expressions are descriptions, not names. A writer, therefore, called upon to deal with our topic will act wisely in refusing to be tied down to any set form of words. He will, when convenient, used the admittedly inaccurate terms, conflict of laws, or private international law. But he will himself remember, and will attempt to impress upon his readers, that these names are nothing more than convenient marks by which to denote the rules maintained by the Courts of a given country, as to the selection of the system of law which is to be applied to the decision of cases that contain, or may contain, some foreign element, and also the rules maintained by the Courts of a given country, as to the limits of the jurisdiction to be exercised by its own Courts as a whole, or by foreign Courts.

STATE DEFINED.

COOLEY'S CONST. LIM. P. 3. (6TH ED.)

A STATE is a body politic, or society of men, united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength. The terms nation and State are frequently employed, not only in the law of nations, but in common parlance, as importing the same thing; but the term nation is more strictly synonymous with people, and while a single State may embrace different nations or peoples, a single nation will sometimes be so divided politically as to constitute several States.

In American constitutional law the word State is applied to the several members of the American Union, while the word nation is applied to the whole body of the people embraced within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Sovereignty, as applied to States, imports the supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power by which any State is governed. A State is called a sovereign State when this supreme power resides within itself, whether resting in a single individual, or in a number of individuals, or in the whole body of the people. In the view of international law, all sovereign States are and must be

equal in rights, because from the very definition of sovereign State, it is impossible that there should be, in respect to it, any political superior.

The sovereignty of a State commonly extends to all the subjects of government within the territorial limits occupied by the associated people who compose it; and, except upon the high seas, which belong equally to all men, like the air, and no part of which can rightfully be appropriated by any nation, the dividing line between sovereignties is usually a territorial line. In American constitutional law, however, there is a division of the powers of sovereignty between the national and State governments by subjects: the former being possessed of supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power over certain subjects throughout all the States and Territories, while the States have the like complete power, within their respective territorial limits, over other subjects. In regard to certain other subjects, the States possess powers of regulation which are not sovereign powers, inasmuch as they are liable to be controlled, or for the time being to become altogether dormant, by the exercise of a superior power vested in the general government in respect to the same subjects.

INTERNATIONAL LAW A PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND.

COOLEY'S BLACKSTONE, BK. 4, CH. 5. (3RD ED.)

The law of nations is a system of rules, deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world; in order to decide all disputes, to regulate all ceremonies and civilities, and to insure the observance of justice and good faith, in that intercourse which must frequently occur between two or more independent states, and the individuals belonging to each. This general law is founded. upon this principle, that different nations ought in time of peace to do one another all the good they can, and in time of war as little harm as possible, without prejudice to their own real interests. And, as none of these States will allow a superiority

in the other, therefore neither can dictate or prescribe the rules of this law to the rest; but such rules must necessarily result from those principles of natural justice, in which all the learned of every nation agree; or they depend upon mutual compacts or treaties between the respective communities; in the construction of which there is also no judge to resort to, but the law of nature and reason, being the only one in which all the contracting parties are equally conversant, and to which they are equally subject.

In arbitrary states, this law, wherever it contradicts, or is not provided for by, the municipal law, of the country, is enforced by the royal power; but since in England no royal power can introduce a new law, or suspend the execution of the old, therefore the law of nations (wherever any question arises which is properly the object of its jurisdiction) is here adopted in its full extent by the common law, and is held to be a part of the law of the land. And those acts of parliament which have from time to time been made to enforce this universal law, or to facilitate the execution of its decisions, are not to be considered as introductive of any new rule, but merely as declaratory of the old fundamental constitutions of the kingdom: without which it must cease to be a part of the civilized world. Thus, in mercantile questions, such as bills of exchange, and the like; in all marine causes, relating to freight, average, demurrage, insurances, bottomry, and others of a similar nature; the law merchant, which is a branch of the law of nations, is regularly and constantly adhered to. So, too, in all disputes relating to prizes, to shipwrecks, to hostages, and ransom bills, there is no other rule of decision but this great universal law, collected from history and usage, and such writers of all nations and languages as are generally approved and allowed of.

But though in civil transactions and questions of property between the subjects of different states, the law of nations has much scope and extent, as adopted by the law of England; yet the present branch of our inquiries will fall within a narrow compass, as offences against the law of nations can rarely be the object of the criminal law of any particular state. For offences against this law are principally incident to whole states or nations, in which case recourse can only be had to war; which is an appeal

to the God of hosts, to punish such infractions of public faith as are committed by one independent people against another: neither state having any superior jurisdiction to resort to upon earth for justice. But where the individuals of any state violate this general law, it is then the interest as well as duty of the government, under which they live, to animadvert upon them with a becoming severity, that the peace of the world may be maintained. For in vain would nations in their collective capacity observe these universal rules, if private subjects were at liberty to break them at their own discretion, and involve the two states in a war. It is therefore incumbent upon the nation injured, first to demand satisfaction and justice to be done on the offender, by the State to which he belongs, and, if that be refused or neglected, the sovereign then avows himself an accomplice or abettor of his subject's crime, and draws upon his community the calamities of foreign war.

DOMICIL.

DEFINITION AND REQUISITES OF DOMICIL.

HAYES v. HAYES, 74 ILL., 312. (1874.)

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Rock Island County; the Hon. G. W PLEASANTS, Judge, presiding.

Mr. WILLIAM H. GEST, for the plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. CONNELLY & MCNEAL, for the defendants in error.
Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is a writ of error to the Rock Island Circuit Court, to reverse a decree entered therein on the chancery side of that court, in a proceeding commenced by bill on behalf of Amherst Hayes and others, claiming to be the heirs at law of the Rev. Harvey H. Hayes, deceased, and against his widow, Maria B. Hayes, who, with one Carlos L. Bascom, had taken out letters of administration on the estate of the decedent.

It appears by the bill that Dr. Hayes died on the 20th July, 1867, at Rock Island, leaving Maria B. Hayes, his widow, and no child or children, nor descendant of any child, and no parents. Letters of administration were granted by the county court of Rock Island county August 5, 1867. The bill alleges that deceased was a resident of the State of Iowa at the time of his death, within the view of the law of that State as to distribution of the personal estate of an intestate; that the appraisers have certified to the widow the sum of eighteen hundred and thirty-two dollars as the "widow's award," and complains that she claims the whole of the personal estate. The prayer of the bill is, that this award be set aside, and the whole surplus, after the debts are paid, may be distributed according to the law of Iowa.

An issue was made up on the question, where was the deceased domiciled at the time of his death, within the meaning of the law as to the distribution of the personalty. This issue was tried by the court, by consent, without a jury, and the court found that this State was the domicile of the deceased, so far as the succession to his personalty was concerned.