[45] Lawrence, § 64.
[46] Bolton v. Gladstone, 5 East, 155, 160.
[47] United States v. Rauscher, 1886, 119 U. S., 407.
[48] United States Constitution, Art. III., § 2. For English view, see Walker, p. 46, who quotes 3 Burr, 1480.
[49] Declarations, protocols, conventions, proclamations, notes, etc.
[50] III. Hertslet, 1904.
[51] Holtzendorff, "Introduction droit public," 44.
[52] Hall, § 1 p. 18; I., Rivier, § 3, 9, I.
[53] Hall, § 1, p. 20.
[54] The internal acts of a de facto state are valid, whatever the attitude of the international circle. As an example, in 1777, during the Revolutionary War, the British governor of Florida made a grant of land in what is now the southern part of the United States. Fifty years later a descendant of the grantee laid claim to the land, but the Supreme Court of the United States declared, "It has never been admitted by the United States that they acquired anything by way of cession from Great Britain by that treaty [of Peace, 1783]. It has been viewed only as a recognition of preëxisting rights, and on that principle the soil and the sovereignty, within their acknowledged limits, were as much theirs at the Declaration of Independence as at this hour. By reference to the treaty, it will be found that it amounts to a simple recognition of the independence and limits of the United States, without any language purporting a cession or relinquishment of the right, on the part of Great Britain ... grants of soil made flagrante bello by the party that fails, can only derive validity from treaty stipulations." Harcourt v. Gaillard, 12 Wheat., 523, 527. See also M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 4 Cr., 209, 212.