which the laws of nations and of war confer upon the people of a de facto state, in revolt against the established government."
There arose a question of much importance in Texas, after the people of that state had overthrown the Mexican authority, and established for themselves a new government, as to whether the Mexican laws remained in force, and communicated title to prbperty under the new government. Mr. Justice LIPSCOMB, who delivered the opinion of the court, after a review of authorities, concludes that no treaty stipulations are necessary to protect the rights of property, upon a change of government, and proceeds: "It would be difficult to conceive, on any known principles of reason, or just regard to the rights of man, why a change made by the people themselves, should subject their rights to harsher rules of construction. It is indeed a principle, that seems to pervade the whole social relations of man, that laws, customs, and usages, when once established, shall continue until abrogated by the introduction of new ones; our sympathies to such influences, and reason, approve them just and right; and in truth, it is hardly possible to conceive of a civilized people existing, where all laws and customs, and all the social relations have been dissolved," McMullen vs. Hodge, 5 Texas Rep. 72.
In the case of the United States vs. Mitchell, 19 Peters R. 734, it is held that: "The inhabitants, citizens, or subjects of a conquered, or ceded country, retain all the rights of property, which have not been taken from them by the orders of the conqueror, or the laws of the sovereign, who acquired it by cession, and remain under their former laws until they shall be changed."
In the case of United States vs. Perkins, Mr. Justice CATRON, who delivered the opinion of the court, said: "By the law of nations, in all cases of conquest among civilized countries having established laws of property, the rule is, that laws, usages and municipal regulations in force at the time of the conquest, remain in force until changed by the new sovereign," 2 Howard U. S. Rep. 577.
