p. 38; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv, 1, ch. 3, § 40; Grotius, de Jur. Bel. ac Pac, lib. 1, cap. 7, § 3; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 1, cap. 18, § 3; De Cussy, Precis des Evenements, passim.)

§ 7. We find numerous examples of these disputes in European diplomacy of past ages, some of a serious character, and others exceedingly ludicrous. Thus, at the public entry of the Swedish ambassador into London, a contest for precedence took place between the French and Spanish ambassadors, which was attended with loss of life on both sides, and probably would have led to war, if the king of Spain, who was interested in maintaining peace with France, had not made such concessions as to satisfy the pride of Louis XIV. Again, the ambassadors of two Italian princes met on the bridge at Prague, and as neither would give way, they stood for the greater part of the day, face to face, exposed to the jeers of the crowd collected by the strangeness of the spectacle. Such disputes, sometimes serious and sometimes ludicrous, have led to the adoption, at different times, of certain conventional rules of etiquette and precedence. These rules are binding only upon those who have agreed to them. They, however, serve as a basis for the adjustment of any disputes which arise between others who are not parties to these conventional agreements. (Bynkershoek, Quaest. Jur. Pub. lib. 2, ch. 9; Wicquefort, l'Ambassadeur, etc., liv. 1, § 24; Wildman, Int. Law, vol. 1, ch. 3; Ward, Law of Nations, vol. 2, pp. 458, et seq; Villefort, Priviléges Diplomatiques, passim.)

§ 8. The customary law of European nations has attributed to certain states what are called royal honors, which entitle the states, by whom they are possessed, to precedence over all others who do not enjoy the same rank, with the exclusive privilege of sending to other states public ministers of the first rank, together with other distinctive titles and ceremonies. Among the princes who enjoy these honors, differences have arisen with respect to relative rank and precedence; but these questions are now mostly settled by usage and treaty stipulations, and where not thus settled, they are regarded as of very little importance, or at least, of not sufficient consequence to lead to very serious national differences

or discussions. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 2, ch. 3, §2; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 2, ch. 3, §38; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, § 129; Kluber, Droit des Gens, §§ 91, 92; Heffter, Droit International, §§ 28, 53; Martens, Recueil. Supplem., tome 4, pp. 33-340; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, § 64; Garden, De Diplomatie, tome 1, p. 355.)

§ 9. The title of emperor, from the historical associations connected with it, was formerly considered as the most eminent and honorable among all sovereign titles; but it is not now regarded by other crowned heads as conferring any prerogative or precedence over monarchical sovereigns of another name, ruling states of equal rank and dignity. The title of king is now considered as equal in every respect to that of emperor. In fine, the influence and importance of the sovereign, result rather from the rank and importance of the state, than from the name and nature of the title conferred upon its ruler. (Wheaton, Elm. Int. Law, pt. 2, ch. 3, §6; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, §127; Kluber, Droit des Gens Mod., §95; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 2, ch. 3, §40; Polson, Law of Nations, sec. 5; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, §§ 65, 66.)

$10. Among monarchical sovereigns, those who enjoy royal honors, but are not crowned heads, concede the preference, on all occasions, to emperors and kings; and the princes who do not enjoy royal honors, yield the precedence to those who are entitled to them. This rule is based on the consent of the parties themselves, and does not extend to their intercourse with other states. That is, a state whose ruler does not wear a crown, may give precedence to one which does, but this concession does not preclude the same state from claiming equal rank with a third power which contests the right of precedence with the state to which it had yielded that honor. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 2, ch. 3, § 3; Kluber, Droit des Gens, pt. 2, tit. 2, ch. 3, § 98; Polson, Law of Nations, §5; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 41; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, §§ 65, 66; Heffter, Droit International, § 53.)

§ 11. In all matters of ceremony and etiquette, the representatives of semi-sovereign or dependent monarchical states rank below the representatives of sovereign and independent

monarchical states, and, of course, and as a matter of necessity, below those of the state on which they are dependent, or whose protection or suzeraineté they claim or acknowledge. But where third parties are concerned, their relative rank must be determined by other considerations; and they may even take precedence of states completely sovereign, as was the case with the electors under the former constitution of the Germanic empire, in respect to other princes not entitled to royal honors. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 2, ch. 3, §3; Heffter, Droit International, §§ 28, 41, 53; Polson, Law of Nations, sec. 5; Horne, on Diplomacy, sec. 1; Garden, De Diplomatie, liv. 5, §§ 2 et seq.; Martens, Manuel Diplomatique, ch. 1.)

§ 12. It will be observed that these regulations for determining the relative rank of states, or of their representatives, established in part by usage and custom, and in part by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, relate exclusively to monarchical sovereigns. An abortive attempt was made at the same congress, to classify the different states of Europe, with a view to determine their relative rank. A committee was appointed for this purpose in December, 1814; their report was discussed in February, 1815, and its adoption indefinitely postponed, doubts having arisen with respect to the proposed classification, and especially as to the rank assigned to republics. It therefore appears that republics have no definitive rank assigned to them by the rules of ceremonial etiquette in Europe, in the intercourse of their representatives with those of monarchical sovereigns. (Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 1, cap. 18, § 3; Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 2, ch. 3, § 3; Kluher, Acten des Weiner Congresses, tome 8, pp. 98-116; Polson, Law of Nations, sec. 5; Phillimore, on Int. Law, vol. 2, §§ 41, 43; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, §§ 133, 135.)

§ 13. It may be stated, as a general rule resulting from the natural equality of states as members of an universal community, and subject alike to the same general code of international jurisprudence, that all sovereign states, no matter what may be their form of government, are equal before the law, and no one can claim any superiority or precedence over another. Republics are, therefore, entitled to the same rank as monarchies, unless they themselves have yielded their natural right of equality and conceded the precedence

to others. Formerly, the Roman Republic considered all kings as very far beneath it; but when the monarchs of Europe found none but feeble republics to oppose, they disdained to admit them to an equality. Nevertheless, the powerful Republics of Venice and of the United Provinces assumed the honors of crowned heads. Cromwell would not allow the slightest mark of honor which had been paid to the representatives of the monarchy to be omitted toward those of the Republic of England. In the treaties between the French Republic and the other European Powers, it was expressly stipulated that the same ceremonials, as to rank and etiquette, which had been observed before the revolution of 1789, should be continued between them. The states of Europe observed the same rule toward the recent Republic of France. The United States of North America, the Germanic Confederation, and Switzerland (collectively, not in its individual cantons,) have been considered as entitled to the same rank as the monarchical states of Europe. (Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 2, ch. 3, §,38; Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 2, ch. 3, § 3; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 41; Polson, Law of Nations, sec. 5; Wildman, Int. Law, vol. 1, pp. 38, 88; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, § 133; Garden, De Diplomatie, tome 1, p. 367; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, tome 2, ch. 2; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 1, cap. 18, § 3.)

§14. Where the rank of different states is equal or undetermined, resort has sometimes been had to the usage of the alternat, as it is called, by which the rank and places of different powers is changed from time to time, either in a certain regular order, or one determined by lot. Thus, in drawing up public treaties and conventions, it is the usage of certain powers to alternate, both in the preamble and the signatures, so that each power occupies, in the copy intended to be delivered to it, the first place. Another expedient, sometimes resorted to in order to avoid controversies respecting the order of signatures to treaties and other public acts, is that of signing, in the alphabetical order of the names of the respective states which are parties to these acts, the French alphabet being adopted for that purpose. Thus, at the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the plenipotentiaries signed in the following order: Austria, Denmark, Espagne (Spain,)

France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sweden; but it was distinctly understood, at the time, that this practice was not to be taken as derogating from the ancient usage of the alternat. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, part. 2, ch. 3, §4; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, tome 1, §§ 37-41; Polson, Law of Nations, sec. 5; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, §§ 42, 43; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 1, cap. 18, § 3.)

§ 15. At one time the Latin language was used as a matter of general convenience in the diplomatic intercourse between the different nations of Europe. Toward the end of the fifteenth century, the preponderance of Spain contributed to the general diffusion of the Castillian tongue as the ordinary medium of political correspondence. This, again, in the age of Louis XIV., was superseded by the French language, which became the almost universal diplomatic idiom of the civilized world. The primitive equality of states authorized each nation to make use of its own language in treating with others, and this right is still preserved in the practice of many states; each carrying on its diplomatic correspondence in its own language, and treaties between them being written in their respective languages in parallel columns. Where the states which enter into negotiation or treaty have a common language, they generally make use of it in their transactions with each other. (Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 41; Wheaton, Elm. Int. Law, pt. 2, ch. 3, §5; Polson, Law of Nations, sec. 5; Horne, On Diplomacy, § 50.)

§ 16. The usage of nations has established certain military and maritime ceremonials to be observed, either on the ocean between ships, or in ports between ships, and between ships and forts, or on land between armies, forts, military and naval officers, and in the military honors to be paid to high civil officers. Among these is the salute by striking the flag, or the sails, or by firing a certain number of guns, etc. These are matters of, perhaps, trivial importance in themselves, but their due observance facilitates the amicable intercourse of nations, and their neglect frequently leads to international differences, dissensions and enmities, which have sometimes terminated in long and bloody wars. (Whea ton, Elm. Int. Law, pt. 2, ch. 3, §7; Bynkershoek, de Dominio Maris, cap. 2, §4; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, § 158;