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

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

rine league in width, which borders on its boundaries, it may do so. If such addition is made, the strip is taken without laws, and no conflict can result between the laws of the newly added strip and the mainland. In Regina v. Keyn (17) the defendant was charged with the crime of manslaughter. He was in charge of a foreign vessel, which was sailing on the high seas within a marine league of the English coast. Through his negligence he ran the vessel against another vessel, broke a hole into her, and she sank. The deceased, whose death defendant is accused of having caused, was on board the latter ship and was drowned. It seems to have been conceded that, if the English law was applicable on the high seas, then defendant was guilty. The court held the English law was not extended to the high seas. The majority of the court took the position that such an extension of the laws could only be made by an express enactment of Parliament. The minority took the view that a custom of applying English law to that strip of sea was sufficient. The defendant, not having violated the English law against manslaughter, as it did not exist where the deed was done, was found not guilty.

§ 23. Same (continued). The question has arisen, what laws are applicable to the inland bays, formed by the high seas, which are less than two marine leagues from headland to headland. In Commonwealth v. Manchester (18), defendant, a citizen of Rhode Island, was charged with seining for fish in the waters of Buzzard's Bay in Massachusetts. The bay was more than one, but

(17) 13 Cox C. C. 403.

less than two, marine leagues from headland to headland, but at the point where the offense was committed the distance to the shore of the bay was more than a league. It was contended that, as the place where the act was committed was more than a marine league from the shore, defendant was not guilty, and that he was amenable only to the law of Rhode Island, the state of his ship. The court held, however, that he was amenable to the laws of Massachusetts. This was so held by the court by virtue of a rule of law that states have jurisdiction, as a common law right, of all inland arms of the sea; that is, those bays that are less than two marine leagues from headland to headland. The contest in this case was similar to that in Regina v. Keyn, above, and the ultimate question was whether the laws of Massachusetts extended over the bay. The court held they did.

§ 24. Accession by discovery. Accession to a nation may occur by the discovery of new lands, as in the case of America. When such land is uninhabited, or peopled by savage tribes having no recognized laws, the newly discovered territory becomes an addition to the territory of the discovering nation, and immediately is made subject to its laws. As agreed in Blankard v. Galdy (19), "in case of an uninhabited country newly-found out by English subjects, all laws in force in England are in force there." When an accession occurs in this way, no conflict of laws can arise, as but a single law is applicable.

§ 25. Accession of territory having fixed laws: Conquest. A nation which adds to its domain the territory

of another having a fixed code of laws has the power to legislate for the added territory. In the absence, however, of legislation expressly made applicable to such territory, the former laws of the new acquisition will control.

In Blankard v. Galdy (20) defendant was sued on a bond. To avoid liability on this bond he pleaded that it was given for the purchase of the office of provost-marshal in the island of Jamaica, which he pleaded was a possession of the crown of England. He also pleaded that by an English statute a bond given for the purchase of a public office was void. The plaintiff replied that Jamaica was a territory which England had acquired from Spain by conquest; that the English statute did not apply; that only the laws of Jamaica could be referred to to ascertain the validity of the bond; and that by the law of Jamaica it was valid, as a bond could there be given for the purchase of a public office. The court held the laws of Jamaica applied, saying: "Jamaica being conquered, and not pleaded to be parcel of the kingdom of England the laws of England did not take place there, until declared so by the conqueror or his successors. This case presented a conflict as to whether the laws of the conqueror or of the conquered should control the rights and duties of the inhabitants of the conquered territory, and it was held that the laws of the added territory should control, unless and until changed by the conqueror.

§ 26. Same: Peaceful cession. In Chicago and Pacific Railway Co. v. McGlenn (21) an action was brought against the railroad for the value of a cow that had

(20) 2 Salkeld, 411.