six months between the legal systems of one of the two powers. Failing such choice, the High Commissioners mentioned in article II or their delegates shall decide under which system they shall be placed. "3. In all matters not contrary to the provisions of the present Convention or the regulations made thereunder, the subjects and citizens of the two signatory powers and the subjects and citizens of other powers shall, within the New Hebrides, remain subject to the fullest extent to the laws of their respective countries. "4. The two signatory powers undertake not to erect fortifications in the group and not to establish penal settlements of any kind." The sixty-eight articles of this Convention provide with much detail for the condominium, even to the regulation of labor and the sale of liquors. SAME-LEASED TERRITORY. 34. Leased territory, while remaining under the sovereignty of the lessor, passes within the jurisdiction of the lessee. Instances of leasing territory for various purposes have from time to time occurred. The most numerous are the Chinese leases. The leases have usually been to European powers. The lease to Germany in 1897 states that: "His Majesty, the Emperor of China, being desirous of preserving the existing good relations with His Majesty, the Emperor of Germany, and of promoting an increase of German power and influence in the Far East, sanctions the acquirement, under lease, by Germany of the land extending for 100 li at high tide (at Kiaochow). "His Majesty, the Emperor of China, is willing that German troops should take possession of the above-mentioned territory at any time the Emperor of Germany chooses. China retains her sovereignty over this territory, and should she at any time 41 A. J. I. Doc. p. 179. See, also, Politis, Le Condominium FrancoAnglais des Nouvelles Hebrides, p. 32 et seq. wish to enact laws or carry out plans within the leased area she shall be at liberty to enter into negotiations with Germany with reference thereto: Provided, always, that such laws or plans shall not be prejudicial to German interests. Germany may engage in works for the public benefit, such as waterworks, within the territory covered by the lease, without reference to China. Should China wish to march troops or establish garrisons therein, she can only do so after negotiating with and obtaining the express permission of Germany. "II. His Majesty, the Emperor of Germany, being desirous, like the rulers of certain other countries, of establishing a naval and coaling station and constructing dockyards on the coast of China, the Emperor of China agrees to lease to him for the purpose all the land on the southern and northern sides of Kiaochow Bay for a term of ninety-nine years. Germany is to be at liberty to erect forts on this land for the defense of her possessions therein. "III. During the continuance of the lease China shall have no voice in the government or administration of the leased territory. It will be governed and administered during the whole term of ninety-nine years solely by Germany, so that the possibility of friction between the two powers may be reduced to the smallest magnitude. * * * Germany shall not cede the territory leased to any other power than China." 5 Mr. Conger, Minister to China in 1899, reported in 1899: "I have conferred with the English, German, Russian, French, Spanish, Netherlands, and Japanese ministers upon the subject and all of them, except the Japanese, agree that the control over all of these leased ports has, during the existence of the lease, passed as absolutely away from the Chinese government as if the territory had been sold outright, and that they are as thoroughly under jurisdiction of the lessee governments as any portion of their home territory, and their consuls, accredited to China, would not attempt to exercise jurisdiction in any of said ports. "The Japanese claim that sovereignty is too important a matter to pass thus with a lease, and say that China can, if she wishes, surrender jurisdiction over her own people; but they Foreign Relations U. S., 1900, p. 383. do not agree that these lessee governments shall or can exercise jurisdiction over other foreigners in the leased territory. However, no case has yet arisen for them to test the matter.” The Chinese lease of Port Arthur to Russia in 1898 distinctly stated that it was "on the understanding that such lease shall not prejudice China's sovereignty over this territory," though full jurisdiction over the territory passed to Russia and subsequently to Japan. In the Agreement of February, 1903, between the United States and Cuba for the lease of certain coaling and naval stations to the United States, it is provided that: "Article III. While on the one hand the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above-described areas of land and water, on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the occupation by the United States of said areas under the terms of this agreement the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas, with the right to acquire (under conditions to be hereafter agreed upon by the two governments) for the public purposes of the United States any land or other property therein by purchase or by exercise of eminent domain with full compensation to the owners thereof." The terms of leases usually specify the powers to be exercised by the lessee, and by implication other powers remain in the lessor. In all these cases sovereignty is theoretically retained by the lessor state, while complete jurisdiction may be granted to the lessee. MARITIME AND FLUVIAL JURISDICTION-MARGINAL SEAS. 35. A marine league from the shore low-water mark has long been recognized as the limit of maritime jurisdiction. In the early days of interstate relationship there was much controversy over the limits of maritime jurisdiction. In 1702 Bynkershoek set forth the reasonable proposition that the territorial power should end where the effective range of arms • Id. p. 385. WILS. INT.L.-7 ends. At this time the range of guns was considered about three miles. There have been various attempts to extend this jurisdiction, but the marine league is still generally accepted for ordinary purposes. The three-mile limit was legalized by the British Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878, was recognized in the Suez Canal Convention of 1888, in the Fur Seal Arbitration of 1893, and in the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901. "Article 21 of the Russian Prize Law provides: "The right of making prizes is recognized only in the open seas. As for the open sea, it consists of waters which are not under fire of neutral batteries, or three sea miles from the neutral shores.'" Kent made an extreme claim, saying, “All that can reasonably be asserted is that the dominion of the sovereign of the shore over the contiguous sea extends as far as is requisite for his safety and for some lawful end," and says that "in 1793 the government of the United States thought they were entitled, in reason, to as broad a margin of protected navigation as any nation whatever, though at that time they did not positively insist upon more than the distance of a marine league from the seashores; and in 1806 they thought it would not be unreasonable, considering the extent of the United States, the shoalness of their coast, and the natural indication furnished by the welldefined path of the Gulf Stream, to expect an immunity from belligerent warfare for the space between that limit and the American shore." 10 The Institute of International Law dis 7 "Potestatem terræ finiri, ubi finitur armorum vis." De Domino Maris (1702) c. 2. 8 "There can be no possible doubt that the water below low-water mark is part of the high seas. But it is equally beyond question that for certain purposes every country may, by the common law of nations, legitimately exercise jurisdiction over that portion of the high seas which lies within the distance of three miles from its shores. Whether this limit was determined with reference to the supposed range of cannon, on the principle that the jurisdiction is measured by the power of enforcing it, is not material; for it is clear, at any rate, that it extends to the distance of three miles, and that many instances may be given of the exercise of such jurisdiction by various nations." Screw Collier Co. v. Schurmans, 1 Johnson & H. Ch. 193. Foreign Relations U. S., 1886, p. 957. 10 Int. Law (Abdy's Ed.) p. 112. cussed the question of maritime jurisdiction at great length at its session in 1894, and the general opinion was favorable to an extension of the three-mile limit. A large majority declared in favor of a six-mile limit, with a right of extension by declaration of a neutral state in time of war to the limit of effective control by guns on shore. Since 1894 there has been a tendency to return to the three-mile limit of jurisdiction, because the more extended jurisdiction would carry corresponding obligations to exercise authority, a burden which might outweigh the advantages, particularly in time of war. Within the three-mile limit exclusive jurisdiction over fisheries and other undertakings is generally admitted. A wider special jurisdiction is often claimed, and generally admitted, for purposes of administration of revenue, fisheries, and sanitary regulations, and for better policing of a coast. This has often extended to ten miles, and sometimes to twelve miles. States often make regulations for the coast trade, limiting such trade to vessels flying their own flag. SAME-STRAITS. 36. (a) The rule in regard to marginal seas applies to straits which are six miles or more in width. (b) Straits less than six miles in width are within the jurisdiction of the shore state or states. (a) When a strait is six miles in width, if the same state has jurisdiction over both shores, the strait is wholly within the jurisdiction of that state. If different states have jurisdiction over the opposite shores, each state has jurisdiction to the three-mile limit. Similar jurisdiction prevails in case the strait is more than three miles in width. (b) When straits are less than six miles in width, in absence of conventional agreement, each shore state has jurisdiction to the middle of the navigable channel. In general, it may be said that the claims to jurisdiction of broad straits and channels which were formerly made seem to have been surrendered. Great Britain once claimed the Bristol Channel, St. George's Channel, and the North Channel as within her territorial jurisdiction, and some eminent writers, such |