have been concurrent jurisdiction had the French claimed it."

§ 19. Same: Criticism of contrary view. The court concedes in its opinion that, when an act disturbs the

(15) 11 Cox C. C., 198.

tranquillity of France, French law should control. With this concession the court should have held that the French law, and it alone, should be applied, and that no nation had been offended by the commission of the deed except the French nation. It was its privilege to punish and no other nation should have done so. As stated by the court in Swift v. Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Co. (16): "There cannot be separate systems of law over the same subject matter, and the same territory, emanating from separate sources of authority." Unless such a rule is adopted and followed, an individual may find himself in duty bound to do an act by the law of one nation, which by the law of another he is prohibited from doing. Under such a concurrent law-providing rule as the Anderson case supports, the individual would be guilty at all events, under one nation or the other, whether he acted or failed to act. The composite character of the law applied to vessels sailing from the American states presents this concurrent element. In those cases, however, the laws of the state regulate the civil topic and the Federal laws do not interfere. On the other hand, the Federal laws regulate the criminal topic, and the state criminal laws have no application. In this way, the concurrent legislation for the vessel is harmonized, and no inconsistency can result, as in the case instanced where the laws of two nations apply to the same topic-the topic of crimes (the Anderson case).

§ 20. Summary. This section has dealt with the temporary accession to one nation of the floating territory of

(16) 64 Federal, 59.

another. The accession is for a brief period of time only; furthermore, it is made to many nations with diverse laws. This twofold reason explains the existence of the rule that the law of the nation from which the vessel sails should control the rights of those on board and determine their correlative duties. The cases examined in this section illustrate that the law of the vessel's nation follows her and prevails over the law of the territory near which she may be. It provides the rule of conduct in civil and criminal matters when the vessel is a war vessel, a ship owned by the government. On the other hand, when the vessel is owned by private individuals, such as merchant vessels commonly are, then the law of the vessel's nation is again applied except in the case of crimes which disturb the public peace and tranquillity. The law of the nation where the vessel is defines these, and only that law should be capable of being violated.

SECTION 3. PERMANENT ACCESSION OF TERRITORY. § 21. In general. In the consideration of the permanent accession of territory and the conflicts that may result therefrom, different forms of such accession deserve attention. There is a form of accession in which no laws are brought with the territory, as is usual in cases of accession. Another form of accession is found where the territory added brings with it a complete set of laws. Allied to this form is the addition to the United States made upon the admission of a new state into the Union.

§ 22. Accession of strip adjoining national shores. Among nations there is a tacit understanding that, if any nation desires to add to its jurisdiction and to subject to its laws and government a strip of the high seas one ma