refers to the suzerainty of the Sultan. It was concluded and signed on the one hand by Bulgaria and the Sultan jointly, and on the other by Servia."

'Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. lxxvii, p. 634. See for treaties establishing protectorates in Africa, in which the treaty-making power has been assumed by the suzerain, ibid., vol. lxxii, p. 247; vol. lxxv, p. 10; Hertslet's Map of Africa by Treaty, vol. i, p. 14; vol. ii, pp. 763,

791, 995.

PART III

THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

I. DATE OF TAKING EFFECT

The treaty is not definitively binding until the exchange of ratifications has taken place, and is accordingly not finally operative before that date. If it is expressly provided that it shall go into effect immediately upon the signing, the operation of the treaty is entirely provisional, and acts done in execution of it depend for their ultimate validity upon the subsequent ratification." 'Hall, International Law (4th ed.), p. 349.

In the convention signed at Madrid, July 3, 1880, relative to the exercise of protection in Morocco, to which the United States is a signatory party, it was agreed that by the exceptional consent of the contracting parties the stipulations of the convention should take effect on the day on which it was signed. Art. XVIII. Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State, in a communication of Aug. 11, 1880, to the American negotiator, Mr. Fairchild, acknowledging the receipt of the convention, observed as to this stipulation that while this government could not accord validity to such an international compact in advance of the consent of the Senate, yet in view of the exceptional circumstances under which the convention had been framed and its limited operation within the territory of Morocco involving apparently no domestic legislation of this country, he deemed it entirely unlikely that any issue would arise pending formal ratification, which would call for diplomatic intervention on the part of our Executive in a sense opposed to the convention. For. Rel. 1880, p. 922. Likewise immediately after signing the treaty of July 15, 1840, for the pacification of the Levant, a protocol was signed by the negotiators providing that Art. II of the treaty should be put into execution without waiting for the exchange of ratifications. Hall, p. 348; Wheaton, sec. 264.

213]

213

So far as a treaty affects individual rights, it takes effect when no contrary stipulation is made, upon the exchange of ratifications. A subsequent act on the part of the contracting parties may nevertheless be necessary to make it effective with respect to such rights.

As a compact between nations, a treaty dates, unless otherwise provided, from its signing, the exchange of ratifications having in this regard a retroactive effect.' Thus in the case of the cession of territory, the exercise of sovereignty by a ceding state ceases, except for strictly municipal purposes, with the signing. The national character of the acquiring state is not, however, imposed for commercial purposes until the exchange of ratifications. The union of possession and the right to the territory must concur "to give plenum dominium et utile." Although Porto Rico was ceded to the United States by a treaty signed December 10, 1898, and the authority of Spain was "superseded" by the previous military occupation of the United States, Porto Rico and the United States were, as to commercial matters, foreign countries until the exchange of ratifications. As a fugitive has no vested right of asylum, the “principle that a treaty is not to be held to operate retroactively in respect to vested rights does not apply to conventions of extradition.'

'Heffter, sec. 87; Bluntschli, sec. 421; Davis vs. The Police Jury of Concordia, 9 How., 289; Haver vs. Yaker, 9 Wall., 32; Treaties and Conventions, p. 1228.

'Davis rs. The Police Jury of Concordia, 9 How., 289. United States rs. Arredondo, 6 Pet., 749.

'Twiss, Law of Nations (Rights and Duties in Time of Peace, 2nd ed.), p. 439.

Mr. Justice Wayne, 9 How., 289.

Mr. Justice Brown, Dooley vs. United States, 182 U. S., 223. *Moore. Extradition, vol. i, p. 99.

As the legality of acts of hostility depends upon the belligerent right of the state, rather than of the individual, a treaty of peace, unless it otherwise provides, suspends hostilities from the date of its signature. Captures, as also recaptures, made thereafter even in ignorance of the signing of the peace, are accordingly to be restored, and damages committed are to be compensated as far as possible. It is, however, the practice to precede the treaty of peace by an armistice, or by preliminary articles, which serve as the basis for the definitive treaty. Thus the treaty of Zurich was preceded by the preliminaries signed at Villafranca July 11, 1859; of Prague, by articles signed July 26, 1866; of Frankfort, by articles signed at Versailles February 26, 1871; of San Stefano, by articles signed at Adrianople January 31, 1878; of Paris, (1898), by the protocol signed at Washington August 12, 1898.

In England the courts have held that the officer through whose order an act of hostility is committed after the conclusion of peace, but in ignorance of it, is civilly liable, although if he acts in good faith the government must save him harmless. Such acts do not, however, entail criminal liability. To forestall the inconveniences resulting from acts done in ignorance of the suspension of hostilities, a provision is usually inserted in the armistice or treaty postponing till a future day the operation of the peace in remote places. A capture made after the signing but in ignorance of it, and within the time thus specified, is good, unless provision is made for its restitution. In the treaty between Spain and the Low Countries signed at Münster, January 30, 1648, a period of a year

'Calvo, sec. 3155; Wheaton, sec. 547; Hall (4th ed.), pp. 581, 585. See, however, Halleck, vol. i, p. 317.

'Hall (4th ed.), p. 586; Wheaton, sec. 547.

was allowed for the receipt of the news of peace in the possessions of the East India Co., and a period of six months in those of the West India Co. Hostilities were, however, to cease in these places if advice of peace was received earlier. With the modern facilities of communication, a much shorter period is required. In the armistice signed January 28, 1871, between France and Germany, provision was made for the cessation of military operations on the day of signing in Paris, and within three days in the departments. Provision was also inserted for the restitution of captures. In the treaty of peace between China and Japan, signed April 17, 1895, it was agreed that offensive military operations should cease upon the exchange of ratifications, which did not take place till May 8.3 The protocol between the United States and Spain of August 12, 1898, provided that hostilities should cease upon the signing of the protocol; and that notice to that effect should be given as soon as possible by each government to the commanders of its forces. Between the signing of the protocol and the receipt of the notice, occurred the capitulation, on August 14, of Manila to the American forces. Article III of the protocol provided that, pending the conclusion of a treaty of peace, the United States should occupy and hold Manila together with the bay and harbor. The Spanish government sought to maintain that the United States continued the occupation solely by virtue of this article, and that the capitulation of August 14 was "absolutely null by reason of its having been concluded after the belligerents had signed an agreement declaring the hos

'Art. VII. Collection of Treatys, vol. ii, p. 340.

'Art. I. Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. lxii, p. 49.

3 Art. X. Ibid., vol. lxxxvii, p. 803.