the insolvency proceedings under Massachusetts law had no effect. The court held the Massachusetts law was applicable to control this civil matter, and that as to such matters the Federal laws did not apply. The vessel was controlled by the state law in civil matters, and by the Federal law in criminal. The title of the assignee, acquired by operation of the Massachusetts law, was sustained, to the exclusion of any Federal law.

§ 14. Ships within foreign territory. Ships sailing on the high seas do not present cases of accession of the territory of one nation to another. When such floating territory has arrived within three miles of such nation, or entered a port or harbor, it can then, for the first time, be said that the territory of a foreign nation has been added to its territory. Under such conditions, by whose laws shall the newly, though temporarily, added territory be governed? What nation shall supply the laws to regulate the rights of those on board-the law of the nation from which the vessel came, or the law of the nation where it has arrived or anchored? If the movement were simply a movement of a railway train from one state into another, the law of the state where the passengers and train were, as a physical fact, would control. This would be stated as the rule without much hesitation.

§ 15. Same: Criminal acts on ships. In the case of sea-going ships the answer cannot be so readily given. In Regina v. Lesley (12), certain subjects of Chili in South America were banished by the government from Chili to England. The defendant, the master of an Eng

lish merchant vessel lying in the waters of Chili, contracted with the government of Chili to take the banished persons to England. They were placed upon the vessel and taken by the master to Liverpool. The banished persons brought a criminal action against the master for having falsely imprisoned them on the English ship. Two points are raised in the case: First, could the master be made criminally liable for what he did within three miles of the shore of the government of Chili? As to this the court answered he could not be. The court said: "Although an English ship in some respects carries with her the laws of her country, in the territorial waters of a foreign state, yet in other respects she is subject to the laws of that state as to acts done to the subjects thereof." The court here recognized that, as to acts done to the banished men while the ship was in Chilian waters, the English law had no power to punish, another law being effective. The second point determined by the court was that, as to the act of continuing to keep the banished men imprisoned after the ship had left the Chilian waters, the master was guilty of a false imprisonment and sentenced him. The latter point is merely an application of the principle before stated, that, on the high seas, the nation whose flag the ship flies furnishes the law to which those on board owe obedience.

§ 16. Same: (continued). In Wildenhus's Case (13) a subject of Belgium, whose name was Wildenhus, was one of a crew of a Belgian steamship, Nordland, lying moored at the dock of the port of Jersey City, New Jer

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

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

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