unless these positions can be maintained, the bay of Chesapeake, which, in the same law, is so fully assumed to be within the United States, and which, for the length of the Virginia territory, is subject to the process of several counties, to any extent, will become a rendezvous to all the world, without any possible control from the United States. Nor will the evil stop here. It will require but another short link in the process of reasoning to disappropriate the mouths of some of our most important rivers. If, as Vattel inclines to think in the 294th section of his first book, the Romans were free to appropriate the Mediterranean, merely because they secured by one single stroke the immense range of their coast; how much stronger must be the vindication of the United States, should they adopt maxims for prohibiting foreigners from gaining, without permission, access into the heart of their country?

The inquiry might be enlarged by a minute discussion of the practice of foreign nations in such circumstances. But I pass it by; because the United States, in the commencement of their career, ought not to be precipitate in declaring their approbation of any usages, (the precise facts concerning which we may not thoroughly understand,) until those usages shall have grown into principles, and are incorporated into the law of nations; and because no usage has ever been accepted, which shakes the foregoing principles.

The conclusion then is, that the Grange has been seized on neutral ground. If this be admitted, the duty arising from the illegal act is restitution.

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

EDM. RANDOLPH.

GERMANTOWN, September 5, 1793.

SIR: The interruption which the contagious disorder now prevailing in Philadelphia has given to my residence there, is the cause of the delay which has occurred in my examination of Mr. Hammond's last memorial on Pagan's case.

I beg leave to refer you to my former communications on this head, that I may not repeat them here unnecessarily.

It is true that I considered an application to the Supreme Federal Court indispensable; and that it has been unsuccessful. Whether it was pressed in the most advantageous form, I undertake not to decide; but while I shall ever acknowledge the abilities and integrity of Pagan's counsel, I still adhere to my former representation.

It is no less true that the refusal of a writ of error evinced the sense of the judges that the case was not of a nature susceptible of relief by process of law issuing from the Supreme Court of the United States.

It is then reduced to its original state: A question began in the courts of Massachusetts, where it has run through all the forms of proceeding, and has been decided against a British subject. He complains of injustice, but of no conduct in the judges founded on impure motives. To this point my quotation from the argument on the Silesia loan is applied; and further, I must remark, that if the judges have erred, and there be an appeal, it is the business of Mr. Pagan to appeal; if there be no appeal according to the laws of Massachusetts, no Federal authority can give one, and therefore no relief can be had in our courts.

Such, sir, is the state of our jurisprudence with respect to this case; and, as Mr. Hammond seems now to make it an affair of negotiation, upon the ground that the American courts ought not to have assumed a jurisdiction over it, and that, if they might, the armistice was misinterpreted, the subject is no longer within the sphere of my office. If, however, you mean to discuss these two questions, and my aid can be useful, it is at your command.

I have the honor to be, &c.,

EDM. RANDOLPH.

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

[Under the fifth section of the act establishing a mint, the assayer and chief coiner cannot execute their duties prior to taking the oath of office required by the act.]

DECEMBER 6, 1793.

SIR: The fifth section of the act establishing a mint directs that the assayer, chief coiner, and treasurer, previously to entering upon the execution of their respective offices, shall each become bound to the United States, with one or more sureties, in the sum of $10,000, with condition for the faithful and diligent performance of the duties of his office. With this requisition the persons who are commissioned as assayer and chief coiner have not, it seems, as yet complied. Can they, then, execute their offices? is your question. I answer that they cannot; because the bond is a preliminary to the execution. I recollect a subtle doubt which was once raised upon a law inflicting a penalty of five hundred pounds upon a justice who should presume to execute the office of justice before he took an oath. It was contended, that if he chose to submit to the penalty, he might proceed in the functions, and his acts would, notwithstanding, be valid. If this were law, (which, however, 1 disbelieve,) it was certainly the ultimate point to which the law can, in such cases, be extended. But between that instance and the situation of the assayer and chief coiner, the interval is so great as to afford no protection to the latter from the former. In the former, there is a far greater appearance of recognising a right to execute, than in the latter, to which that right is impliedly denied. EDM. RANDOLPH.

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

OPINIONS

OF

WILLIAM BRADFORD, OF PENNSYLVANIA.

APPOINTED JANUARY 27, 1794.

PHILADELPHIA, February 8, 1794.

SIR: I have paid attention to the letter of the attorney of the United States for the district of New York, enclosed in yours of the 31st ultimo, As the decree of the judge, though not final, raises a presumption against the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, in cases of capture said to be made within the limits of our territory, I am of opinion that it will not be improper for the district attorney to cause the necessary depositions to be taken de bene esse, to be used by the Executive, in case the appellant should not prosecute his appeal, or the decree should be confirmed. It will prevent much trouble of collecting witnesses who may be absent at a future day, and will be a proof of the disposition of the Executive to avoid any unnecessary delay.

I will pay attention to the plea filed in the case Carital vs. Clinton, &c., as soon as possible. Were it not too late, (as I presume it is,) there seems to be ground for a plea in abatement, on account of the variance between the declaration and the writ: the one being in case, (as I am informed,) and the other in trespass vi et armis; and the former laying the offence with a simul cum, while the writ is only against G. Clinton and Aquila Giles. But were it still possible to abate the plaintiff's writ, I am inclined to think it would be best to meet the question, and justify the conduct of the defendants. I have the honor, &c.,

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

WM. BRADFORD.

PHILADELPHIA, February 12, 1794.

SIR: I have the honor to inform you that I have carefully examined the papers which you transmitted to me for the purpose of reporting whether the ship William, captured by the French schooner Citizen Genet, was taken in any place within the territory or protection of the United States.

In deciding upon facts of this kind, some rules must be adopted for ascertaining the competency of the evidence offered; and none appear more proper than those which prevail in the courts of admiralty, and which, being founded on general and universal principles, are essential to a safe and pure administration of justice.

Examining by this test the papers offered in evidence, scarcely any of them will be admissible.

Those offered by the consul of France consist of copies of depositions. remaining in the consulate of France, made by Pierre Dalton, Thomas Connolly, and Daniel Osburn, all of them officers on board the Citizen Genet at the time of the capture of the ship.

Waiving, therefore, any objection arising from the want of the original depositions, these are evidently ex parte affidavits, made by persons directly interested in the event of the decision.

The evidence offered by the English consul (besides the deposition of James Legget) is-1st. A copy of the affidavit of John Whitesides, taken in the district court of Pennsylvania, on the bill filed by Finlay and others against the ship William, &c.; but I consider this as inadmissible, it being ex parte, and taken in a court which disclaims any jurisdiction of the cause. 2d. The depositions of John Williams and Thomas Butler, pilots, of Norfolk, in Virginia, taken ex parte, and certified by a public notary of that place. They are provisionally offered; but, for the cause aforesaid, are not competent evidence.

The only affidavit which remains is that of James Legget, the master of the ship William at the time of her capture. This appears to have been duly taken before B. Morgan, esquire, authorized for that purpose by the attorney of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania; and I am of opinion, that, according to the usage and principles of the court of admiralty, he is a competent witness; but how far his credibility may be affected by his interest, is open for consideration.

Having, therefore, such slender evidence to proceed upon, I beg leave to request your opinion whether it is expected I should report upon the facts as they appear upon this single affidavit; and also to suggest for your consideration the propriety of communicating to the parties concerned the incompetency of the evidence that is offered, before any further proceedings are had."

I have the honor, &c.,

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

WM. BRADFORD.

PHILADELPHIA, February 20, 1794.

SIR: By the correspondence between the British consul at Norfolk, and the attorney of the United States for the district of Virginia, which you transmitted to me for consideration, it appears that a question has arisen, whether a riot committed by a number of persons tumultuously assembled before the house of a foreign consul, requiring him to deliver up certain persons supposed to be resident with him, and insulting him with improper language, can be the subject of prosecution in the courts of the United States. I have now the honor to state to you my opinion on that point, agreeably to your request.

Upon the best consideration I can give the subject, I am satisfied that this offence is not within the act of the 30th April, 1790, for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States. The only section which in any degree relates to it, is that which prescribes the punishment" for