AVES ISLAND. 4T 



IX, ABANDONMENT OF OCCUPATION AND USE DESTROYS CLAIM. 



Of course this means a voluntary abandonment. The authorities 

 show that if the occupation or possession is abandoned by the first dis- 

 coverer, or the exercise of jurisdiction discontinued by a State, any 

 subsequent discoverer may occupy and possess the abandoned and dere- 

 lict isle, and the rights of proprietary in him, and of sovereignty or 

 eminent domain in his State, vests from commencement of Ms occu- 

 pancy. — (See Vattel, supra, and other authorities last cited. 1 Phill., 

 §§ 259, 260, pp. 279, 280, tlie case of the island St. Lucie, in 1754.) 



In this case the English had abandoned the island, they said, 

 through violence. The French said the abandonment was amino et 

 facti and sine spe redeundi, and therefore France had taken possession 

 of it. It was regarded as a case of voluntary dereliction, and the 

 possession returned to the class of vacant and unowned territories. — 

 (SeelPhill.,p. 307, §284.) 



X. FACULTY OF ACQUISITION BY THE UNITED STATES OF SUCH ISLE BY DLS- 

 COVERY, ETC. 



The federal government of the United States possess this faculty as 

 an inherent power necessary to it, and an attribute of every sovereign 

 State, and it possesses it equally and fully as any other sovereign power. 



The Constitution contains no prohibition against the exercise of such 

 power. It is appropriate to it, and in the distribution of the various 

 powers between it and the State governments, unless it is impliedly 

 excluded, it is to be considered as possessed by the United States. — 

 (See U. S. vs. Canter, &c., 1 Peters, S. C. K., p. 542, &c. ; Vattel, 

 § 4, p. 2, § 13, p. 3 ; Elliott's Debates, vol. 4, p. 207 ; Wheat., p. 45, 

 Elm. Int. Law, lb., p. 210. lb., p. 78, note ; Story on the Constitu- 

 tion, vol. 3, p. 156, and the cases therein cited: New edition, § 1282 

 to 1289, § 1339.) 



The acquisition of Louisiana, Florida, Texas, California, New Mex- 

 ico, and the Messilla valley, can only be sustained as constitutional 

 on such ground. The treaty-making power and the war-making 

 power were invoked to sustain these acquisitions, and it was contended 

 they were included in the legitimate exercise of those powers. 



The legitimate exercise of those powers, thus construed, involves the 

 admission that the faculty of acquisition in any other mode, not for- 

 bidden by the laws of nations, or by the federal Constitution, is equally 

 possessed by the United States. No one will contend that there is 

 any illegality in the act of discovery or occupation by the United 

 States, of vacant lands, or a desert island, with respect to other na- 

 tions, that have no right thereto. 



The question, therefore, comes back to the consideration whether 

 there is any prohibition in the federal Constitution. 



And the power to regulate the intercourse with foreign nations, 

 commerce, navigation, &c., and to maintain and provide a navy, &c., 

 may be invoked with equal force to sustain the faculty of acquisition, 

 by discovery, in the exercise of those powers, as the treaty and war 



