hmm com-, Pemjjlwnia mime}. · agp Conltitution intended te veit an excluiive jurifdiélion in the Su- Ugg. preme Coun, upon all queltions relating to the Public Agents Lahii} bf Foreign Nations. Belides, the conteit of the judiciary ar- ticle of the Conllitntion feems Fairly to jullify the interpreta· I tion, tl1at the word original, means exrlijve, juril`di&ion. Pnnns, _`fq#ic¢:+As I agree in the opinion expreffed by { Judge W iybn, for the reafons which-he has aiiigned, it is unnes 1 ’ celiary to enter into any detail. l The motion for qualliing the indlfinient was accordingly. . ‘ tcjeéted, and the defendant pleaded norguilzy; but his trial was ` poltponed, by confent, ’till the next Term." _ · Pp a Invmcrrou
- The defendant was tried in April Sellioi1,‘i7g4, before Jar,
Cbiéf;7u.ttice, and Pzfeus, julie:; and was defended, by the l`amé advocates, on the following points : ill. That ihe matter charged id the indictment was not a crime by the Common Law, nor is it made . fuchby an;. politive Law of the United Stare:. ln England it was- ozzce Treafon; it is now felony; but in both inllanoes it was the el`- feét of politive law; It can only, therefore, be conlidered aaa ~ bare menace of bodily hurt; and, without aconfequedt inconvenience, it is no injury public or private . 4 Bl- G. 5. 8 Hen. 6. c. 6. ga Gcva 1- c. an- 4 BI. C- 144. 3 BL C. no. ad. That eonhder-- ing the ollicial charader of the defendant, fuch a proceeding ought not to be fullained, nor fuch a punilhment inlli4:ted._ The law of naé- tions is a part of the law of the Ih:itedS1ate.r; and the law of nations feems to require, that a Conful ilieuld be independent of the ordinary criminal juliice of the place where he relides. Volt. b. 2. e. a. s. 34. gd. But that, exclnlive`ol` the legal exceptions, the profecution had not been maintained in point of evidence; for, it was all circumliantial and prefumptive, and that too, in fo (light a degree, as ought not to weigh with a Jury on l`o important an illue. z Hal. IL P. C. 289. 4'Sm0l• 11ist.Eng.p. 382. iu not. _ _ - _ " Racine, in repiy, inlified that the oil`eiite was indiétable at éoma inon law; that the Coniular cliaraéier of the defendant gave jurifdic- tion io the Circuit Court, and did not entitle him _to an exemption from profecution agieeably to the law of nations; and that théproof waaas lirong as the nature of the cafe allowed, or the rules of evi- dence required. In fupport of his argument he cited the follow ing authorities. 4 Bl. Com. 142. l44;• 1 Len. x46. t Keb. Sog. · 4 BI. C. 180. Stra. tg;. 4. Bl. C. 241. Groom Giro. 376. Fos:. 128. Leacb 2¤4• i Dall. R41. 338. 1 Sid. 168. Comb; 304n Leacb 39. Ld. Rqy. 14ér. i Dall. Rep. 45; Tm: Count were of opinion in the charge, that the olfencé wai indifiable, and that the detendant was not privileged from profecu= tion, in virtue of his Conlhlar appo·i1t111e11t. 'l`he ]nry, after a lhort confultation, pronounced the defendant, Guilty; but he was afterwards pardoned, on condition (asl have heard ) that he furrendered his commiiiion and Exequarur. As to the quellion ol~ jurifdiétionn, fee Tbé Uniml Store: serriii ll’¤rmi, port. ·
�
