and Scotland, the United States under the present Constitu tion, are examples of close political union.' Rule for Determining the Strength of a Confederation or Union. Between these extremes there may exist many kinds of confederacies. To determine the political strength of any particular confederation its constitution must be examined, and an accurate account taken of the powers surrendered and retained by each component state. If the power of making political treaties, of sending and receiving ambassadors, and of making war and concluding treaties of peace are vested in the central government, the confederacy is said to be strong. If a considerable number of these powers are retained by the component states the confederation is said to be weak." Protectorates. The term "protectorate" is applied to the relation established between a stronger and a weaker state, by which the weaker is protected from foreign aggression and interference, but suffers in consequence some diminution of its rights of sovereignty and independence. This relation is established by treaty, by the terms of which the extent and character of the protectorate are determined. In most protectorates the foreign relations of the protected state, including the power to engage in war, are in great part regulated by the protector. In so far as other nations are concerned, however, the relations of the interested states forming the protectorate are regarded as strictly internal in character; "the two constitute a single system, possessing and exercising all the powers which belong to civilized government, and not subject to the interference of any third state as to the distribution of those powers,' " which is regulated by the interested states to the exclusion of all others. 1 Wheaton, part i. chap. ii. §§ 3959: I Halleck, chap. iii. §§ 10-17; Klüber, §§ 27, 28; Bluntschli, §§ 7073: I De Martens, §§ 20, 29; I Phillimore, §§ 100-123; Creasy, §§ 140-146; Ortolan, liv. i. pp. 13–38; Lawrence, §§ 45-51. 'Lawrence, § 45; Woolsey, § 108; Pomeroy, § 62: Dana's Wheaton, 3 Westlake, p. 178; Ibid. 87-89; Lawrence, §§ 102-104: I De Martens, § 16; Hall, § 38, p. 127; I Ortolan, pp. 38-45; I Halleck, chap. iii. § 9; Heffter, § 22, par. iv. While the status of a protectorate implies differing degrees of participation in the administration of the protected government, there are yet varying degrees of subjection not necessarily accompanied by an active management of the subject government's affairs. Hence we have the protected state, as in Cuba, whose relation to the United States is very precisely defined by treaty leaving Cuban administration practically independent, and we have, again, the protectorate of Tunis and that of Morocco, in which the French government is the actual administrator. In the case of the tiny republic of San Marino, lying a few miles to the westward of Rimini in northeastern Italy, there is seen to be a very complete relation of protection on the part of Italy, San Marino, however, remaining locally autonomous. Or, still again, there may be participation on the part of the protecting power for certain carefully specified purposes and no others, as in the case of the relations established by the United States with the Dominican Republic, although here we have a condition which ever tends to merge into that of an acal protectorate. In the case of Cuba it became desirable to not merely define its relations to the United States by treaty, but furthermore to incorporate the agreements in the new Cuban constitution of February 21, 1901, which was accordingly done; the treaty was concluded with the United States May 22, 1903, and ratifications were exchanged July 1, 1904, the articles of which are as follows: ARTICLE I The Government of Cuba shall never enter into any treaty or other compact with any foreign power or powers which shall impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba, nor in any manner authorize or permit any foreign power or powers to obtain by colonization or for military or naval purposes, or otherwise, lodgment in or control over any portion of said island. ARTICLE II The Government of Cuba shall not assume or contract any public debt to pay the interest upon which, and to make reasonable sinkingfund provision for the ultimate discharge of which, the ordinary revenues of the Island of Cuba, after defraying the current expenses of the Government, shall be inadequate. ARTICLE III The Government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the Treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the Government of Cuba. ARTICLE IV All acts of the United States in Cuba during its military occupancy thereof are ratified and validated, and all lawful rights acquired thereunder shall be maintained and protected. ARTICLE V The Government of Cuba will execute, and, as far as necessary, extend the plans already devised, or other plans, to be mutually agreed upon, for the sanitation of the cities of the island, to the end that a recurrence of epidemic and infectious diseases may be prevented, thereby assuring protection to the people and commerce of Cuba, as well as to the commerce of the Southern ports of the United States and the people residing therein. ARTICLE VII To enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defence, the Government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations, at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States. Classification of Sovereign Powers. The right of sovereignty is inherent in the artificial body politic which we call the state. It is exercised, like other sovereign powers, through the government of the state, and the various rights of jurisdiction are usually classified and distributed among the different departments of government. The jurisdictional powers of a state are usually divided into: (a.) The Legislative Department. In this department is vested the power to make, alter, and repeal laws. In states which recognize the people as the ultimate source of sovereignty, this department stands first in power and importance. It expresses, more directly than any other, the sovereign will upon any question coming within its jurisdiction. It determines the policy of the state upon all matters internal and external, and can change that policy at will. At the other extreme lie states in which the sover eign authority is held to reside in the person of a single ruler or sovereign. (b.) The Executive Department. In this department is vested the power to execute the laws and to represent the state in its intercourse with foreign powers. (c.) The Judicial Department. In this department is vested the power to apply the laws in the decision of cases arising under them. The jurisdiction of the courts of a state is further classified into civil and criminal. The former extends to the decision of all suits or controversies in law or equity, arising between individuals out of contracts, claims, and services, as well as from torts and injuries. The latter includes the power to try and punish all offences against the state or its sovereign representative, or against society or the individuals who compose it. Exclusive Jurisdiction, where Exercised. This right of jurisdiction is exclusive in all cases arising within the territorial limits of a state, or upon its public or private vessels on the high seas. It is of the most comprehensive character, and, within the territorial limits as above described, no offence can be committed, no act be done, no occasion arise for governmental interference of any kind that will not fall within the jurisdiction of some branch or department of the government of the state, or over which that jurisdiction will not be final and exclusive.' Acquisition and Loss of Sovereignty. Of the states now acknowledged as sovereign, in the civilized world, some were in existence when international law began to assume importance as a separate science; others have since been added to the family of states. A new state may come into being in one of two ways. 'The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a dim inution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.Schooner Exchange vs. McFadden, 7 Cranch, 116 [136]. (a.) By separation from an existing state or states; and this may be brought about: (1) By peaceful methods, with the consent of the parent state, or with the mutual consent of the states from which the new state derives its territory and population; (2) By violent or hostile means, as by revolution or conquest. (b.) By the combination of two or more states into a permanent union, the component states abandoning their identity completely, or surrendering permanently most of their sovereign powers.' A state may lose a part or the whole of its sovereign character. It may lose its identity completely, by absorption in another state; by peaceful methods of confederation or union, or by the hostile methods of conquest or subjugation. Sovereign rights and obligations, however, can never be destroyed. If they cease to be exercised by one state they pass with the population and territory into the corporate existence of another, which assumes them, and, while enjoying the rights, must recognize and be bound by the obligations." Recognition of Sovereignty. When a new state comes into being, in accordance with any one of the methods above. indicated, it becomes an acknowledged member of the family of nations as a consequence of its independence being recognized by states already in existence. The question of according such recognition-both as to time and method-is a matter which each state decides for itself; in some cases it is promptly accorded, in others it is delayed, either indefinitely, or until certain conditions have been fulfilled. Sooner or later, however, the independence of a state, being a question of fact, its separate and independent existence must be recognized, as a matter of fact, by the states of the civilized world.' 1I Halleck, chap. iii. § 18; Wheaton, part i. chap. ii. § 21; Hall, 26; I Phillimore, § 62; Creasy, $$ 147-153; I Pradier - Fodéré, § 128; Ortolan, liv. i. p. 11; Revue de Droit International, vol. xx. 303; Klüber, § 23; Lawrence, §§§ 56-60. p. 'I Halleck, chap. iii. § 23; Whea ton, part i. chap. ii. §§ 22-27; Grotius, book ii. chap. ix. § 6; I Phillimore, §§ 124, 125; Creasy, §§ 151, 152; I Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 146148; Ortolan, liv. i. pp. 11, 12. 'I Halleck, chap. iii. § 22; Hall, 26; Wheaton, part i. chap. ii. §§ 26, 27; Creasy. §§ 637-643; I Lorimer, book ii. pp. 93-152; I Ferguson, |