"The Act of February 6, 1905, after providing for the guarantee by the Philippine Government of the payment of interest on certain railroad bonds and of the security for the same by lien upon the railroad and the company's other property, subsequent to the mortgage, under which the bonds were issued, continues "The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction in all actions, proceedings or suits at law or in equity brought by the Philippine government against any person or corporation involving the construction of this section or any right existing under, duty enjoined, or act prohibited by said section or any contract made in pursuance thereof; and jurisdiction is hereby vested in the supreme court to make such order, to enter such judgment or decree and to take such proceedings in enforcement thereof as may be proper. During the vacations of said court the chief justice or any judge thereof shall have all the power to grant restraining orders, orders of injunction, to appoint receivers, or to do any other act under authority herein granted, that a judge of a court of general jurisdiction may do in the vacation of court." 27 It also has jurisdiction to determine adverse claims to land.28 The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee to the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands the right to trial by jury.2 29 It has been said that this right cannot exist until these Islands have been by Congress formally incorporated into the United States.30 § 73. Jurisdiction of the United States Court for China. The United States Court for China has exclusive jurisdiction in all cases and judicial proceedings whereof jurisdiction might on June 30th, 1906,1 "be exercised by Unted States consuls and ministers by law and by virtue of treaties between the United States and China, except in so far as the said jurisdiction is qualified by section two of this act. The said court February 6, 1905, Ch. 453, 33 St. at L. 689, 691. Quoted supra, note 2. 27 Ch. 453, § 4, 33 St. at L. 689, 691. 28 Ibid. § 39. 29 Dorr v. U. S., 195 U. S. 138, 24 Sup. Ct. 808, 49 L. ed. 129. 30 Dorr v. U. S., 195 U. S. 138, 149, 24 Sup. Ct. 808, 49 L. ed. 129. $73. 1 This jurisdiction is shown in U. S. R. S., §§ 4083-4130, quoted infra, $74, and the treaties with China of Dec. 31, 1846, by Malley's Treaties, I, 196. shall hold sessions at Shanghai, China, and shall also hold sessions at the cities of Canton, Tientsin, and Hongkong, at stated periods, the dates of such sessions at each city to be announced in such manner as the court shall direct, and a session of the court shall be held in each of these cities at least once annually. It shall be within the power of the judge, upon due notice to the parties in litigation, to open and hold court for the hearing of a special cause at any place permitted by the treaties, and where there is a United States consulate, when, in his judgment, it shall be required by the convenience of witnesses, or by some public interest. The place of sitting of the court shall be in the United States consulate of each of the cities, respectively." This court also has supervisory control over the discharge by consuls and vice consuls of the duties prescribed by the laws of the United States relating to the estates of decedents in China which are specified in the statutes creating the court. § 2. The consuls of the United States in the cities of China to which they are respectively accredited shall have the same jurisdiction as they now possess in civil cases where the sum or value of the property involved in the controversy does not exceed five hundred dollars United States money and in criminal cases where the punishment for the offense charged cannot exceed by law one hundred dollars fine or sixty days' imprisonment, or both, and shall have power to arrest, examine, and discharge accused persons or commit them to the said court. From all final judgments of the consular court either party shall have the right of appeal to the United States court for China: Provided, also, That appeal may be taken to the United States court for China from any final judgment of the consular courts of the United States in Korea so long as the rights of extra-territoriality shall obtain in favor of the United States." "§ 4. The jurisdiction of the said United States court, both original and on appeal, in civil criminal matters, also the jurisdiction of the Consular courts in China, shall in all cases be exercised in conformity with said treaties and the laws of the United States now in force in reference to the American Consular courts in China, and all judgments and decisions of said Consular courts, and all decisions, judgments, and decrees of the United States court shall be enforced in accordance with said treaties and laws. But in all such cases when such laws are deficient in the provisions necessary to give jurisdiction or to furnish suitable remedies, the common law and the law as established by the decisions of the courts of the United States shall be applied by said court in its decisions and shall govern the same subject of the terms of any treaties between the United States and China."2 The provisions of the statute making the common law applicable to criminal offenses, committed by American citizens in China, are construed as referring to the common law in force in the several American Colonies at the time of their separation from England, and include, not only the ancient common or internal law, but also statutes, which had previously been passed amendatory or in aid of the common law. Among these was chapter 24 of the Statutes of 30, George II, enacted in 1757, creating the offense of obtaining money or goods under false pretenses, and subsequent amendments to the same. The court has jurisdiction of suits between citizens of the United States in controversies which arose in China.5 The court may grant a divorce to an American citizen from his wife who is a Chinese. The judicial authority of the United States Court in China is restricted to the five ports mentioned in the treaty with that nation, namely, Kwang-Chow, Amoy, Fuchow, Ningpo and Shanghai. The jurisdiction of Consular courts is explained in the succeeding section.9 An action may be brought in any one of the United States upon a money judgment recovered in a consular court of China.10 In the State of New 2 Act of June 30, 1906, 34 Stat. at L. 814, Chap. 3934, "An Act creating a United States court for China and prescribing the jurisdiction thereof." 3 As to the effect of a plea of former acquittal, based upon proceedings in the former United States Consular Court of Shanghai, see Price v. U. S., 156 Fed. 950, 85 C. C. A. 247, 13 Ann. Cas. 483, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1272. Biddle v. U. S., C. C. A., 156 Fed. 759. 4 Biddle v. U. S., C. C. A., 156 Fed. 950. 5 Swayne & Hoyt, Inc. v. Everett, C. C. A., 255 Fed. 71. 6 Richards v. Richards, Lobingier, J. May 1, 1915. 38 St. at L. 1122. Note Act of March 4, 1915, Comp. St., § 7696a. 734 St. at L. 814. See 9 Op. A. G. 294. 8 Treaty of Dec. 31, 1846, Malley's Treaties, I, 196. 9 Infra, § 74. 10 Newman v. Basch, 89 Misc. (N. Y.) 622. York an action upon such a judgment is not barred for twenty years. The Chinese Court Regulations of 1864 promulgated the following rule: "Civil actions, based on written promise, contract, or instrument, must be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues; others, within two. 12 Final decrees and judgments of this court may be brought for review to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, by appeal or writ of error, as the case may be.13 Upon an appeal from this court, the record in this court should show an allowance of the appeal.14 Unless the appeal is allowed in open court, a cita 11 Ibid. 12 Secretary Bayard said concerning this: "I do not, it is true, regard this rule as a statute. Not only had Mr. Burlingame no power to enact a statute, as such, but the language of the rule shows that it cannot be regarded as a statutory enactment. It limits suits on even sealed instruments to six years, and on unwritten engagements, no matter how solemn or how strongly evidenced, to two years. It contains no exception in favor of minors or persons under disability. It must be regarded, therefore, not as a statute covering civil limitations in all their bearings, but as an assertion that suits in consular courts in China are to be limited as to time, the limitation to be adapted to the social and business conditions of the period of suit. In this way we can explain not only the limitation of two years for unwritten engagements, which in the then immature and unsettled condition of our business in China, may have been eminently proper, but the omission of the exceptions I have noticed above. I held, therefore, that Rule XV. of the Regulations of 1864, while not to be regarded as having the authority or the fixedness of a statute, is to be viewed as a rule of court expressing a principle open to modification by the court that issued it. It stands in the same position as do the equity rules adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States and courts of the several States, not as a statutory mandate, to remain in force until expressly repealed or modified, but as a principle and regulation of practice which it is open to the court to expand or vary as the purposes of justice may require. As to the importance of your adopting such a rule there can be no question. Were there no such limitation required in China, American merchants in China might be harassed by old debts and stale demands outlawed in the United States, and their business much impeded. Aside from this the principle that the right of suit should be limited as to time, is as essential to public justice as is the principle that the right of suit should exist at all." Mr. Bayard to Mr. Denby, April 27, 1887. Wharton's Dig., § 125, Vol. III, Appendix, pp. 883, 884. 13 § 3, 34 St. at L. 814, 815, Jud. Code, § 131, 36 St. at L. 1087. 14 Steamer Spark v. Lee Choi Chum, 1 Sawyer 713. tion should be issued and served, 15 and the proceedings should conform in other respects to those of appeals to the Circuit Court of Appeals. § 74. Jurisdiction of the Consular Courts. The Revised Statutes provide as follows: "To carry into full effect the provisions of the treaties of the United States with China, Japan, Siam, Egypt, and Madagascar, respectively, the minister and the consuls of the United States, duly appointed to reside in each of those countries, shall, in addition to other powers and duties imposed upon them, respectively, by the provisions of such treaties, respectively, be invested with the judicial authority herein described, which shall appertain to the office of minister and consul, and be a part of the duties belonging thereto, wherein, and so far as, the same is allowed by treaty." "The officers mentioned in the preceding section are fully empowered to arraign and try, in the manner herein provided, all citizens of the United States charged with offenses against law, committed in such countries, respectively, and to sentence such offenders in the manner herein authorized; and each of them is authorized to issue all such processes as are suitable and necessary to carry this authority into execution."2 "Such officers are also invested with all the judicial authority necessary to execute the provisions of such treaties, respectively, in regard to civil rights, whether of property or person; and they shall entertain jurisdiction in matters of contract, at the port where, or nearest to which, the contract was made, or at the port at which, or nearest to which, it was to be executed, and in all other matters, at the port where, or nearest to which, the cause of controversy arose, or at least where, or nearest to which, the damage complained of was sustained, provided such port be one of the posts at which the United States are represented by consuls. Such jurisdiction shall embrace all controversies between citizens of the United States, or others, provided for by such treaties, respectively." "Jurisdiction in both criminal and civil matters shall, in all cases, be exercised and enforced in conformity with |