occurred the courts have not hesitated to hold that the settlers were not bound by those alien laws of a foreign country, but by those they brought with them (4). But the occasion for a conflict of the laws by which rights are to be determined is presented, and must be passed upon by the courts, guided by some known rule of law. SECTION 2. TEMPORARY ACCESSION OF TERRITORY. SHIPS.

§ 8. In general. A fertile field for the application of the rules of Conflict of Laws is afforded where there has been an accession of territory governed by laws of its own to another nation having also its own laws. A simple form of such accession, though only temporary, occurs when a ship flying the flag of one nation comes within a marine league (three miles) of another nation, or where it anchors in a harbor of another.

As preliminary to the consideration of this form of accession, let us determine by what law a ship is governed, when sailing on the high seas. A unique feature of the dual character of the law governing vessels sailing from American states will also be mentioned, as it illustrates the opportunities that exist for a conflict of laws.

§ 9. Ships on the high seas. For many purposes, a ship is deemed in law a floating island (5), as it were, a detached portion of the mainland, of the nation from which it hails and whose flag it flies. In Seagrove v. Parks (6) it was sought to bring a proceeding in foreign attachment against one who was a naval officer on the royal ship "Cockatrice," sailing on the high seas at the

(4) First National Bank v. Kinner, 1 Utah, 100.

time. In order to be entitled to bring such a proceeding, it was necessary for the complaining party to show that the defendant was outside the territorial boundaries of England. It appeared that the defendant was on a ship on the high seas, and it was decided that a substituted service, proper only where the defendant was outside the territorial jurisdiction of England, could not be permitted, the court saying: "As long as the defendant is on board his ship, he is within the jurisdiction." If a vessel is thus still a part of the territory whose flag it flies, the law of that territory should naturally control the rights of the persons on board, as between themselves.

§ 10. Same: Illustrations. Another instance in which a court acted upon this rule is to be found in McDonald v. Mallory (7). In that case a vessel was registered in a port of the state of New York, and was owned by citizens of that state. While on the high seas, beyond the physical boundaries of any state or nation, the owners by their negligence caused the death of another. By a New York statute damages could be recovered from those who caused death by negligence. This is a statutory right, and does not exist at common law. It was contended that the New York law could not be in

force on the vessel at

the time the injury was committed. The court said: "It is clear that, in order to maintain this action, it is necessary to establish that the statute law in question was operative on board of the vessel upon which the injury was committed. The locus in quo was not within the actual territorial limits of any state or nation, nor

was it subject to the laws of any government, unless the rule which exists from necessity is applied, that every vessel on the high seas is constructively a part of the territory of the nation to which she belongs, and its laws are operative on board of her." It held that the law of New York was applicable, thus illustrating the rule that a vessel on the high seas, entirely beyond the territorial boundaries of the nation to which she belongs, is constructively a part of the territory of that nation, and that that nation furnishes the law for the vessel.

Although the case of Norman v. Norman (8) was not expressly decided on such a principle, it is consistent with it. That was an action to declare void a marriage solemnized on board a vessel from California, because the marriage ceremony had not been performed according to the requirements of the law of California. The court held that the parties had not entered into the marriage relation, as they had not followed the California statute in performing the ceremony. The case is explainable on the basis that the vessel was a floating part of California, and that the statutory method of solemnizing a marriage prescribed by California was applicable to all persons on board the vessel.

§ 11. Same: Foreigners on board. This law applies not only to citizens and inhabitants of the nation from which the ship sailed, but to foreigners as well; it controls not only the civil rights of the parties on board, but it also makes criminal acts, done on board, offenses against the criminal laws of the ship's nation. In Regina

v. Sattler (9), the court said that any persons on board an English ship on the high seas, not within the territory of any foreign nation, whether such persons be foreign or English, are as much amenable to English law as if they were on English soil. It was held that a foreigner who had killed another on board an English ship was guilty of murder.

These cases, where the vessel at the time the right arises is not within the territorial jurisdiction of some other nation, but on the high seas, do not present a conflict between the law of the nation to which the vessel belongs and some other law. A single law, only, can with any plausibility be made applicable. It points, however, to the possibility of such a conflict, when the vessel, carrying with it the law of its nation, sails into the harbor or port of another nation, and thus makes it conceivable that the nation where the ship physically is may have some voice in determining by what laws it shall be governed.

§ 12. Same: From American states. The rule stated in the preceding subsection is of general application. Owing to the dual character of the law-giving power in the states of the Union, a unique and peculiar condition results as to what law controls a vessel that sails from one of the states. As to certain fields of law the states have retained their power to legislate and to provide the law to be applied; as to others they have delegated the law-making power to the national government. The fact that such a division has been made has a bearing upon

the law to which is subject a vessel on the high seas flying the flag of a state. The division is made between laws regulating civil rights merely and those regulating crimes on the high seas. As the latter have been placed under the exclusive legislative power of the Federal government, the criminal codes of the states have no application on board their vessels after they leave their boundaries. On the other hand, the same vessel looks to the laws of its state to provide the rule to determine the civil rights of the parties on board (10).

§ 13. Same: Illustration. A conflict of laws has resulted in a few cases, as a result of the failure to perceive the composite character of the law regulating a vessel sailing from a state of the Union. In Crapo v. Kelly (11) a vessel sailed from the state of Massachusetts, and, while on the high seas, an insolvency proceeding was brought against the owner in Massachusetts. By virtue of this proceeding it was claimed title had passed under the laws of Massachusetts to the owner's assignee in insolvency. After these insolvency proceedings had been taken, the vessel came within the boundaries of the state of New York, and an attachment was levied on her there to satisfy a claim against the former owner. If, at the time the vessel was on the high seas, the laws of Massachusetts controlled, the subsequent attachment on the ground that the vessel was still owned by the insolvent was void, as a new owner had stepped in. If, however, as was contended, the law of the Federal government alone was operative when she had gone upon the high seas, then

(10)

McDonald v. Mallory, 77 New York, 546.