Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
Mr. J. Holmes had told us that the object of the study of law is to make the prophecies of precedent more precise, to generalize them into a thoroughly connected system; that that object is “the prediction of the incidence of the public force through the instrumentalities of courts.” The framers of our constitutional jurisprudence were clearly concerned with the incidence of just principles upon governmental powers. Kent declares that when the United States ceased to be a part of the British Empire, and assumed the character of an independent nation, they became subject to that system of rules, which reason, morality and custom had established among the civilized nations of Europe, as their public law. It was recognized that the law of nations prescribed “what one nation may do without giving just cause for war, and what of consequence, another may or ought to permit without being considered as having sacrificed its honor, its dignity, or its independence.” Story avers that the general law of nations is “equally obligatory upon all sovereigns and all states." It is "the umpire and security of their rights and peace,” declared Jefferson. It is a law which “binds all nations,” declared the Supreme Court of the United States in 1794.
1 Kent, Commentaries, vol. I, Part I, p. 1, “The Law of Nations.”Google Scholar
2 Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry—from letter laid Feb. 7, 1798, before the Senate and the House, American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. II, p. 169.Google Scholar
3 Story, Commentaries, par. 1659;Google ScholarWash. Cir. Rep. 232, Ex Parte Cabrera.Google Scholar
4 Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1807.Google Scholar
5 Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. U. S. (1795), 199, 227.Google Scholar
6 Jay, charge to Grand Jury, Henfield's Case, 11 Fed. Case no. 6360.
7 Dean Inge, The State, Visible and Invisible.
8 Roscoe Pound, “Philosophical Theory and International Law,” lecture at Ley den University, Bibliotheca Visseriana, 1923.Google Scholar
9 Kent, op. cit.
10 Henfield's Case, supra.
11 Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pads.
12 Treaty of the United States with Prussia, 1799, Art. XXIV.Google Scholar
13 Speech of John Quincy Adams, Jubilee of the Constitution, 1839.
14 Talbot v. Seaman, 1 Cranch, U. S. (1801), 1, 38.Google Scholar
15 Kent, op. cit.; Grotius, op. cit, Book II, Chap. XVI, p. 360, (16);Google ScholarBurlamaqui, Nat. & Pol. Law vol. II, Part 4, Ch. 9;Google ScholarRutherford, Inst., Book II, Ch. 10;Google ScholarMadison in Helvidius, Madison's Works, vol. VI, p. 164.Google Scholar
16 Iredell, charge to Grand Jury, Dist. N. C, June 2, 1794.
17 Iredell, supra.
18 Hamilton's Works, Federalist, no. XLIV, p. 283.Google Scholar
19 Randolph, Atty. Gen., American State Papers, vol. I, pp. 148–149;Google ScholarJefferson to Con- gress, Dec. 4, 1805; Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1807.Google Scholar
20 The Peggy, 1 Ct. U. S. (1801), 103,109–110;Google ScholarMoore, International Law Dig., See. 777, p. 370.Google Scholar
21 American State Papers, vol. II, p. 167et seq.Google Scholar This view is supported by numerous opinions of Story.
22 Ibid.
23 The Santissima Trinidad, 8 Wheat. U. S. (1823), 283, 292.Google Scholar
24 American State Papers, supra.
25 Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. U. S. (1827), 346.Google Scholar
26 Gosler v. Corp. of Georgetown, 6 Wheat. U. S. (1821), 593, 598.Google Scholar
27 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. U. S. (1824), 1, 211;Google ScholarThe Exchange, 7 Cranch, U. S. (1811).Google Scholar
28 Jay, Correspondence and Public Papers, vol. II, p. 387.Google Scholar
29 Jay, Henfield's Case, supra.
30 Ibid.
31 Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Peters U. S. (1834), 591, 658.Google Scholar
32 Foster & Elam v. Neilson, 2 Peters U. S. (1829), 253, 302.Google Scholar
33 Pollard v. Kibbe, 14 Peters U. S. (1840), 353, 365, 407.Google Scholar
34 U. S. v. Arredondo, 6 Peters U. S. (1832), 691, 735;Google ScholarThe Peggy, 1 Cranch, U. S. (1801), 103, 109–110;Google Scholarsee also Duplicate Letters of John Quincy Adams, 1822, p. 193;Google Scholar Foster v. Neil-son, supra; U. S.v. Arredondo, supra;Google Scholarcompare Writings of Madison, James, vol. VI, p. 158, and Tucker's Constitutional Law, vol. II, par. 354, p. 523.Google Scholar
35 U. S. v. Percheman, Peters U. S. (1833), 51, 89.Google Scholar In this case the turning principle in Foster v. Neilson was universally understood to be overruled, though the aid of U. S. v. Arredondo was relied upon—see Pollard v. Kibbe, supra.
36 Henderson v. Poindexter's Lessee, 12 Wheat. U. S. (1827), 530, 535;Google ScholarDelassus v. U. S., 9 Peters U. S. (1835), 117, 130;Google Scholar U. S. v. Clarke, 8 Peters U. S. (1834), 436.Google Scholar
37 Soulard v. U. S., 4 Peters U. S. (1830), 511.Google Scholar
38 Mayor v. De Armas, 9 Peters U. S. (1835), 233, 234, 235.Google Scholar
39 U S.v. Clarke, supra;Google Scholarsee also Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. U. S. (1817), 259, 269, 272, 277;Google ScholarCarneal v. Banks, 10 Wheat. U. S. (1825), 181.Google Scholar
40 The Hiram, 1 Peters U. S. (1828), 440.Google Scholar
41 The Hiram, 1 Wheat. U. S. (1816), 440, 444;Google ScholarOgden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. U. S. (1827), 303, 441;Google ScholarMcCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. U. S. (1819), 316, 730;Google ScholarMarbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, U. S. (1803), 137, 176.Google Scholar
42 Foster v. Neilson, supra.
43 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Peters U. S. (1831), 29, 30;Google Scholarsee also U. S.v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. U. S. (1818), 610, 614;Google ScholarThe Divina Pastora, 4 Wheat. U. S. (1819), 50, 63.Google Scholar
44 The Atalanta, 3 Wheat. U. S. (1819), 409, 415.Google Scholar
45 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. U. S. (1819), 316, 400.Google Scholar
46 Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. U. S. (1827), 303, 304;Google ScholarBarron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Peters U. S. (1822), 243, 249;Google ScholarCohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. U. S. (1821), 264, 382.Google Scholar
47 Iredell, charge to Grand Jury, April 26, 1792.
48 Henfield's Case, supra.
49 The Antelope, 10 Wheat. U. S. (1825), 66, 122.Google Scholar
50 Bank v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, U. S. (1809), 58, 87;Google ScholarDurousseau v. U. S., 6 Cranch, U. S. (1810), 307, 318.Google Scholar
51 Talbot v. Seaman, 1 Cranch, U. S. (1801), 1, 43.Google Scholar
52 Owings v. Norwood's Lessee, 5 Cranch, U. S. (1809), 344, 348;Google ScholarMayor v. De Armas, supra, 234.Google Scholar
53 Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, supra.
54 Resol. & Debates, H. of Del., Va., Taylor, G. K., Dec. 21, 1798, pub. by R. I. Smith, Richmond, Va., 1832.Google Scholar
55 Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. U. S. (1824), 574.Google Scholar
56 Mayor v. De Armas, supra; Cohens v. Virginia, supra.
57 Cohens v.Virginia,supra;Google ScholarMartin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. U. S. (1816), 304, 369, 370.Google Scholar
58 Speech, Jubilee of Const., supra.
59 Chinese Exclusion Cases, 130 U. S. (1888), 581, 600;Google Scholarsee also 112 U. S.536, 562;Google Scholar112 U. S.580;Google Scholar124 U. S.190.Google Scholar
60 Taney, Doe v. Braden, 16 How. U. S. (1853), 655, 657;Google ScholarChas. Ray. Brdg. Co. v. Warren Brdg. Co., 11 Peters U. S. (1837), 420.Google Scholar
61 Talbot v. Seaman, supra, 44.Google Scholar
62 Resol. & Debates, H. of Del., Va. (1798), supra;Google ScholarMayor v. De Armas, supra, 233, 234;Google ScholarCohens v. Virginia, supra, 396.Google Scholar
63 John Quincy Adams, supra.
