Page:The Supreme Court in United States History vol 1.djvu/160

134 triation was considered but not decided ; but Judge Paterson laid down with much firmness the doctrine that, whatever right a man might possess to renounce his State citizenship under the provisions of a State statute, no State could by legislation eflFect renunciation of United States citizenship ; and he stated with concise eloquence the complications of the new system of govern- ment, in unfolding which dinging the subsequent years the Court was to play so large a part : " We have sover- eignties moving within a sovereignty. Of course there is complexity and diflSculty in the system, which requires a penetrating eye fully to explore, and steady and masterly hands to keep in unison and order. A slight collision may disturb the harmony of the parts and endanger the machinery of the whole." ^ In United States v. Richard PeterSy S Dallas, 121, on a motion for a writ of prohibition to the United States District Judge in Pennsylvania, to restrain him from entertaining a libel against a French privateer. The CassiuSy the Court again showed how clear was its disposition to dispense even-handed justice to France, in spite of the bitter attacks launched against it by the French sympathizers. Since The Cassius was an armed vessel owned by the French Republic, and not a privateer, the Court held that, even though she was illegally fitted out in the United States, she could not be libeled in oiu* Courts, and that the property of a sovereign and independent nation must be held sacred from judicial seizure.*

When the Term ended, Rutledge left Philadelphia to

1 Of the extreme length of argument in this case. Judge Iredell wrote to Simeon Baldwin, Aug. 18, 1795: "We have been ao incessantly employed in business in the Supreme Court that it has been scarcely possible for us to attend to anything else. One cause began on the 6th inst. and is not yet ended and one lawyer spoke three days." Life and Letters of Simeon Baldwin (1919), by Simeon E. Baldwin. It may be noted that the decision was given on August 22, four days after the date of Iredell's letter and therefore within four days after the close of argument.

s See also KeUand v. The Cassius, 2 Dallas, 365.