41. How may such effect be prevented?-175.

By an express provision in the treaty, that if one article be broken, the others shall, nevertheless, continue in full force.

42. What if a treaty contains stipulations which contemplate a state of future war, and make provision for such an exigency? -176.

Such stipulations preserve their force and obligation when the rupture takes place.

43. Is the doctrine universally true, that treaties become extinguished, ipso facto, by war, unless revived by an express or implied renewal on the return of peace ?—176.

It is not. When treaties contemplate a permanent arrangement of national rights, or, by their terms, are meant to provide for the event of an intervening war, it would be against every principle of just interpretation to hold them extinguished by the event of war. They revive at peace, unless waived, or new and repugnant stipulations be made.

44. How long does the national character of the place agreed to be surrendered by treaty, continue ?—177.

It continues as it was under the character of the ceding country, until it be actually transferred. Full sovereignty can not be held to have passed by the mere words of the treaty, without actual delivery.

45. Does the release of a territory from the dominion and sovereignty of the country, if the cession be the result of coercion or conquest, impose any obligation upon the government to indemnify those who may suffer a loss of property by the cession ?-178.

It does not.

46. Why is this ?-179.

No government can be supposed to be able, consistently with the welfare of the whole community, and it is, therefore, not required, to assume the burden of losses produced by conquest, or the violent dismemberment of the state. It would be incompatible with the fundamental principles of the social compact.

LECTURE IX.

OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS.

1. Why is the violation of a treaty of peace, or other national compact, a violation of the law of nations ?-181.

Because it is a breach of public faith.

2. What offenses fall more immediately under the cognizance of the law of nations?—182.

The violations of safe conducts, infringements of the rights of ambassadors, and piracy. To these we may add the slave trade, which may now be considered, not, indeed, as a piratical trade, absolutely unlawful by the law of nations, but as a trade condemned by the general principles of justice and humanity, openly professed and declared by the powers of Europe.

3. What does a safe conduct or passport contain ?-182.

A pledge of the public faith, that it shall be duly respected.

4. What has the statute law of the United States provided as to the violation of safe conduct ?-182.

That if any person shall violate any safe conduct or passport, granted under the authority of the United States, he shall, on conviction, be imprisoned not exceeding three years, and fined at the discretion of the court.*

5. What is piracy ?—188.

Piracy is robbery, or a forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority, and done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. It is the same offense at sea with robbery on land.

6. How are pirates punished?-184.

They are everywhere pursued and punished with death. Every nation has a right to attack and exterminate them without any declaration of war.

7. What has Congress declared as to piracy ?-184, 185.

That murder or robbery, committed on the high seas, or in

* Act of Congress of April 30th, 1790, sec. 27.

any river, haven, or bay, out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, or any other offense which, if committed within the body of a country, would, by the laws of the United States, be punishable with death, should be adjudged to be piracy and felony, and punishable with death. That if any captain or mariner should piratically and feloniously run away with any vessel, or any goods or merchandise to the value of fifty dollars; or should yield up any such vessel voluntarily to pirates; or if any seaman should forcibly endeavor to hinder his commander from defending the ship or goods committed to his trust, or should make a revolt in the ship; every such offender should be adjudged a pirate and felon, and be punishable with death. That accessaries to such piracies before the fact are punishable in like manner; but accessaries after the fact are punishable only by fine and imprisonment. That if any person, upon the high seas, or in any open roadstead, or bay, or river, where the sea ebbs and flows, commits the crime of robbery in and upon any vessel, or the lading thereof, or the crew, he shall be adjudged a pirate. And that if any person engaged in any piratical enterprise, or belonging to the crew of any piratical vessel, should land and commit robbery on shore, such an offender shall also be adjudged a pirate.*

8. Is it sufficient to refer to the law of nations for a definition of piracy?-186.

It is so held by the Supreme Court. Robbery on the high seas is, therefore, piracy by the Act of Congress, as well as by the law of nations.

9. Is it, for the purpose of giving jurisdiction, of any importance on whom or where a piratical offense has been committed ?—186.

It is not. A pirate, who is one by the law of nations, may be tried and punished in any country where he may be found.

10. Of what effect is the plea of autrefois acquit, resting on a prosecution instituted in the courts of any civilized State, beyond such State?-188.

It would be a good plea in any other civilized State.

Act of April 30th, 1790, c. 9, sec. 8.

11. Can an alien, under the sanction of a national commission, commit piracy while he pursues his authority?—188.

He can not. His acts may be hostile, and his nation responsible for them. They may amount to a lawful cause of war, but they are never to be regarded as piracy.

12. What if a natural born subject was to take prizes belonging to his native country, in pursuance of a foreign commission ?—191. He would, on general principles, be protected by his commission from the charge of piracy.

13. What have the United States done to prevent the mischief of such conduct ?--191.

They have followed the provisions of the English statute, and the general practice of other nations, and have, by the Act of Congress of April 30th, 1790, sec. 9, declared that if any citizen should commit any act of hostility against the United States or any citizen thereof, upon the high seas, under color of any commission from any foreign prince or State, or on pretense of authority from any person, such offender shall be adjudged to be a pirate, felon and robber, and on being thereof convicted, shall suffer death.

14. For what aggressions, upon the high seas, does the Act of Congress authorize a capture and condemnation, in the courts of the United States ?-191.

For all piratical aggressions by foreign vessels. All such hostile and criminal aggressions on the high seas, under the flag of any power, render property taken in delicto subject to confiscation by the law of nations.

15, How far is the African slave trade regarded as an offense? —191, 192.

It is an offense against the municipal laws of most nations in Europe, and it is declared to be piracy by the statute laws of England and the United States.

16. Is it to be considered as an offense against the law of na tions, independent of compact ?—192.

This has been a grave question, much litigated in the courts charged with the administration of public law.

* A STATE, in the meaning of public law, is a complete or self-sufficient body of persons, united together in one community, for the defense of their rights, and to do right to foreigners.

17. What is the doctrine of the English cases on this head?198, 200.

That the slave trade, abstractly speaking, is immoral and unjust; and it is illegal, when declared so by treaty or municipal law. But it is not piratical or illegal by the common law of nations, because, if it were so, every claim founded on the trade would at once be rejected everywhere and in every court on that ground alone. That the British statutes against the slave trade were only applicable to British subjects, and only rendered the trade unlawful when carried on by them.

18. What has been finally decided, as to the question, in this country?-200.

The Supreme Court, in a case before it,* declared that the slave trade, though contrary to the law of nations, had been sanctioned, in modern times, by the laws of all nations who possessed distant colonies; and a trade could not be considered as contrary to the law of nations, which had been authorized and protected by the usages and laws of all commercial nations. It was not piracy, except so far as it was made so by the treaties or statutes of the nation to which the party belonged. It might still be lawfully carried on by the subjects of those nations who have not prohibited it by municipal acts or treaties.

19. What have the United States prescribed by statute, against the slave trade?-193, 194.

The Constitution of the United States laid the foundation of a series of provisions, to put a final stop to the progress of this great moral pestilence, by admitting a power in Congress to prohibit the importation of slaves after the expiration of the year 1807.

Prior to that time Congress did all on that subject that it was within their competence to do. By the acts of March 22d, 1794, and May 10th, 1800, the citizens of the United States, and residents within them, were prohibited from engaging in the transportation of slaves from the United States to any foreign place or country, or from one foreign place or country to another, for the purpose of traffic.

By the act of March 2d, 1807, it was prohibited, under

* The Antelope, 10 Wheat, R., 66.