apply to the sovereigns or supreme authority of the nation, whose subjects had committed the injury, and demand redress; if this redress is granted, there terminates the dispute; but if the persons complained of are justified, if redress is refused, then that government, which received the injury, hath a right, as prudence or policy may dictate to declare war, or as a milder remedy to grant letters of marque or reprisal. And until war is declared, or at least until letters of marque or reprisal are granted, which is, an hostile measure, no government has a right, in any manner, to visit, upon the innocent the sins of another, nor can the sins of a portion of its citizens, be visited upon its government, until a fair candid application has been made, and the conduct of the offender is justified or redress refused.

"I have thus far considered this subject, to wit, the act of congress and the president's authority under it, upon the supposition the whole world, or what is the same thing, all nations, with whom we have any connexion, to be at peace.

"I will now consider the act of congress as an act having passed during the war, that subsists between the powers of Europe, and at a time when we professed ourselves a neutral nation. In this situation, as we were at peace with all the belligerents, and were neutral in their disputes, we not only owed to each of them every thing due to them as being at peace with us, as far as consistent with a state of neutrality; but we were also bound to perform to each all the duties of neutrality in the most honourable and impartial

manner.

"The duties of neutrality depend solely upon the laws of nations (except so far as they may be regulated by treaties) they cannot be regulated by the municipal laws of any country; the American government cannot by any of its acts either increase, diminish or alter the duties which it owes as a neutral nation to either of the belligerents; such an act, if passed, would be in violation of the constitution; it would be a nullity.

"I have already shown, that if all nations were at peace, the proclamation of the president could not be justified as a peace measure but would be an act of hostility. Yet less can it be supported as the act of a government professing itself to be neutral between the belligerent powers, and sacredly bound to act to each with equal impartiality, and to do no act, which in its own nature should benefit the one of the belligerents, as such, to the injury of the other. I have

in my last number shown how inconsistent the conduct which our government hath adopted is with the duties of neutrality, and how immediately it operates in favour of France and to the injury of Great Britain, as it immediately relates to the war subsisting between them. I have shown that the proclamation could not be justified by the laws of nations nor by the laws of neutrality. And I have shown that it cannot be justified by the acts of congress, because an act of congress cannot change or alter the duties, which a neutral owes to belligerents, as those duties in no degree depend upon the municipal laws of any country.

"If then the conduct which our executive has adopted in publishing and enforcing the proclamation is not on our part consistent with a state of general peace, nor with the state of neutrality towards the belligerent powers, it can only be considered as an hostile act, and such it notoriously must be allowed; I have already proved that a nation cannot visit the sins of the guilty upon those who are personally unoffending, except when the nation acts hostilely: in that case having a right to punish the government against which hostilities are commenced, as a corporate or political body, so as it has a right to inflict punishment upon every of the members, of which that corporeal or political body is composed; just as when an individual, in his private character, beats another, although the blow was given with the fist, the person injured has a right to retaliate on the ribs, the legs, even the toes of the aggressor.

"But here the effect of the proclamation is not merely to injure the innocent crews of the British ships, thus occluded; which would of itself be bad enough; but the principal injury is done and was intended to be done to the British nation, as a nation. Hence then it is manifest that our executive has acted in violation of the pacific duties; he has acted inconsistent with neutral duties; he has acted in a hostile manner towards Great Britain; he has pursued measures of hostility towards that nation!

"But by what right has the president done this? Is he authorized so to do by the constitution? No, by the constitution congress alone have the power of declaring war. If congress alone can declare war, can the president before congress have made that declaration, himself act hostilely towards, or in other words commit acts of hostility against any nation? The question is almost an insult to common sense; as well might the constitution have authorized the president to declare war; if under its authority and consistent therewith, he

may commit acts of hostility against a nation, by which that nation would be justified in retaliating, and thus engage his country in a

solemn war.

“Is he justifiable under the law of congress, on which I have observed, to do acts hostile to a foreign nation? No, an act of congress, under the pretext of preventing the violation of our laws, or under any other pretext, cannot infringe the laws of nations, the laws of neutrality, nor justify the president in committing any act of hostility. The law question is therefore, as far as it may have such effect a mere nullity, a direct violation of the constitution. But it may be asked, how comes it that such an act ever disgraced our national code? I will, my fellow citizens, give you its history: an advantage was taken at a period when the "sensibilities” of the citizens of the United States were all alive, and that too the effect of art and cunning, and when their prudence and good sense were as fast asleep as if they had been under the influence of some one of the ancient necromancers. The members of your national legislature passively passed it, just as they, at the last session, passed the embargo law, because the president willed it.”

The style of the pamphlet is rugged and unpolished, but the importance of the subject and the solidity of the reasoning entitle it to a careful consideration.

THE ADVERSARIA.

No. I.

He hath been at a feast [of books] and stolen away scraps." Shakspeare.

THE

HE witty Balsac informs his readers, that in a valley near the Pyreneans, two leagues broad and five long, the inhabitants had lived, from time immemorial, in the most cordial friendship, when their ill fortune brought an attorney to live among them. These people who had never known what a lawsuit meant, before this unlucky arrival, immediately fell together by the ears; nothing was heard of but processes and appeals to the parliament of Thoulouse.

When they had thus torn each other to pieces, and spent all their money, they began to consider what was the cause of this wonderful change. They unanimously agreed that it must be ascribed to the poor attorney, and, regarding him as the source of all their misfortunes, they rose, drove the harpy out of the country, and the pristine tranquillity of the valley was entirely restored.

I have been diverted at observing a precaution in the English laws, against the increase of this body of men; and one expression in an old statute proves that the honest Pyreneans were not the only sufferers by my unfortunate profession. In the thirty-third year of the sixth Henry, an act of parliament was passed, which states that not long before that period, there had not been more than six or seven attorneys in Norfolk and Suffolk, in which time, it recites, great tranquillity prevailed, (quo tempore, magna tranquillitas regnabat) but that the number had increased to twenty-four, to the great vexation and prejudice of the king's liege subjects in those parts. It concludes by restricting the number, in Norfolk, to six, the same number is allowed to Suffolk and two to the city of Norwich. As I believe this curious law was never repealed, I should like to ascertain how it was originally evaded by the cunning of my brethren.

LORD CHANCELLOR HATTON.-During a cause in which the boundaries of a tract of land were to be ascertained, the counsel of the one party stated “we lie on this side, my lord," and his opponent "and we lie on this side." The chancellor interrupting them, said, "if you lie on both sides, whom will you have me to believe?"

SIR HARBOTTLE GRIMSTON.-A curious instance of the quaint style of the last century occurs in the preface to Croke Elizabeth. Sir Harbottle Grimston, the editor and enthusiastic admirer of the author of these valuable reports informs us that sir George Croke was continued in his office of judge of the king's bench after he became old and deaf by Charles II. who

"gave him the like allowance and fee he paid to the rest of the judges, till a certiorari came from the great Judge of heaven and earth, to remove him from a human bench of law to a heavenly throne of glory."

LORD MANSFIELD.-Foote was acquitted from a certain charge preferred against him by the instigation of the dutchess of Kingston, by proving an alibi. When the trial was concluded and the perjury evident, lord Mansfield observed, “this is a very providential alibi; it has baffled the most infamous conspiracy that was ever set on foot."

The numerous folios which were published at an early period of English literature, abound with genuine strokes of humour or sketches of a character, at once amusing and instructive to a curious reader. The writers of that day did not aspire to the ambitious verbiage which distinguishes and weakens the language of our age; and they disdained the glittering tinsel of superfluous ornament. In homely strains devoid of art, they expressed plain truths in nervous and lucid terms.

Such a writer is the honourable Roger North, esquire, who, in the reign of the second James "undertook to become a lifewriter, and as such to dress up his remembrances of three honourable brothers and friends, the late lord-keeper North, sir Dudley North, and Dr. John North." This venerable volume abounds with minute anecdotes of the most celebrated lawyers and judges who flourished about the time that the baron of Guilford was keeper of the great seal, which office he held under Charles II. and James II. The biographer has endeavoured, as he informs us, "to rectify want of art by copia of matter, and that, upon honour, punctually true."

The editor expects to obtain a copy of this scarce volume, for the purpose of inserting an abridgment of it in the Law' Journal.