that "the Executive had no inclination to press upon the Court any' particular construction of the Article on which his motion was founded", nevertheless, "as it is the wish of our government to preserve the purest faith with all nations, the President could not avoid paying the highest respect, and the promptest attention to the representation of the Minister of France, who conceived that the decision of the District Judge involved an infraction of the conventional rights of
his Republic. . . . The President, therefore, introduces the question for the consideration of the Court, in order to insure a punctual execution of the laws; and, at the same time, to manifest to the worid the solicitude of our government to preserve its faith, and to cultivate the friendship and respect of other nations." The Court, however, held that it had no power "to compel a Judge to decide according to the dictates of any judgment but his own", and that, irrespective of its views as to the proper construction of the treaty, mandamus was not a proper remedy in such a case.
In the other case of importance, Penhallow v. Doane's Admrs., 3 Dallas, 54, a question which had been pending in the Courts for e^igh^ggn) years, and which had been the source of bitter political conflict, was finally settled — the right of the Federal Circuit Court to carry into effect decrees of the old Prize Court of Appeals which existed under the Articles of Confederation. The State of New Hampshire had long denied the authority of the latter Court; and the assumption of jurisdiction by the Circuit Court in this case, and its overthrow of long-settled decrees of the State Courts, had been hotly resented. Formal resolutions of remonstrance had twice been adopted by the New Hampshire Legislature, in February, 1794, and January, 1795, in which violation of State independence
