was termed jus albinatus (alibi-natus), and in French, droit d'aubaine. In such cases, the property was also said to escheat or fall (escheoir) to the King.

1198. Thus Laws which concern Property are, in their international application, mainly governed by the place. On the other hand, the laws which determine the Character and Condition of a person do, for the most part, accompany him with their effects into all places, wherever he may travel or reside. In general* the Laws of the State, applicable to the civil condition and personal capacity (status) of its citizens, operate upon them, even when resident in a foreign country. Such are the universal personal qualities which take effect, either from birth, as citizenship, legitimacy, illegitimacy; or at a fixed time after birth, as idiocy and lunacy, bankruptcy, marriage, and divorce, as ascertained by the judgment of a competent tribunal. The laws of the State affecting these personal qualities of its subjects, travel with them wherever they go, and attach to them in whatever country they are resident.

1199. With regard to Marriage, indeed, it has two aspects, since it may be considered either as a contract, or as a personal status; and will be governed by the Lex loci contractus, or by the original country of the parties, as the one view or the other is taken the Law of England adopts the former cause. A clandestine marriage in Scotland, of parties originally domiciled in England, who resort to Scotland for the sole purpose of evading the English marriage act (which requires the consent of parents or guardians), is considered valid in the English ecclesiastical courts. The same principle has been recognized between the different States of the American Union. By the French Law, on the other hand, the age of consent which is required by the

Wheaton, Vol. I., 141.

code is considered as a personal quality of French subjects, following them wherever they remove; and consequently, a marriage by a Frenchman within the required age, will not be regarded as valid by the French tribunals, though the parties may have been above the age required by the law of the place where it was contracted.

1200. With regard to Penal Laws, it is a principle generally acknowledged among jurists,* that the penal Laws of one State have no operation in another State. Hence a person convicted as a criminal in one country is not, on that account to be treated as a criminal by the Government of another country. Nor does it appear to be a Right generally acknowledged, or a part of the Law and Usage of Nations, that offenders, charged with a high crime, who have fled from the country where the crime has been committed, should be delivered up and sent back for trial, by the Sovereign of the Country where they are found. But though this Extradition of Criminals may not be a matter of general International Law, it is often a matter of compact between States. It is voluntarily practised by certain States, as a matter of general convenience and comity. And it is held by moralistst that it is the duty of the Government where the criminal is, to deliver him up; and that if it refuses to do so, it becomes, in some measure, an accomplice in the crime.

1201. There are some offences which alter their character, according as they are committed by a subject or an alien. Thus an alien who bears arms against the Sovereign of the Country is dealt with by the laws of war; but the subject who does so is guilty of treason. He violates his Allegiance. Hence it becomes important to determine from whom

*

Story, § 620.

↑ Story, § 627.

Allegiance is due to each Sovereign, and how far this tie may be cast aside or transferred.

1202. There are two extreme opinions on this latter point. According to one, the tie which connects a man with his country, like the tie which connects him with his family, can never be abolished. His original country is his Mother, in spite of all that he can do. According to the other view, a man's connexion with any Community, is of a voluntary kind. At a mature age, and with due formalities, he may choose a country for himself. But this latter view, though it has been asserted by theoretical writers, has never been recognized in the practical legislation of States. The ancient Jurists had

a maxim that no one can divest himself of his country: Nemo potest exuere patriam. The Common Law of England was to the same effect, that all the King's natural born subjects owed him an allegiance which they could not cast off. It is held* that it is not in the power of any private subject to shake off his allegiance, and to transfer it to a foreign prince: nor is it in the power of any foreign prince, by naturalizing or employing a subject of Great Britain, to dissolve the bond of Allegiance. Entering into a foreign service without consent, is a misdemeanour taking a commission from a foreign prince, and acting against the King, is treason. The United States of America, and other new States, have made various provisions for admitting new citizens into their community. But they have not, in general, left their citizens at liberty arbitrarily to cast off the tie which connects them with their country. The Federal Courts of the United States have had the subject before them;† and the Opinion which there prevails is, that a citizen cannot renounce his allegiance to the United States, without the permission

* Kent's Commentaries, 11., 42. VOL. II. 27

Kent, I., 48.

of government, to be declared by law. Also the Law of France does not allow a Frenchman so far to expatriate himself as to bear arms against his country.

1203. It may be inquired, From whom is this Allegiance due? Who are the subjects of a State? According to the old Law of England, all persons born within the King's dominions are his natural born subjects, and all persons born abroad are aliens. But more recent laws have given the rights of na. tural born subjects to all children, born out of the King's liegeance, whose fathers, or grandfathers by the father's side, were natural born subjects.* Rules more or less resembling this prevail in other States.

1204. Besides this natural allegiance, juristst recognize a Local Allegiance, which is due from an alien or stranger, so long as he continues within the dominions, and therefore under the protection of the State. And as this Allegiance, by which they are required to abstain from injuring the State in which they reside, is demanded of strangers; so are they allowed, in a temporary manner, some of the Rights of citizens. Thus a subject of one country may, for commercial purposes, acquire the Rights of the citizen of another. He has a Commercial Domicile, and this domicile determines the character of the party as to trade.‡

Blackst., I., 373.

† Blackst., I., 370.

Kent, II., 49.

CHAPTER V.

INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS OF INTERCOURSE.

1205. ACCORDING to International Jus, nations are regarded as distinct moral agents, capable of acting for or against each other, of contracting with each other, and the like. Hence they must have certain National Modes of Intercourse with each other; not merely such as consist in the citizens of one State communicating with the citizens of another; but in the States themselves communicating with each other, by persons who speak and act on their part. Such Intercourse is naturally under the direction of the Executive branch of the Government, as being that branch which acts for the State. But, for the most part, the communications with foreign States are not made directly by the Sovereign, as a part of his general administrative office, but by Ambassadors or other Ministers of the State, deputed for that express purpose.

1206. Every State considered as an Independent State, has the power of negotiating and contracting Public Treaties with other Independent States. For this purpose, every Independent State has a right to send Public Ministers, and to receive Ministers from any other Sovereign State. No State is, strictly speaking, obliged, by the positive Law of Nations, to send or receive public ministers. But universal usage, the result of the Comity of Nations, has established this as a reciprocal Duty. Such being the Duty of every nation on the ground of Comity, it is what has been called an Imperfect Obligation. It may not and cannot be enforced as a Right; but the State which refuses to conform to the usage, has no longer any claim to receive the