While such release is granted in most cases, the local authorities are under no obligation to comply with the request, as such offenders are fully liable to the local law, for criminal offences committed within its jurisdiction.'

(2.) Passage of Troops through the Territory of a Foreign State. This practice was much more frequent in former times than it is at present. The increasing strictness with which the rules of neutrality are now observed has rendered the practice obsolete in war, and the generally cherished desire to avoid international complications, by removing one of the most fruitful causes of international misunderstanding, has contributed powerfully to diminish its frequency in time of peace. Permission for such movements is now rarely accorded, save in very exceptional cases-as to an ally in war, or as an act of courtesy or humanity in time of peace. In the few instances in which it is permitted, the conditions of the movement are arranged, with great minuteness of detail, in a preliminary treaty or agreement.'

IV Pradier-Fodéré, § 2408; Ortolan, liv. ii. chap. iv. tit. i. p. 309; I Phillimore, § 346; I Halleck, p. 190; Walker, Manual, § 27. p. 79; Walker, Int. Law, pp. 123-134; Hall, § 55.

The application of the principle of exterritoriality to the passage of troops through the territory of a friendly state is well explained by Chief-justice Marshall in the case of the Exchange: "A third case in which a sovereign is understood to cede a portion of his jurisdiction is where he allows the troops of a foreign prince to pass through his dominions. In such case, without any express declaration waiving jurisdiction over the army to which this right of passage has been granted, the sovereign who should attempt to exercise it would certainly be considered as violating his faith. By exercising it, the purpose for which the free passage was granted would be defeated,

and a portion of the military force of a foreign independent nation would be diverted from those national objects and duties to which it is applicable, and would be withdrawn from the control of the sovereign, whose power and whose safety might greatly depend on retaining the exclusive command and disposition of this force. The grant of a free passage, therefore, implies a waiver of all jurisdiction over the troops during their passage, and permits the foreign general to use that discipline, and to inflict those punishments which the government of his army may require."-Case of the Exchange,7 Cranch, 116–139.

The passage of a detachment of British troops through the State of Maine, in 1862, while en route to Quebec, Canada, was authorized by the United States as a matter of comity; in 1875 similar permission was granted for the passage of

The practice is disfavored, but not absolutely forbidden, by international law. The outbreak of war, therefore, or the existence of an emergency, may make it necessary to resort to it at any time. Should such a case occur, the principle of exterritoriality would apply to a movement of troops through foreign territory in the same way, and to the same extent, that it is applied in the admission of a ship-of-war to a foreign port. Its application would be attended with greater difficulty, however, arising in part out of the character of the act itself, and in part from the occurrence of circumstances, during the passage, which could not be provided for in advance. This would be especially true if the movement were effected by marching, and not by railway or steamer.

The moving force is governed, in transit, by the military laws and army regulations of its own government, with such additional restrictions as may be stipulated to be observed in the treaty or agreement authorizing the passage. Offences committed along the line of march are tried by courts-martial, or are punished summarily, when the offending and injured persons belong to the moving force. If the parties injured be citizens of the district traversed, the trial and punishment of the offenders would be arranged for by treaty. As such offences have a peculiarly aggravated character, they should be more severely dealt with than if committed at home.

certain military supplies for the use of the Canadian mounted police, a body having a permanent military organization and constituting a portion of the British colonial establishment; permission was also granted in 1876 for the passage of a small body of Mexican troops from Brazos de Santiago to Matamoras, through the territory of the State of Texas. In 1881 the permission of the Governor-General of Canada was obtained for the passage of a body of Michigan state militia through the territory of the Dominion of Canada, while en route from Detroit to Buffalo.

The right of the United States to send troops across the Isthmus of Panama is guaranteed by the treaty with New Granada of 1846.-Treaties and Conventions of the U. S. 1887, pp. 195–206. It has been announced, in behalf of the government of the United States, that permission to transport troops over its territory will only be granted in case of peaceful transfer, devoid of any military object affecting the peace of any third state. —Į Dig. Int. Law, §13. See also Revue de Droit International, vol. xxi. p. 117.

Questions of purchasing supplies in the country passed through are strictly regulated by treaty, as are similar questions arising as to the quartering of troops, the passage of ferries and bridges, and the use of wells or other sources of water supply. When such movements are made, as it is impossible to foresee and provide for all cases of injury and damage that may occur, it is proper to provide, in the preliminary treaty, for the indemnification of injured parties, by permitting their claims to be submitted in the diplomatic way, or by arranging for the organization of a commission having power to investigate such claims, and to determine the amount of damage sustained, with a view to its being liquidated by the government through whose agents it was inflicted.'

(3.) To the Person of a Sovereign, his Retinue and Attendants, while Passing Through or Sojourning in Foreign Territory. There are numerous instances of such royal visits, and the practice of making them bids fair to continue in existence, if, indeed, it does not become more frequent than formerly. At the present time such visits are not attended by the political significance which formerly attached to them. They are either made with great formality-as when a visit of ceremony is made or returned, or a conference of sovereigns is arranged, with a view to an exchange of opinions upon some matter of serious international concern-or they may have an entirely private and informal character, the visiting sovereign waiving many of the honors and privileges to which he is entitled in his sovereign character.

If the consent of the sovereign whose territory is visited has been formally given, such consent is held to confer the privilege of exterritoriality.' The visiting sovereign is

Hall, § 54: I Twiss, § 165; I Dig. Int. Law, § 13; I Phillimore, §§ 341, 342; I Halleck, p. 177; II Ibid. p. 178.

2 Full and absolute territorial jurisdiction being alike the attribute of every sovereign, and being incapable of conferring extra-territorial power, would not seem to

contemplate foreign sovereigns nor their sovereign rights as its objects. One sovereign being in no respect amenable to another, and being bound by obligations of the highest character not to degrade the dignity of his nation by placing himself or its sovereign rights within the jurisdiction of another, can be

permitted to exercise his functions as if he were still in his own dominions; and he may do any act which he is authorized to do by the laws of his own state, and which is not so repugnant to the law of the territory in which he is as to be forbidden to be exercised by its sovereign. Such acts, however, are presumed to have effect only within his own territory, and upon his own subjects. His control over his suite is not impaired, and their responsibility to him is in no way affected, by the fact of absence.' Whatever articles of personal or movable property are carried with him enter the foreign state without inspection or payment of duty, and are exempt from taxation and imposts of all kinds during his sojourn there. In all other respects the privilege of exterritoriality applies to a sovereign, and to his retinue and train, in precisely the same manner, and to the same extent, that it does to an ambassador and his retinue.

supposed to enter a foreign territory only under an express license, or in the confidence that the immunities belonging to his independent sovereign station, though not expressly stipulated, are reserved by implication, and will be extended to him.-Schooner Exchange vs. McFaddon, 7 Cranch, 116 [137].

If a foreign sovereign enters the territory of a sovereign state, he does so with the knowledge and license of its sovereign, and "that license, although containing nostipulation exempting his person from arrest, is universally understood to imply such stipulation." "A foreign sovereign is not understood as intending to subject himself to a jurisdiction incompatible with his dignity, and the dignity of his nation, and it is to avoid this subjection that the license has been obtained. The character to whom it is given, and the object for which it is granted, equally require that it should be construed to impart full security to the person who has obtained it. This security, how

ever, need not be expressed; it is implied from the circumstances of the case."-Case of the Exchange, 7 Cranch, 116, 137.

1

To what extent the judicial power which attaches to a sovereign in his own dominions may be exercised by him abroad has never been satisfactorily determined. In the leading case of Queen Christina of Sweden, she had formally abdicated the Swedish crown, was residing in Paris where she seems to have enjoyed the privileges of exterritoriality. While residing in Paris, in 1657, she caused one Monaldeschi, a member of her suite, to be put to death. This act has been universally condemned by text writers of authority, and the queen is usually regarded as having subjected herself to the criminal jurisdiction of the French courts by thus causing the death of her chamberlain.—IÏ DeMartens, Causes Célèbres; Bynkershoek. De Foro Leg. chap. iii.; Hallam, Const. Hist. of England, chap. iii.; II Phillimore, p. 142.

Should a person of sovereign rank enter the territory of a foreign state without the permission of its sovereign or executive authority, he is conceded most of the immunities that are extended to him when such consent has been obtained.' The circumstances under which such visits are made may be, and frequently are, so peculiar and exceptional as to make it impossible to lay down any definite rules on the subject. If the presence of such a person is dangerous to the safety of a state, or involves its neutral obligations in any way, or is offensive to, or threatens its relations with, friendly powers, asylum may be refused, and the visiting sovereign may be forbidden to exercise any of his functions, or to maintain a correspondence with persons in his own state, and he may even be compelled to quit the territory. If no such consequences ensue, or are likely to ensue, the visit differs in no important respect, in so far as the application of the principle of exterritoriality is concerned, from one made with the consent of the sovereign of the visited territory.'

To Ambassadors and Public Ministers. To the efficient and successful performance of an ambassador's duties, it is necessary that his person should be held inviolate, and that he should be entirely free from responsibility to the government to which he is accredited. Without such freedom of movement and action it would be impossible for him to adequately represent his own government, or effectively interfere in behalf of his fellow-subjects. This principle of inviolability and immunity has been recognized by all Christian states. since permanent legations were first established in Europe, in the fourteenth century. It is now so universally conceded as not to admit of question or discussion.

"Whatever may be the principle upon which this immunity is established, whether we consider the ambassador' as in the place of the sovereign he represents, or, by a political fic

1 Case of the Exchange, 7 Cranch, 116, 138; I Phillimore, § 342; II Ibid. §§ 100-113; Hall, § 49; Klüber, § 49; II De Martens, § 172.

'Hall, § 49; I Twiss, § 165; Bluntschli, §§ 135-153, 196-209; Klüber, $$ 49, 54, 136; Heffter, §§ 42, 54; II Phillimore, §§ 104, 105.