It is thus seen that martial rule, that is, the use of the military arm for the enforcement of civil law, is something quite different from the establishment of military government over territory conquered in public war. Mr. Magoon draws this distinction admirably in the following words: "A military government," he says, "takes the place of a suspended or destroyed sovereignty, while martial law, or, more properly, martial rule, takes the place of certain governmental agencies which for the time being are unable to cope with existing conditions in a locality which remains subject to the sovereignty. The occasion of military government is the expulsion of the sovereignty theretofore existing, which is usually accomplished by a successful military invasion. The occasion of martial rule is simply public exigency which may rise in time of war or peace. A military government since it takes the place of a deposed sovereignty, of necessity continues until a permanent sovereignty is again established in the territory. Martial rule ceases when the district is sufficiently tranquil to permit the ordinary agencies of government to cope with existing conditions." 9