Polynesian., 1844-08-10

Rodenburg says, de STAT, Oh. 3, 5 i,P.7:
Ono sovereign has the right to give the law
beyond his " dominions; and ifhe attempts
it, he may be lawfully refused obedience;
for wherever the foundation Of laws fails,
there their force and jurisdiction fail Also"
Joseph Story, L L. d., Dane Professor Of
Law in Harvard University, and senior As
%sociate Judge Of the Supreme Court OF the
United States, at Washington, in his Com
mentary on the Conflict Of Laws, at page 81,
says; "No state or nation can, by its laws,
directly affect, or bind property out of its
own territory, or bind persons not resident
therein, whether they are natural born SUBJ
iects, or others; for it would be wholly in
compatible with the equality and exclusive
ness of the sovereignty Of all nations, that
any one nation should be at liberty to regu-
late either persons or things not within its
own country. 1t would be equivalent to a
declaration, that the sovereignty over a ter
ritory was never exclusive in any nation, but
only concurrent with that Of all nations;
that each could legislate for all, and none
for itself; and that all might establish rules,
which none were bound to obey. The abb
surd result of such a state of things need not
be dwelt upon"
Mr.. Chief Justice Parker, in the case Of
Blanchard Is. Russell, 10 Mass. Rep, 4; re-
cognized this doctrine in the following words:
"That the laws Of any state cannot by any
inherent authority, be entitled to respect ex-
ira territorially, or beyond the jurisdiction of
the state that enacts them, is the necessary
result Of the independence Of distinct sove-
reignties."
The same doctrine is reasoned out with
great ability, in the opinion of Mr.. Chief JUS
tice fancy, in the case Of the Bank of Au-
gusta, cs. Earle: 10 Peters, r., 584 to SOL.
And for further confirmation of the univer-
sally admitted doctrine that one independent
nation is not bound to take notice of the laws,
doctrines and notions, of another state, either
in regard to its W subjects, or in regard to
the subjects Of that other state resident
abroad, / would refer for the sake of brevity,
to Grotius de jjure beM ct pacis, B. 1, C. 8, s
8. Rutherord's Institutes, B. 9, C, 9. Sto-
~ de Cone'ct~ Legem, p. 7, 81, and pages
81, "a, IS, 232, where this is established
beyond all possibility of cavil.
Since then, the doctrine is undisputed that
each nation has exclusive sovereignty with
in its own %dominions, and that the laws, and
and peculiar doctrines, of no nation have any
force abroad, it follows that when a subject
or citizen, leaves his native country, he leaves
behind him his native laws and doctrines
because he not only cannot take them with
him, but ifhe could, they would have no bind
ing force in the country to which he goes.
This necessarily shows the doctrine. no
man can renounce his country-nemo potest
eruere patriam-which is not a British doc
trine, but one of much greater antiouitv
and recognized alike by all nations, to be
purely an aphorism not connected with prac-
tice, and if carried out, subversive of all
sovereignty, an obstacle to commerce. and
utter bar to all friendly intercourse. Ma
tons would not be bound to suffer the ineress
OF foreigners, if they could not control and
punish them. Small dominions, unable 70
throw of an excess of population, would be-
come clogged, and famine and civil war,
would be the inevitable result.
pattsl contends strongly for the impracti-
cability Of this doctrine, and that it is a mere
sentiment, not a practical law, while he clear
lY affirms the country of one,s dom;o;I.:a-