takes possession of any extent of sea-coast, that possession is understood as extending into the interior country to the sources of the rivers emptying within that coast, to all their branches and the country they cover." This doctrine they described as "dictated by reason" and "adopted in practice by European nations." It is generally accepted as good in law; and, as Sir Travers Twiss points out, is inconsistent with the claim to the whole territory drained by the Columbia River, put forth by Mr. Gallatin on behalf of the United States in 1827, on the ground of first discovery of the mouth of the river, and the subsequent erection of a trading-post close to it. This claim was never allowed; and when the Treaty of 1846 closed the controversy, it gave to Great Britain the upper waters of the Columbia River and the country through which they flow.2

In the absence of natural features the boundary of the contiguous settlements of two states along the same coast should be drawn midway between the last posts on either side. The boundary line between the possessions of the United States and Spain on the Gulf of Mexico was finally drawn in accordance with this principle. But there can be no doubt that natural boundaries would be preferred to an imaginary line in cases where they exist. If a navigable river falls into the sea between settlements made by one nation and settlements made by another, each would be deemed to have occupied up to the bank on its side of the river, and the boundary line between them would be drawn down the middle of the channel.

§ 95.

The rules just enunciated close the door to many disputes, but all of them are not so precise in their terms as to be incapable of diverse interpretations when applied Moreover, it is conceivable

Recent developments of

the doctrines of

occupation as

to concrete cases.

applied to Africa. that a state might contest the applicability of 1 Law of Nations, I., §§ 125, 126. 2 Treaties of the United States, p. 436. 8 Ibid., p. 1017; Hall, International Law, § 37.

some of them to Africa, since they are derived chiefly from American experience, and the two continents are not alike either in geographical features or in political circumstances. Considerations such as these have prompted the great European states who have engaged in the recent competition for territory and influence in Africa to enter into agreements among themselves with a view to avoiding future conflicts. These have taken the form of treaties for the delimitation of what are called Spheres of Influence.1 Each of the contracting parties is free to acquire territory by occupation and perform any act of sovereignty without interference from the other within the territory thus assigned to it by international agreement. The chief of these agreements are those entered into with regard to East Africa and Southwest Africa between Great Britain and Germany in July, 1890, with regard to West Africa between Great Britain and France in August, 1890, and Great Britain and Germany in November, 1893, and with regard to South Africa between Great Britain and Portugal in June, 1891. There are also agreements, concluded in 1886, between Portugal and France, and Portugal and Germany, and one between Great Britain and Italy concluded in 1891.2 Moreover, the boundaries of the Congo Free State are defined by a number of conventions, and its rulers have liberty of acquisition within the limits therein marked out. Thus each of the great colonizing nations has obtained a free hand over very wide tracts of country, and the possibility of such struggles between them as took place on the American continent is reduced to a minimum. It is not, of course, altogether destroyed; for the powers who are not parties to the agreements in question, and do not accord recognition to them, are in no way bound by their provisions, and retain the right under the common law of nations to occupy any territory which is technically res nullius. But the danger of future collision is very small, since every state anxious to participate in the division of Africa is already supplied with 1 See § 103. 2 The list in the text is not complete. There have been several agreements since 1891.

more territory than it can reduce into possession for a large number of years. And an agreement embodied in the Final Act of the West African Conference of 1885, which was signed by all the powers of Europe and also by the United States, contained provisions which will tend to remove difficulties arising out of conflicting claims to the same territory. Each of the signatory powers bound itself to send a formal notification to the others whenever for the future it acquired by occupation a tract of land on the coast of Africa or assumed a Protectorate there. This rule has been already acted upon in several instances, and it is much to be wished that all states would adopt it and extend it to their future acquisitions of unoccupied land. The powers represented at the West African Conference agreed, further, that the appropriating state must keep reasonable order throughout the territory occupied by it on the coasts of the African continent, so as to ensure freedom of trade and transit, and protect existing rights. This provision too could with great advantage be turned into a general rule of International Law.

§ 96.

It is impossible to study the history of recent territorial acquisitions in Africa and elsewhere without being struck by the simultaneous presence of two things which at first sight appear incompatible. We find, on justice and trained the one hand, in treaties and diplomatic docu

The native tribes in occupied territories should be treated with

in civilization.

ments little or no reference to the existence of native inhabitants. The countries they live in are partitioned without the slightest regard to their wishes. They are not deemed to possess any rights. They are simply ignored as having no locus standi in the matter. On the other hand, we discover that when the states who, in their mutual agreements, pay no attention to the natives come to deal singly and directly with new territory which they wish to acquire, they are 1 British State Papers, Africa, No. 4 (1885), p. 312.

careful to make treaties with the inhabitants, and as a rule do not take over the country of a tribe without some agreement with it. For instance, about three hundred treaties have been concluded with native states and tribes in respect of the British territories in the basin of the river Niger.1 This seeming inconsistency is explained when we reflect that International Law, as a technical system of rules for determining the actions of states in their mutual relations, is concerned with civilized communities alone. Occupation gives a valid title under it; but the title can be valid only as between the states who are subjects of the law. When such states come to deal with native tribes, though the technical rules of International Law do not apply, moral considerations do. Justice demands that the inhabitants of occupied districts be treated with fairness. The old idea that non-Christian peoples could be lawfully dispossessed, and even slain, outraged the conscience of Christendom, and has been long ago consigned to the limbo of forgotten theories. The sophistries whereby Vattel 2 sought to justify the acquisition of the lands of nomads, on the ground that they took up more territory than they had occasion for if they would live industrious and agricultural lives, would have but little weight to-day. There is a strong feeling abroad that native races ought not to be exploited. Self-respecting states are held bound to treat them with justice and humanity. How far this theory is reconcilable with the practice of acquiring sovereignty over them, and sending white men to live and trade and farm and mine among them on the strength of concessions obtained from their chiefs, is a very difficult question to answer. In some instances civilized rule has increased the number and happiness of native races and is gradually educating them in all the arts of life. In others, tribes have withered up before the impact of the white man like grass before a prairie fire. It is impossible to lay down general rules to cover all cases,

1 Statesman's Year Book for 1894, p. 190. The validity of some of these treaties was recently in dispute between Great Britain and France; but the controversy between the two powers as to boundaries in West Africa was settled by an agreement signed in 1898. 2 Droit des Gens, I., § 209.

and in a work like the present we cannot enter into details. Of one thing we may be sure, that when representatives of superior and inferior races come into contact, the former must prevail. They are often asked to rule by tribes who feel the need of their protection. But they should never inaugurate their authority by acts of cruelty or bad faith, and should govern in a paternal, not a tyrannical, manner. The advantage of their subjects should be their object rather than their own profit; and their ultimate aim should be to educate their wards so that they may in time learn to govern themselves.

§ 97.

Among the titles it is possible to obtain through the transfer of territories already in the possession of civilized states, the most important is

Legal modes of (2) Cession.

Title by cession.

Cession is the formal handing over by agreement of territorial possessions from one state to another. The agreement is embodied in a treaty which usually contains acquiring territory. stipulations as to the transfer along with the ceded district of a proportionate share of the public debt of the ceding state. Moreover, questions connected with the rights of citizenship of its inhabitants and rights over the state domains within it are usually settled in the treaty; but no general rule can be laid down as to these matters. The stipulations respecting them will vary with the circumstances of each case.

Since cession is the usual method whereby changes are effected in the distribution of territory among states which are subjects of International Law, it follows that cessions may take place in consequence of transactions of various kinds. Of these we will consider first Sale. It is not very frequent; but cases of it are to be found even in modern times, as when in 1867 the United States purchased Russian America for 7,200,000 dollars.1 The next ground of cession is Gift.

1 Treaties of the United States, p. 939.