Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/78

 OCTOBER TERM, 1907, comideration d this court upon a writ of error, Caobd/v. Boyreau, 21 How. 223, although met as to the Circuit Court by Rev. Star. tt 649, 700, still applies  the District Courts. Roers v. United $tas, 141 U.S. 548. However, if we assume this argument to be correct, there still perhaps may be gathered from the ptln, coupled with matters of general knowledge, enough to present the questiota which the pisntiff was entitled to present below, ,,nd therefore we proceed to dispoee of the case .upon the merits. It is sad that neither the Execufivo nor Congre could have taken the plaintiff's property, and that therefore they could not ratify the act of General Brooke so as to m,le his act t of the United States and to exonerate him. But it Ires been held that s tort could be ratified so far as to m,le an act done in the course of the principal's business, sad purporting to he done i his name, his tor, Dempseyv. Chamberz, 154 Maachusetts, 330; and it may be assumed that this is the law as to the wrong- ful appropriation of property which the principal retains, 332, and ces cited. The old law, which sometimes st least was thought to hold the servant exonerated when the master assumed hability [1 Roll. Abr. 2, pl. 7; 95 (T.); Cremr v. Took- /ey's Case, Godbolt, 385, 389; La/cock's Ca, Itch, 187; Anon., I Mod. 209], still is applied to a greater or le extent when the mter is the ovcreign. The Paquete Habana, 189 U.S. 453, 485. It is not necessary to consider what limits there may be to the doctrine, for we think it plain that where, as here, the jurisdiction of the case depends upon the etablishment of & "tort only in violation of the law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States," it is impoible for the courts to declare an set a tort of that kind when the Executive, Congress and the treaty-making power all have adopted the act. We see no reason to doubt that the ratification extended to the con- duct of General Brooke. But we do not dwell longer upon the ratification of what was done during the military occupation of Cubs, or consider the question whether the ratification wa needed, because we agree

�