Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-08-22

shave acted contrary to his private in
s,ructions. Z" Grot. B III. CHI. 20, M
! Wherefore, since a proxy undertakes
s' enothcr's business, conmitted to his care,
shut il depends upon the masters plea
"sure what ami how far IN con,nit; it is
"p!ain that the per on giving the commits :
"s sion either gives him FIJI sswers 20 do all
"he shall judge hrohcr. or circunscribes
"him within certain limits or at least by
"way of counsel suggest to him what he
Slough, TO do. In the second case, there
sfore. the proxy cannot exceed the bounds
&c Of his com mission. In the first, he is on :
ely obliged TO answer for his knavcry"
| Turnbull's Heneccius on the laws of ma.
4 ture and nations, I. chap. XIII sec. SAY
| uOn the other hand, there is no reason
sswhy pact should be null when tn I'd
"person induces one to make it without
"the Others knowledge; though in this
Cease, it is inIi,putuble, that the persons
'by whose frsudaence the pact was made,
I els Obliged TO repair the damages Of the
"persons, whom he hath thus injured"
Turnbull's Hsineccius, B. I. chap. XIV.
sec. 3s4.
"Since one may assist another or pro-
"mote his advantage by means of man.
"date, oc by undertaking his business we
"may conclude, that it is the same whether
Il
"another do it for him5y his order" Ibid.
B. I. C. XIV. sec. 403.
"Sovcreigns treat with each other by
"their proxies, who are inves, ed with suf.
" ficient power, and who are commonly
SCALED plenip tcn,iaries. we here ahaly
sal the rules of the iaU Of nature to
"things that are done by commission. The
| "righJs of the proxy are expressed in the
"instructions that are given him; but eve
cry thing he promises within the terms of
"his commission and the ertent Of his
4" ho7uers bind his constituent" Vattei, b.
II. CHI XII sec. 156.
We have, therefore, the authorities Of
Grotius, Heineccius aad Vatel, to prove
that the acts of a minister who does not ex-
coed his full powers, though he violate his
private instructions are still binding on his
sovereign. To reasoning of this kind, sup
ported by its own internal evidence, and
confirmed by the most venerable names Il
mong writer's on the laws of nations have
been opposed silly objections which have
either been misquoted or misunderstood.
! But before we enter upon the develope.
ment of the chaos of absur1ities, which eli
ther the arti6ce of partizan or the igno.
rance Of pretenders, have occasioned it
will be proper to dissiPtte misconcepti-
on to which this mass of error is partly at
triDutsble.
There are certain customs and usages
among nations, which are supposed to be
equally binding with those laws of nations
which are founded in the law of niture.
This is entirely mistake.
Besides those laws of nations which we
have already defined, and which are only
consequences oeduced from the laws of ma
turc: there is another species of those laws,
called the conventional kazUs of nations.
These owe THAR binding force toshe recei =
we'd usages of nations and of their authority
we have evidence either from their imne :.
mortal adoption in the controversies OF ma
items or an implied acknowledgment IN a
regular succession OF treaties. Of this kind
are the treatment of prisoners, honors
granted TO the different orders o. ambassa-
doris, formularies of public acts, Of creden-
tisls, full powers, letters OF recommen-
dation, immunities from imposts, audien..
ces, sc. These and such like, superin.
duce no new pr;nciple of obligation, not be-
fore subsisting il the laws o! nations, flow.
ing from the laws osnatnre. They are bat
other modiGc ms OF acknowledged rights
received usage.
This will he better understood by pa.
raliel illustration Of similar case in the
s municipal laws OF any country.
In any controversy OF personal and con
eicting rights, the laws of different coun-
tries require different formularies, which
, to the parties, must have previously confor.
med TO in the order to be able Ia adduce
legal evidence of their respective rights.
But such forms introduce no new principle
: of moral obligation not before subsistIng in
; the laws Of nature. II the thing which eli.
{ Their party claims be really his right this
r ght would have been in his person whe-
ther there ever did or did not exist such
thing as municipal law If, therefore, al
. any tine, the municipal laws refuse 70 d:
: him justice, il is not because they disavov
the obligation OF pre-existing rish's, but it i
, because he cannot adduce that evidence fo
his claims which they require. Hence, /
! is not that A IN IN who b0rrogs money o.
= makes bargain with another in private
e is not no md by moral obligation to pay tn
=. debt or relnnd the money, that courts o
/. munich Il law will afford the injured per
son no r,iress but because as there IS n
evidence Of his right, the sentence of TN
2 court IN 1T be favorable TO the defendant o
r the principles of individual safety.
D We wal, therefore, be understood whe
=. we asse t that those conventional laws {
nations ,ro nothing else but forms of evl