Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:22:46.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Sanctions and American Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

J. Whitla Stinson
J. Whitla Stinson*
Affiliation:
Of the New York Bar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mr. J. Holmes had told us that the object of the study of law is to make the prophecies of precedent more precise, to generalize them into a thoroughly connected system; that that object is “the prediction of the incidence of the public force through the instrumentalities of courts.” The framers of our constitutional jurisprudence were clearly concerned with the incidence of just principles upon governmental powers. Kent declares that when the United States ceased to be a part of the British Empire, and assumed the character of an independent nation, they became subject to that system of rules, which reason, morality and custom had established among the civilized nations of Europe, as their public law. It was recognized that the law of nations prescribed “what one nation may do without giving just cause for war, and what of consequence, another may or ought to permit without being considered as having sacrificed its honor, its dignity, or its independence.” Story avers that the general law of nations is “equally obligatory upon all sovereigns and all states." It is "the umpire and security of their rights and peace,” declared Jefferson. It is a law which “binds all nations,” declared the Supreme Court of the United States in 1794.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , July 1925 , pp. 505 - 516
Copyright
Copyright © by the American Society of International Law 1925

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kent, Commentaries, vol. I, Part I, p. 1, “The Law of Nations.”Google Scholar

2 Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry—from letter laid Feb. 7, 1798, before the Senate and the House, American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. II, p. 169.Google Scholar

3 Story, Commentaries, par. 1659;Google ScholarWash. Cir. Rep. 232, Ex Parte Cabrera.Google Scholar

4 Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1807.Google Scholar

5 Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. U. S. (1795), 199, 227.Google Scholar

6 Jay, charge to Grand Jury, Henfield's Case, 11 Fed. Case no. 6360.

7 Dean Inge, The State, Visible and Invisible.

8 Roscoe Pound, “Philosophical Theory and International Law,” lecture at Ley den University, Bibliotheca Visseriana, 1923.Google Scholar

9 Kent, op. cit.

10 Henfield's Case, supra.

11 Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pads.

12 Treaty of the United States with Prussia, 1799, Art. XXIV.Google Scholar

13 Speech of John Quincy Adams, Jubilee of the Constitution, 1839.

14 Talbot v. Seaman, 1 Cranch, U. S. (1801), 1, 38.Google Scholar

15 Kent, op. cit.; Grotius, op. cit, Book II, Chap. XVI, p. 360, (16);Google ScholarBurlamaqui, Nat. & Pol. Law vol. II, Part 4, Ch. 9;Google ScholarRutherford, Inst., Book II, Ch. 10;Google ScholarMadison in Helvidius, Madison's Works, vol. VI, p. 164.Google Scholar

16 Iredell, charge to Grand Jury, Dist. N. C, June 2, 1794.

17 Iredell, supra.

18 Hamilton's Works, Federalist, no. XLIV, p. 283.Google Scholar

19 Randolph, Atty. Gen., American State Papers, vol. I, pp. 148–149;Google ScholarJefferson to Con- gress, Dec. 4, 1805; Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1807.Google Scholar

20 The Peggy, 1 Ct. U. S. (1801), 103,109–110;Google ScholarMoore, International Law Dig., See. 777, p. 370.Google Scholar

21 American State Papers, vol. II, p. 167et seq.Google Scholar This view is supported by numerous opinions of Story.

22 Ibid.

23 The Santissima Trinidad, 8 Wheat. U. S. (1823), 283, 292.Google Scholar

24 American State Papers, supra.

25 Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. U. S. (1827), 346.Google Scholar

26 Gosler v. Corp. of Georgetown, 6 Wheat. U. S. (1821), 593, 598.Google Scholar

27 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. U. S. (1824), 1, 211;Google ScholarThe Exchange, 7 Cranch, U. S. (1811).Google Scholar

28 Jay, Correspondence and Public Papers, vol. II, p. 387.Google Scholar

29 Jay, Henfield's Case, supra.

30 Ibid.

31 Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Peters U. S. (1834), 591, 658.Google Scholar

32 Foster & Elam v. Neilson, 2 Peters U. S. (1829), 253, 302.Google Scholar

33 Pollard v. Kibbe, 14 Peters U. S. (1840), 353, 365, 407.Google Scholar

34 U. S. v. Arredondo, 6 Peters U. S. (1832), 691, 735;Google ScholarThe Peggy, 1 Cranch, U. S. (1801), 103, 109–110;Google Scholarsee also Duplicate Letters of John Quincy Adams, 1822, p. 193;Google Scholar Foster v. Neil-son, supra; U. S.v. Arredondo, supra;Google Scholarcompare Writings of Madison, James, vol. VI, p. 158, and Tucker's Constitutional Law, vol. II, par. 354, p. 523.Google Scholar

35 U. S. v. Percheman, Peters U. S. (1833), 51, 89.Google Scholar In this case the turning principle in Foster v. Neilson was universally understood to be overruled, though the aid of U. S. v. Arredondo was relied upon—see Pollard v. Kibbe, supra.

36 Henderson v. Poindexter's Lessee, 12 Wheat. U. S. (1827), 530, 535;Google ScholarDelassus v. U. S., 9 Peters U. S. (1835), 117, 130;Google Scholar U. S. v. Clarke, 8 Peters U. S. (1834), 436.Google Scholar

37 Soulard v. U. S., 4 Peters U. S. (1830), 511.Google Scholar

38 Mayor v. De Armas, 9 Peters U. S. (1835), 233, 234, 235.Google Scholar

39 U S.v. Clarke, supra;Google Scholarsee also Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. U. S. (1817), 259, 269, 272, 277;Google ScholarCarneal v. Banks, 10 Wheat. U. S. (1825), 181.Google Scholar

40 The Hiram, 1 Peters U. S. (1828), 440.Google Scholar

41 The Hiram, 1 Wheat. U. S. (1816), 440, 444;Google ScholarOgden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. U. S. (1827), 303, 441;Google ScholarMcCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. U. S. (1819), 316, 730;Google ScholarMarbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, U. S. (1803), 137, 176.Google Scholar

42 Foster v. Neilson, supra.

43 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Peters U. S. (1831), 29, 30;Google Scholarsee also U. S.v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. U. S. (1818), 610, 614;Google ScholarThe Divina Pastora, 4 Wheat. U. S. (1819), 50, 63.Google Scholar

44 The Atalanta, 3 Wheat. U. S. (1819), 409, 415.Google Scholar

45 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. U. S. (1819), 316, 400.Google Scholar

46 Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. U. S. (1827), 303, 304;Google ScholarBarron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Peters U. S. (1822), 243, 249;Google ScholarCohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. U. S. (1821), 264, 382.Google Scholar

47 Iredell, charge to Grand Jury, April 26, 1792.

48 Henfield's Case, supra.

49 The Antelope, 10 Wheat. U. S. (1825), 66, 122.Google Scholar

50 Bank v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, U. S. (1809), 58, 87;Google ScholarDurousseau v. U. S., 6 Cranch, U. S. (1810), 307, 318.Google Scholar

51 Talbot v. Seaman, 1 Cranch, U. S. (1801), 1, 43.Google Scholar

52 Owings v. Norwood's Lessee, 5 Cranch, U. S. (1809), 344, 348;Google ScholarMayor v. De Armas, supra, 234.Google Scholar

53 Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, supra.

54 Resol. & Debates, H. of Del., Va., Taylor, G. K., Dec. 21, 1798, pub. by R. I. Smith, Richmond, Va., 1832.Google Scholar

55 Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. U. S. (1824), 574.Google Scholar

56 Mayor v. De Armas, supra; Cohens v. Virginia, supra.

57 Cohens v.Virginia,supra;Google ScholarMartin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. U. S. (1816), 304, 369, 370.Google Scholar

58 Speech, Jubilee of Const., supra.

59 Chinese Exclusion Cases, 130 U. S. (1888), 581, 600;Google Scholarsee also 112 U. S.536, 562;Google Scholar112 U. S.580;Google Scholar124 U. S.190.Google Scholar

60 Taney, Doe v. Braden, 16 How. U. S. (1853), 655, 657;Google ScholarChas. Ray. Brdg. Co. v. Warren Brdg. Co., 11 Peters U. S. (1837), 420.Google Scholar

61 Talbot v. Seaman, supra, 44.Google Scholar

62 Resol. & Debates, H. of Del., Va. (1798), supra;Google ScholarMayor v. De Armas, supra, 233, 234;Google ScholarCohens v. Virginia, supra, 396.Google Scholar

63 John Quincy Adams, supra.