Trade with Enemy. id. Ransom. 672. A neutral may lawfully draw a bill on a belligerent. It is not a trading with the enemy. United States v. Barker -1 Paine, 157, C. C. New-York, 1820. 673. All contracts with an enemy are not necessarily void. Cases of extreme necessity are excepted. So also contracts made by license of the government, ransom bonds, contracts by prisoners of war for their subsistence, &c. The William Penn-3 Washington C. C. Rep. 484, C. C. N. J. 1819. 674. The treaty of peace of 1783, with Great Britain, was a mere recognition of pre-existing rights as to territory, and no territory was thereby acquired by way of cession from G. British treaty. Britain. Harcourt et al. v. Gaillard-12 Wheaton, 523, Sup. court United States, 1827. Treaty. Treaty. Treaty. Forts. Jurisdiction. Treaty. Treaty. Treaty. Id. 675. The adoption of a treaty, with the stipulations of which the provisions of a state law are inconsistent, is equivalent to the repeal of such law. Den ex dem, Fisher v. Hamden-1 Paine, 55, C. C. New-York, 1812. 676. Under the 2d article of the treaty with Great Britain the precincts and jurisdiction of a fort are not to be considered three miles in every direction, by analogy to the jurisdiction of a country over that portion of the sea surrounding its coasts, but they must be made out by proof. Jackson v. Porter -1 Paine, 457, C C. New-York, 1825. 677. A treaty goes into operation from the date of its signature, if no other period is agreed upon between the parties. Hylton's lessee v. Brown-1 Washington, C. C. Reports, 343, C. C. Pennsylvania, 1806. 678. When a treaty has been ratified according to the provisions of the constitution it becomes the law of the land, and it is perfectly immaterial whether or not the persons, who signed it, did or did not transcend their instructions. Hamil. ton v. Eaton-North Carolina cases, 79. 679. A treaty does, of necessity, annul any prior statutes so far as there is interference. Id. ib. 680. Debts due to British subjects during the revolutionary British treaty. war, although paid into a state treasury under the authority of an act of the legislature, may, nevertheless be sued for and recovered after the peace. Id ib Treaty. 681 To bring a case within the 9th article of the treaty with Spain, so as to entitle a Spanish owner to entire restitution, Spanish treaty free of salvage, of his property captured as prize of war at sea, by a vessel professing to be an enemy of Spain, and rescued, it is incumbent upon the party to show, that the captors were pirates and robbers. The Tigre-1 Journal of Jurisprudence, 105. Piracy. Prize. 682. A capture of her enemy by a belligerent vessel is le. Admiralty. gal, although she had no commission; the only effect of the want of a commission would be, that the condemnation would Capture. be to the government, and not to the captors. Id. ib. Murder. 683. Under the 27th article of the treaty of amity with G. Treaty, British treaty, Britain, a person who has committed murder on board a British ship of war on the high seas, is to be delivered up to the government of Great Britain United States v. Nash alias Robbins-Bee, 266, District court South Carolina, 1799. Fugitives. 684. Every contention by force between two nations, in ex- War. ternal matters, under the authority of their respective govern Public war. ments, is not only war, but public war. If it be declared in form, it is called solemn, and is of the perfect kind. But hostilities may subsist between two nations, more confined in its nature and extent, being limited as to places, persons and things: and this is more properly termed imperfect war, because not solemn; and because those who are authorised to commit hostilities, act under special authority, and can go no further than to the extent of their commission; still, however, it is public war. Bas v. Tingey-4 Dallas, 37, Supreme court United States, 1800. 685. The object of the treaty with Spain, which ceded Flo- Treaty. rida to the United States, dated 22d May, 1819, was to invest Spanish treaty. the commissioners with full power and authority to receive, examine, and decide upon the amount and validity of asserted claims, by citizens of the United States upon Spain, and it is wholly immaterial who is the legal or equitable owner of the claim, provided he is an American citizen. The decision of the commissioners, within the scope of their authority is conclusive. A rejected claim cannot be again brought under review in any judicial tribunal. After the validity and amount. of the claim has been ascertained by the award of the commissioners, the rights of the claimant to the fund which has passed into his hands, and those of others, are left to the ordinary course of judicial proceedings in the established courts of justice. That treaty recognized an existing right, in the aggrieved parties, to compensation; and did not in the most remote degree turn upon the notion of donation, or gratuity. It was demanded by our government as matter of right, and as such was granted by Spain. Comegys et al. v. Vasse-1 Peters, 212. Sup. court United States, 1628. War. 686. The constitution of the United States confers, abso- Teaty. lutely, on the government of the Union, the power of making Coaquest. Trade with id. Ransom. 672. A neutral may lawfully draw a bill on a belligerent. It is not a trading with the enemy. United States v. Barker - Paine, 157, C. C. New-York, 1820. 673. All contracts with an enemy are not necessarily void. Cases of extreme necessity are excepted. So also contracts made by license of the government, ransom bonds, contracts by prisoners of war for their subsistence, &c. The William Penn-S Washington C. C. Rep. 484, C. C. N. J. 1819. 674. The treaty of peace of 1783, with Great Britain, was a mere recognition of pre-existing rights as to territory, and no territory was thereby acquired by way of cession from G. British treaty. Britain. Harcourt et al. v. Gaillard-12 Wheaton, 523, Sup. court United States, 1827. Treaty. Treaty. Treaty. Forts. 675. The adoption of a treaty, with the stipulations of which the provisions of a state law are inconsistent, is equivalent to the repeal of such law. Den ex dem, Fisher v. Hamden-1 Paine, 55, C. C. New-York, 1812. 676. Under the 2d article of the treaty with Great Britain British treaty. the precincts and jurisdiction of a fort are not to be considered three miles in every direction, by analogy to the jurisdiction of a country over that portion of the sea surrounding its coasts, but they must be made out by proof. Jackson v. Porter -1 Paine, 457, C C. New-York, 1825. Jurisdiction. Treaty. Treaty. Treaty. Id. 677. A treaty goes into operation from the date of its signature, if no other period is agreed upon between the parties. Hylton's lessee v. Brown-1 Washington, C. C. Reports, 343, C. C. Pennsylvania, 1806. 678. When a treaty has been ratified according to the provisions of the constitution it becomes the law of the land, and it is perfectly immaterial whether or not the persons, who signed it, did or did not transcend their instructions. Hamil ton v. Eaton-North Carolina cases, 79. 679. A treaty does, of necessity, annul any prior statutes so far as there is interference. Id. ib. 680. Debts due to British subjects during the revolutionary British treaty. war, although paid into a state treasury under the authority of an act of the legislature, may, nevertheless be sued for and recovered after the peace. Id ib Treaty. 681 To bring a case within the 9th article of the treaty with Spain, so as to entitle a Spanish owner to entire restitution, Spanish treaty free of salvage, of his property captured as prize of war at sea, by a vessel professing to be an enemy of Spain, and rescued, it is incumbent upon the party to show, that the captors were pirates and robbers. The Tigre-1 Journal of Jurisprudence, 105. Piracy. Id. ib. Prize. Capture. 682. A capture of her enemy by a belligerent vessel is le. Admiralty. gal, although she had no commission; the only effect of the want of a commission would be, that the condemnation would be to the government, and not to the captors. 683. Under the 27th article of the treaty of amity with G. Treaty, British treaty. Britain, a person who has committed murder on board a British ship of war on the high seas, is to be delivered up to the government of Great Britain United States v. Nash alias Robbins-Bee, 266, District court South Carolina, 1799. Murder. Fugitives. 684. Every contention by force between two nations, in ex- War. ternal matters, under the authority of their respective govern Public war. ments, is not only war, but public war. If it be declared in form, it is called solemn, and is of the perfect kind. But hostilities may subsist between two nations, more confined in its nature and extent, being limited as to places, persons and things: and this is more properly termed imperfect war, because not solemn; and because those who are authorised to commit hostilities, act under special authority, and can go no further than to the extent of their commission; still, however, it is public war. Bas v. Tingey-4 Dallas, 37, Supreme court United States, 1800. 685. The object of the treaty with Spain, which ceded Flo- Treaty. rida to the United States, dated 22d May, 1819, was to invest Spanish treaty. the commissioners with full power and authority to receive, examine, and decide upon the amount and validity of asserted claims, by citizens of the United States upon Spain, and it is wholly immaterial who is the legal or equitable owner of the claim, provided he is an American citizen. The decision of the commissioners, within the scope of their authority is conclusive. A rejected claim cannot be again brought under review in any judicial tribunal. After the validity and amount of the claim has been ascertained by the award of the commissioners, the rights of the claimant to the fund which has passed into his hands, and those of others, are left to the ordinary course of judicial proceedings in the established courts of justice. That treaty recognized an existing right, in the aggrieved parties, to compensation; and did not in the most remote degree turn upon the notion of donation, or gratuity. It was demanded by our government as matter of right, and as such was granted by Spain. Comegys et al. v. Vasse-1 Peters, 212. Sup. court United States, 1828. War. 686. The constitution of the United States confers, abso- Treaty. lutely, on the government of the Union, the power of making Coaquest. War. High seas. Jurisdiction. Lex loci. Bankrupt. war and of making treaties. Consequently that Government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty. The usage of the world is, if a nation be not entirely subdued, to consider the holding of conquered territory as a mere military occupation, until its fate shall be determined at the treaty of peace. If it be ceded by treaty the acquisition is confirmed, and the ceded territory becomes a part of the na tion to which it is annexed, either on the terms stipulated in the treaty of cession, or on such as its new master shall impose. On such transfer of territory, it has never been held that the relations of the inhabitants to each other undergo any change. Their relations with their former sovereign are dissolved, and new relations are created between them and the government which has acquired their territory. The same act which transfers their country, transfers the allegiance of those who remain in it, and the law which is denominated political, is necessarily changed, although that which regulates the intercourse and general conduct of individuals remains in force until altered by the newly created power of the state. The Amer In. Co. v. 356 bales of cotton. ters, 542. Sup court, U. S. 1828. 1 Pe 687. The words High seas" in the act of Congress of 1825 ch. 276 §. 22, for the punishment of assault with intent to kill, upon the high seas, mean the uninclosed water of the ocean on the sea coast, outside of the fauces terræ. The state courts have jurisdiction of offences committed on arms of the sea, creeks, havens, basins and bays within the ebb and flow of the tide, when those places are within the body of a county; and in such cases the courts of the United States have no jurisdiction under that statute. U. S. v. Grush--5 Mason 290. C. C. Mass. 1829. 688. The distinction between the obligation of contracts, Foreign laws. and the mode of applying remedies thereto, is well established. The former is universally recognized according to the place where the contract is made; the latter is bounded by the territorial limits. The effect of a discharge of the person from imprisonment, by the insolvent law of the state where the contract was made, is purely local; and if the debtor be sued in the courts of another state the judgement must be general, and not merely against the estate or effects of the debtor.Titus v Hobart-5 Mason, 378. C. C. Mass. 1829. Ship. Vessel. 689. An open boat is not a "ship or vessel" within the purview of the statutes of 1820, ch. 122, and 1823, ch. 150, which prohibit commercial intercourse from the British Colonies; but |