REFERENCES TO THE PRINCIPAL CASES DECIDED IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IN SOME OF THE STATE TRIBUNALS, IN REGARD TO POINTS OR PRIN CIPLES CONNECTED WITH OUR Foreign Relations. Britian. 1. After the treaty of peace of 1783, no proceeding Treaty with Great could be maintained in Pennsylvania, upon an attainder for Attainder. treason, in adhering to the King of Great Britain, during the war.-Respublica v. Gordon, 1 Dallas, 233.-Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 1788. 2. The law of Nations forms a part of the municipal law of Foreign minister. Pennsylvania, and violations of that law may be prosecuted by indictment, and punished by fine and imprisonment.— Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 Dallas, 114. Court of Oyer and Terminer, Philadelphia, 1784. 3. A Foreigner, committing an act in violation of the law of Nations in regard to the person of a secretary of legation of the nation to which such foreigner belongs, cannot be delivered up, by the Executive of the State, to the minister of that nation; although cases may occur, where, pro bono publico, and to prevent atrocious offenders evading punishment, they may be delivered up to the justice of the country to which they belong, or where the offences were committed;nor can such offender against the law of nations be imprisoned until his Government shall declare that the reparation is satisfactory.-id 116. id. 4. The municipal laws of a country can not change the law id. of nations, so as to bind the subjects of another nation.— Miller v. Ship Resolution, 2 Dallas, 4-Federal Court of Ap peals, 1781. 5. America was bound, as an ally of France, by the capitu- Treaty with lation between Great Britain and France, for the surrender of France. Dominica.-id 15. 6. The ordinance of Congress founded on the Russian armed neutrality, declaring that free ships should make free goods, included British property.-id. 18. 36. Armed neutrality. 7. In criminal prosecutions against Consuls, the Circuit Court of the United States has concurrent original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court, and the District Court.-The United States v. Ravara, 2 Dallas, 298.-Circuit Court U. S. Pennsylvania District, 1793. 8. Consuls are officers known to the law of nations, and are entrusted with high powers; but not with the power of authenticating the laws of foreign nations. There appears no reason for assigning to their certificate respecting a foreign law, any higher or different degree of credit than would be assigned to their certificates of any other fact.— Church v. Hubbart, 2, Cranch, 237.-Sup. Court U. S., 1804. 9. Foreign laws must be proved like other facts. They must be verified by oath, or by some other, such high authority that the law respects not less than the oath of an individual -id. 187. and Talbot v. Seeman—1, Cranch, 38, 1801, Sup. Court U. S. 10. A certificate of the proceedings of a court, under the seal of a person who states himself to be the secretary of foreign affairs in Portugal, is not evidence.-id. 187. 239. 11. If the decrees of the Portuguese colonies are transmitted to the seat of government and registered in the Department of State, a certificate of that fact under the great seal (of Portugal) with a copy of the decree. authenticated in the same manner, would be sufficient prima facie evidence of the verity of what was so certified.-id. 238, 239. 12. No foreign power can, of right, institute or erect any court of judicature of any kind within the jurisdiction of the United States, but such only as may be warranted by, and be in pursuance of treaties. The admiralty jurisdiction which had been exercised in the United States by the consuls of France, not being so warranted, were not of right.- Glass v The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dallas, 16.-Supreme Court of the United States. 1794. 13. The District Courts of the United States possess all the powers of Courts of Admiralty, whether considered as instance or as prize courts.-id. 16. 14 By the 9th art. of the consular convention with France, an exhibition of the register vessel, or ship's roll, was necessary to authorize the District Judge to issue his warrant to arrest a deserter from a French vessel.-The U. S. v. Judge Lawrence, 3 Dallas 42.-Sup. Court U. S. 1795. 15. The rights of British creditors, whose debts had been sequestered, but not confiscated during the war, revived at the peace, both by the law of nations and the treaty.-The Confiscation. Sup. Court U. S. 1796. 16. Under the 19th art. of the French treaty, the priva- Treaty with France teers of France had a right to repair in our ports-and resti tution was denied of a British ship captured and brought into Prize. 17. A Foreign Consul, who draws bills of exchange on ac- Consul. 18. The right and mode of Expatriation discussed.-Talbot Expatriation. v. Janson-3 Dallas, 133 to 169.-Sup. Court, U. S. 1795. 19. A final condemnation in an inferior court of Admiralty, where a right of appeal exists and has been claimed, is not a definitive condemnation within the meaning of the 4th art. of the convention with France of the 30th of Sept. 1800. -The U. S. v. The schooner Peggy-1, Cranch 103, Supreme Court, U. S. 1801. Treaty with France. 20. The Court is as much bound as the Executive to Treaty. take notice of a treaty, and will reverse the original decree of condemnation, (although it was correct when made) and decree restitution of the property, under the treaty made sinc the condemnation -ib. 103 21. Salvage allowed to a ship of war of the United States Prize. for the recapture of a Hamburgh vessel out of the hands of the Salvage. French (France and Hamburgh being neutral to each other,) on the ground that she was in danger of condemnation under the French arrête of 18th January, 1798.-Talbot v. Seeman -1, Cranch 1.-Sup Court U. S. 1801. 22. Marine ordinances of foreign countries, promulgated Foreign laws. by the Executive, by order of the Legislature of the United States, may be read in the courts of the United States without further authentication or proof.-id. 38. 23. France and the United States were in a state of partial France. war in the year 1799.-id. 31. 24. An American citizen residing in a foreign country, Prize. may acquire the commercial privileges attached to his do- Domici micil; and, by making himself the subject of a foreign power, he places himself out of the protection of the United States, while within the territory of the sovereign to whom he has sworn allegiance.- Murray v. The Charming Betsey. 2, Cranch, 64. Sup. Court U. S. 1804. Expatriation. Aliens. Treaty with Great Britam. id. Aliens. Foreign laws, Prize. Lex loci. Law of nations. Courts. Courts. Colonies. 25. Quere, Whether a citizen of the United States can divest himself absolutely of that character, otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law? And, whether by becoming a subject of a foreign power, he is rescued from punishment for a crime against the United States, and is disabled to hold lands?-id. ib. and McIlvaine v. Coxe's lessee --2, Cranch, 280. Sup. Court U. S. 1804. 26. The treaty of peace with Great Britain prevents the operation of the act of limitations of Virginia, upon British debts contracted before the treaty.--Hopkirk v. Bell·--3, Cranch, 454, Sup. Court U. S., 1806. 27. Quere, Whether a British subject, born in England, in the year 1750, and who always resided in England, could. in the year 1786, take and hold lands in Virginia, by descent or devise?--Lambert's lessee v. Paine.--S, Cranch, 97, Supreme Court U. S. 1805. 28. An executor cannot maintain a suit in the District of Columbia, upon letters testamentary, granted in a foreign country.-Dixon v. Ramsay-3, Cranch, 319, Sup. Court, U. S 1806. 29. A foreign sentence of condemnation as good prize, is not conclusive evidence that the legal title to the property was not in the subject of a neutral nation.-Maley v. Shattuck-3. Cranch, 458, Sup. Court, U. S., 1806 30. All the rights to a testator's personal property, are to be regulated by the laws of the country where he lived; but suits for those rights must be governed by the laws of that country in which the tribunal is placed.-Dixon v. Ramsay3, Canch, 458, Sup. Court, U. S. 1806. 51. If a foreign court cannot, consistently with the law of nations, exercise the jurisdiction which it has assumed, its sentence is to disregarded; but of their own jurisdiction, so far as it depends upon municipal laws, the courts of every country are the exclusive judges. Every sentence of condemnation by a competent court, having jurisdiction over the subject matter of its judgment. is conclusive, as to the title to the thing claimed under it. Rose v. Himely--4, Cranch, 241, Sup. Court, U. S. 1808. Hudson v. Guestier-4, Cranch, 294 Sup. Court, U S. 1808. 32. It is for Governments to decide whether they will consider a revolted colony as an independent nation; and until such decision shall be made, or the parent state shall relinquish her claim, courts of justice must consider the ancient state of things as remaining unaltered, and the sovereign power |