This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1910 edition. Excerpt: ...may be inferred, from the continuous exercise of the servitude without opposition on the part of the servient state, that the latter recognizes the servitude. It is impossible to ignore traditional state servitudes, yet such restrictions (of sovereignty) should not be accepted on their face as having been originally freely accepted. It is necessary to have absolute proof that the servient state acknowledged the servitude as necessary and binding instead of, for instance, merely tolerating the restriction (of its sovereignty) complacently and out of friendliness toward its neighbor but without legal obligation/'"' Von Holtzendorff expresses himself with more reserve and doubt on possession as a title of acquisition to state servitudes. "Contin uous tacit tolerance of the performance of acts of territorial 195 sovereignty on the part of a foreign government, provided they have taken place without the use of force or threats and the tolerance therefore implies a recognition," may also be a ground of acquisition of state servitudes. "We may in this respect," he says, "take the stand that the intent to grant the concession need not necessarily be expressed in treaties, The importance attached to the immutability of possession by earlier theorists should not be ascribed thereto.' ' ll Heffter, p. 39. b See Gonner, pp. 151-168. centsHeffter, p. 106. dBluntschli, par. 354. cents Von Holtzendorff, p. 248. He says, in note 6, p. 251: "Time immemorial, in a juridical sense, is that which dates from ancient times and to which no beginning can be assigned." As a matter of fact possession from time immemorial, as such, has many objectionable features, although international law ca