people therein, both foreigners and peaceful natives, to establish courts of justice, and to treat and guard these 14,000 Spanish soldiers as prisoners of war,—and Dewey could not spare a man for that purpose from his hot decks. Thousands of extra men were needed to do this work that would have fallen upon us the moment Manila and its garrison capitulated. There was no way we could escape that liability to every other nation in the world who had citizens there.

THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ON THIS POINT

Here are the leading authorities upon that point. Probably the greatest work on international law that has been written in the last half century is from the pen of Calvo, the eminent Frenchman.

In Vol. II, Ch. Calvo, Le Droit International (2d edition), at pp. 301-2, § 999, he quotes with approval, our own Chief Justice Marshall, as follows:

"At the moment of the transfer of the territory, the relations of its inhabitants with the former sovereign dissolve themselves. The same act that transfers the ownership of the soil transfers the loyalty of the people who continue to remain there."

That is, as soon as the territory of Manila were actually transferred to the keeping of the United States, the United States would become bound to protect the lives and property of all persons in Manila "by all the efforts in

(their) power," as Mr. John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, puts it in a letter to Mr. De Onis, March 12, 1818:

"There is no principle of the law of nations more firmly established than that which entitles the property of strangers within the jurisdiction of a country in friendship with their own, to the protection of its sovereign by all the efforts in his power." Whart. Int. Law Dig., Vol. 2, § 201.

Mr. Hannis Taylor, probably the foremost American authority now writing on international law, in his Public International Law, § 570, says, with regard to the liabilities we would have assumed if Dewey had come into actual military occupation of Manila:

"The whole subject (of military authority over hostile territory) has been regulated by Section III of The Hague Second Convention, 'On Military Authority over Hostile Territory.'

66

xx Art. XLII. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

'(Art. XLIII.) The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all steps in his power to reestablish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety."

This must now be taken as the law. It is the latest agreement among the civilized nations. The last article above is something for us to bear in mind: "The occupant (that is, the United States) shall take all steps in his (their) power to reëstablish and insure, so far as possible, public order and safety." It is part of our text in the Philippines.

Taylor, in § 574, says:

"As Chief Justice Marshall said in a notable case: Although acquisitions made during war are not considered as permanent until confirmed by treaty, yet to every commercial and belligerent purpose, they are considered as a part of the domain of the conqueror, so long as he retains the possession and government of them.'

And two sections further along, Mr. Taylor says:

"The duty of an occupant to govern the territory of which he is in military possession is correlative to his right to possess himself of it as conqueror, and, as such, to end all forms of pre

existing authority. The right of a belligerent to so occupy and govern is one of the incidents of war flowing directly from the laws of war as recognized by usage and as embodied in the laws of nations."

Another statement by high authority is the following from Westlake's Int. Law., Chapter XI, Ist paragraph:

"The peaceable population of an invaded district are entitled to protection for their life, honor, family rights, and religion."

MILITARY OCCUPATION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Taylor, in § 579, gives the following exact statement. It shows the law as it has been since interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, and it also shows what the duties of the President of the United States are with relation to the peoples of such territory. He has no choice in the matter. he did.

Remember that when we consider what

"Hostile territory subdued by the armies of the United States does not pass under the dominion either of its constitution or its laws, neither do its inhabitants become citizens or subjects of

the same, for the reason that neither the President as Commander-in-chief nor the military officers under his control can enlarge the boundaries of the Union without enabling legislation from Congress itself. Until the status of territory so occupied and that of its inhabitants has been altered by adequate legislation, such territory does not cease to be foreign, nor do its inhabitants cease to be aliens, in the sense in which those words are used in the laws of the United States. (Fleming and Page, 9 How. 603; Cross and Harrison, 16 How. 164.) While such conquered territory is under the sovereignty of the United States it is no part of the Union, and its inhabitants have none of the rights, immunities or privileges guaranteed by law to citizens thereof.

While war continues it is the military duty of the President as Commander-in-Chief to provide for the security of persons and property, and for the administration of justice. (The Grape Shop, 9 Wall. 129.) Such government may be carried on under an entirely new code made by the authority of the Commander-in-chief." (Scott v. Billgerry, 40 Miss. 119.)

Is there any doubt of what we would have done had we been in Dewey's place? I think not. I believe we would have done exactly as he did, and that was to ask for help; and if one of us had been President of the United States we would have done just as Mr. McKinley did,-we would have sent it. It is doubtful if there is a man of common