having been mutually agreed to by the full treaty-making powers of the two states. The purpose of the treaty had been to do away with British pretensions in Central America, not to confirm them, and any exception to this general purpose and to the wording of the treaty should have been expressly stated. Whether or no Belize was excepted from the operation of the treaty, depended entirely upon the geographical fact of its location without or within the boundaries of Central America as then known. But, if this fact was not clearly ascertainable, the memoranda, as expressions of those intimately connected with the formation of the article, could not be overlooked.'

(d) The Language

If the treaty is drawn up in the language of each of the contracting parties, and each is an original,' the two versions are to be construed collectively. In case they cannot be made to harmonize, the version of the party granting is to be accepted so far as regards the concession. Article VIII of the treaty of February 22, 1819, by which Spain ceded Florida to the United States, differed in the two versions in respect to the grants made by the King of Spain prior to January 24, 1818. In the Span

'Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in a communication to Mr. Borland, United States minister to Central America, Dec. 30, 1853, said: "It is believed that Great Britain has a qualified right over a tract of country called the Belize, from which she is not ousted by this treaty, because no part of that tract, when restricted to its proper limits, is within the boundaries of Central America." Sen. Doc., 194, p. 99, 47th Cong., 1st sess. See in this relation For. Rel., 1899, p. 747; the case of the Diamond Rings, 183 U. S., 180.

'An express provision is sometimes inserted in the treaty declaring which text, in case of conflict, shall be the standard. See Art. XVII of the treaty of Oct. 8, 1903, between the United States and China.

ish text it was stipulated that all these grants "shall remain ratified and confirmed," while the English original read "shall be ratified and confirmed." In a construction of the clause by the Supreme Court in 1832, Mr. Justice Baldwin, in delivering the decision of the Court, said, "The King of Spain was the grantor, the treaty was his deed, the exception was made by him, and its nature and effect depended on his intention, expressed by his words, in reference to the thing granted and the thing reserved and excepted in and by the grant. The Spanish version was in his words and expressed his intention, and though the American version showed the intention of this government to be different, we cannot adopt it as the rule by which to decide what was granted, what excepted and what reserved."

A protracted controversy between the government of the United States and the Ottoman Porte has resulted from a conflict between the English and Turkish texts of Article IV of the treaty of May 7, 1830. The draft of the treaty presented by the American commissioner, in strict conformity with which the Turkish text was said to have been drawn up and signed, was, it appears, in the French language. The Senate and President in the ratification did not, however, act upon this text but upon an English translation, made in the Department of State.3 On the return of the instrument to Constantinople for exchange, the Ottoman government objected that there had been returned "the translation made in Washington, instead of the one signed at Constantinople." To re1 Quedarán ratificadas y reconocidas.

'United States vs. Arredondo, 6 Pet., 741.

There are three English versions in the Department of State, each of which differs slightly from the other. Treaties and Conventions, p.

move this objection the American chargé d'affaires, who was empowered to exchange the ratifications and make explanations respecting the rejection by the Senate of a separate article to the treaty, signed a memorandum in which the Turkish text was virtually recognized as the original-an act not disapproved by his government. Moreover, the President in communicating the treaty to the Senate, and later in proclaiming it, alluded to the original in the Turkish language, which was said to be accompanied by an English translation that was believed to be correct. Likewise in favor of the Turkish text is the fact that the article finds application. alone within the dominion of the Ottoman Porte. In support of the English version it is contended that it ⚫ remained unchallenged for a period of more than thirtyfive years; and that similar language was repeated in treaties concluded subsequently by the Porte with Belgium and Portugal. Admitting the authority of the Turkish text and the correctness of the translation presented by the Ottoman government-that American citizens. "shall be punished through the agency of their ministers and consuls, according to the practice observed in regard to other Franks," and not, as the English text would have it, that they shall be "tried" and "punished "-yet, it is urged on the part of the government of the United States, that the right to try is incident to and involved in the right to punish, and that, moreover, the rights in question belong to the United States in virtue of the most-favored-nation clause of the treaty.'

If terms used in a treaty have a different legal meaning in the contracting states, that meaning which obtains. within the state to which the provision applies at the

1 For. Rel., 1900, p. 914.

time of the signing of the treaty is to be accepted. By Article XIV of the treaty of October 3, 1866, between Austria and Italy, it was stipulated that the inhabitants of the territory ceded by the former should, for a specified time, enjoy the privilege of withdrawing with their property. In Austria the term inhabitant was applicable to only such persons as were domiciled according to Austrian law, while in Italy it applied to any one who lived in a commune and was registered as a resident. The term was accordingly interpreted in conformity with the Austrian legal meaning, which was on the date of the treaty applicable to the territory.'

While it is usually stated that technical words are to be interpreted according to their ordinary technical meaning,' the degree of civilization to which each of the con- · tracting parties has attained must be taken into consideration. A treaty with an Indian tribe must be interpreted not according to the technical meaning of its words as understood by learned lawyers, but in the sense in which it is naturally understood by the Indians.3 Words should be interpreted with a view to give efficacy to the treaty. A treaty repeals all previous stipulations between the same parties inconsistent therewith, but treaties with a third party are unaffected by a subsequent treaty to which it has not given its assent. No priority is attached to the numerical order of the provisions in the same treaty. In a conflict between provisions of the same treaty a special provision takes precedence of a general; a prohibitory or imperative of a permissive. If the provisions are of identical nature the more important takes prece

'Hall, p. 353. Rivier, vol. ii, p. 125.

'Phillimore, vol. ii, p. 101. Vattel, bk. ii, ch. xvii, sec. 276. 'Jones vs. Meehan, 175 U. S., I.

dence. In prohibitory stipulations to which penalties are attached for non-observance, the one to which the greater penalty is attached is to be considered the more important, but the party in whose favor the provision operates has the liberty to choose the less important.'

III. THE TERMINATION

(a) Change in the Form of Government An international treaty is a compact between states, not organs of governments, consequently its obligation is not, in general, dependent upon the continuance of the particular form of government under which it happened to be contracted. Treaties, the purpose of which is peculiar to the existing form, as also agreements between heads of governments, of a personal nature, which are not sensu stricto international treaties,3 are to be excepted. Thus the Family Compact of August 15, 1761, between the kings of France and Spain, the aim of which was to render permanent the duties which were a "natural consequent of relationship and friendship," came to an end when the Bourbons ceased to reign in France. Of this character was also the alliance entered into September 26, 1815, by the Czar Alexander of Russia, the Emperor Francis of Austria, and King Frederick William III of Prussia.

An interesting discussion of this general question

1 Vattel, bk. ii, ch. xvii, secs. 312-321. Hall, pp. 356-7. 'Grotius, bk. ii, ch. xvi, sec. 16.

'Hall, p. 376.

In August, 1790, Spain having requested France to make common cause in the Nookta Sound controversy with Great Britain, the Nationa Assembly declared the compact not binding on the nation. In Art. II possessions in any part of the world had been mutually guaranteed. Rivier, vol. ii, pp. 36, 121.