Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/91

 80 cited 15 ''Vin. Abr.'' 127. pl. 3. 5. 6. 8. ''Cro. Eliz.'' 675. 5 Rep. 47. 6. 48. a. 1. Vern. 318. 3 ''Black. Comm.'' 316. See 10 ''Vin. Abr.'' 498. pl. 9.

to the law merchant, and anwerable in the tate where it happens to be imported.

That overeignty is better repreented by perons than things: and as any or all the citizens of Virginia would be amenable to the juridiction of this tate, if they were to come within its bounds, o there is no reaon why property brought here hould not be attached as well as the citizen arreted.

That one overeign may lay duties upon the goods of another; and this appears to have been the ene of Congres, by their expresly tipulating in the articles of confederation, that no duties hould be laid by one tate, on the property of another.

That the goods, which were attached, were certainly liable for their freight: o if they had been imported contrary to law, they were ubject to forfeiture: proces againt them might iue out of this court, and juridiction over them be exercied, the overeignty of Virginia not withtanding.

That if a veel belonging to Virginia, hould be taken, as prize retaken, and libelled here, Virginia mut ubmit her claim to the deciion of the admiralty of Pennylvania, and could not claim an exemption, on account of her overeignty.

That a overeign tate may wave its right–and by the very act of importing merchandise, it ubjects itelf to the juridiction of the country.

That all property in this tate is under the protection of the government, and therefore hould be anwerable is its turn, and amendable to its laws.

That the tatute of Ann, though declaratory, is only declaratory of the ideas which that parliament entertained of the laws of nations. Thee were often erroneous, and could not be binding on us.

That whatever might be the cae with regard to foreign miniters, by the articles of confederation, the delegates from Virginia were privileged only in their perons, and not in their goods: and as they repreent the tate, it was to be preumed, they enjoy every exemption that their overeign expected or claimed.

They aid, that whether Virginia was ubject to, or exempt from, the juridiction of this tate, in the preent intance, was not the point now in quetion: it was only, whether the heriff hould or hould not obey the command of the court.

That by the writ, he was directed to return it to the court, and he was not to withhold the proces in contempt of this order, and to tifle the proceedings in their birth.

That the heriff was to act under the judgment of the court, and if he had any doubt about the validity of the writ, he ought to return it. Then the court might, if caue was hewn, quah it as illegal.

That his not being obliged to return proces againt ambaadors was owing to the tatute of Ann: and this exemption was ingular, and not to be extended here.

That though a writ might be void, where the court had no [sic]juridiction of the caue, or iued a writ, which they had no authority to iue; yet the caue here was trepas upon the cae, of which the court may hold plea, and the proces was a foreign attachment, which they certainly had authority to iue.

That to uffer the heriff to uppres writs at pleaure, was etablihing a dangerous precedent, which in future would be greatly abued.

That the quetions upon which this cae depended, were important, and deerved the fullest conideration: and that an appeal from one tribunal to another, was the right and the ecurity of the ubject. But if the writ was now to be uppreed, there could be no record to be removed, and the plaintiff was left without remedy.

They finally oberved, that this mode of applying to a court of judicature, to decide on the jutice of the plaintiff’s demand, was every way preferable to that propoed by the attorney general, of ending him to complain to the executive power, who could give him no redres, but by appealing to arms, and involving this tate in a war.

They therefore prayed that the rule might be made abolute.

held the matter ome days under adviement—and at their next meeting, delivered it as the judgment of the court.

“That the rule made upon the heriff, to return the writ iued againt the commonwealth of Virginia, at the uit of Simon Nathan, fhould be dicharged.”