The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-05-07

they separately existed without any international under
standing at the time when Jusnian wrote The law Of
nations Of this age Is international lava general law
involving that natural right TO which Justnian,
thousand years ago said that slavery opposed and
making that common universal code to be observed In
the regulation of the intercourse between States
The law Of nations then which Justnian gives consists
of the laws OF nations as they then existed The law OF
nations Of modern times is every juris knows in
ternaona law which has grown up by the agreement and
concert OF civilized nations and has been adopted by them
in their mutual intercourse 50 that think may lay
aside that book.
In the next place the honorable senator has given me-
not treatise the law Of nations not code OF nterna-
tona law of States it exists but history Of the
law of nations from tine earliest times by Mr. Wheaton,
and he has given extracts from judicial opinion quo
ted in the OF argument explaining the progress
and history of the law of nations. Though had not the
time to examine that volume the honorable senator
impatient; be declined to allow the time he pressed
when he saw that was studying his history and en-
deavorng 10 arrive at the result Still have had time 10
refer the law of nations the international law of
TONS speak accurately 1t is recognised and
tabshed by the Supreme Court OF the unted States OF
America aud If the Supreme Court OF the United States of
America, constituted ii u.s. with judges consisting
they do large majority of whom appointed at least
with the compacency Of the slave interest in this country
shall affirm slavery TO be outlaw, then think shall
not need TO go 10 the tribunals OF England France and
Germany for further authority the present occasion.
States hav decided this subject beg TO show that
what the honorable senator quoted was but criticism
the question whether slavery was outlaw, but
whether the piracal outlaws" accurately APP
piled savetraders pursuing the slave trade in violation
of the laws of the United States and Of Great Britain
find in one passage of this book rs
at is therefore, ooseness of language fatal all
curate reasoning to call slave traders piracal outlaws
and that for the sake of discovering and Furnishing
these offenders against the law OF nations
eral right of search to be assumed in time OF
The question discussed there was whether right of
search existed by the law of nations to justify the search Of
vessels suspected of being savers the ground that slaves
piratica outlaws2 This was held to be loose ex
preston. Sir if had used the expression that slavery
fratcal outlaw should have within the scope
of the authority which the honorable senator has given
and still should have been condemned by that authority
only for ooseness of expression Happily for myself
that occasion, | was not loose in my language
Now beg to refer the honorable senator to the of
La Jeune Eugenie I'D Mason's Report, p. 90) which
Cured III the year 1922 and assume until the contrary
shall be proved that the principle which was then esab
lished is the law of nations.
La Jeune Eugene vessel sailing under French
flag and papers, which captured by the American
armed schooner Alligator the western coast of Africa
on suspicion of being engaged in the slave trade, and
brought into the port of Boston, where she ibeed
an American vessel The questions which arose in the
were6rst, whether she American vessel
ond, whether she was engaged in the slave trade third
whether If she French and engaged in the slave
trade, the court bound to restore the property
France without further inquiry In the course of the
Judgment the right of visitation, search and seizure is dis
cussed and asserted but the great point of the
that which under the third question: whether the At
rican slave trade contrary to the law of nations 1t
was held to be so, on the ground that carried with IA
breach OF all the moral duties OF all the maxns of justice
mercy and humanity, and of the admitted rights which
Christian nations hold sacred in their intercourse
with each other On this point the Judgment proceeds
as follows:
Mr.. SEWARD here read and commented on the judg-
ment and proceeded to say:
Sir have shown that Judge Story alike an ornament
and an expounder of the laws of nations well as OF the
public law of the United States in this pronounced
this decision No case to the contrary has been found
will be found wherein this opinion declared to be other
wise than in harmony with the law Of nations need
say that our courts had failed TO recognise
this principle it would stand the general consent
established by treaty among all nations in Christendom
There may be individual exceptions but the general TACT
is that the nations of Chrstendom have long since the
time of Justnan and chiefly within the last hundred
years into conventions by which they pronounced
slavery unlawful by their municipal laws and agreed
condemn and many of the States of Europe agree to
pronounce it piracy punishable as an offence under the law
of nations while ourselves have concurred in pro-
nouncng piracy but have reserved to ourselves the right
of Jurisdiction in punching the offenders among
people This s all that 1t TO be necessary for to
say on the present occasion.
| Mr. BENJAMIN MIR. President il is not my intention
10 continue this debate have in my day, in court
OF justice, defeated advocate resort to many but
never saw display even by an advocate before jury
equal that which has just been given to by the hon
orable from New York What did that honorable
start to prove He first commenced by rid
pulng my quotation of authority of the time OF JUS
lpap, although passed il to a With the Fsmark twtcn
he suggested The fact that here the doctrine Of the law
of nations in ancient times that here also the latest
law the subject and that both established that hs prop
ostiop, that slavery outlaw under the law Of
tons wrong lie gets up sir and instead Of openly
knowsdeoares that he is going to prove by reference to
the decisions of the Supreme Court OF the United States
that be is right How does he prove that2 referred him
to decision Of the Supreme Court Of the United States
given in t825 BIZ united cnnrt Chief Justice Marshall the
organ lie replies by giving the decision of circuit
Judge in 1872 thrse years earlier and no reads from
book compiled by the of that judge and II he read
few lines further be would see that the author admits that
his fathers opinion not sustained by the opinion OF
the Supreme Court Of The United States and that 1t
not good law bat he hopes il will he day. Here
II is This book is not law book 1t is "The Life and
Letters Of Joseph Story by his SON. In it the author
! says
the time Broad and the foundations which 1t
built nevertheless In contRveuou Of the doctrine
held BY Sir William Scott in the 81 the Louis r. bod
sons r. 20 decided In The ls7 and by justices Bal
AID R., 1881 in the year 1870"
! "Thc doctrine asserted in La Jeune Eugtne-
which the senator has read
vas fully recognised by Supreme Court of the United
States 10 the subsequent case Of the Antelope, no Wheat
/ r., ALL
that is the case from which | read
but its declaration by my father advancing step in
arispr1denoe and IL Is 10 be hoped that the
time al hand when 1t ell be the Acknowledged lac Of
tions."
Now, what Is to he said to that7 While am upon this
subject may well refer to the volume Of Jlstinau
As the senator from New York remarks the volume
passed TO me by the senator from Georgia Mr. TooNRs
who called my attention TO the subject and find that IL
/ Is badly translated. Here Is the original:
Serritu eonstitio jaris ycntiuW qua gps dOBaio
alisno satcitgrServtude constitution
Of the law Of nations by which person to the
dominion Of another against nature"
Is It necessary for pursue this subject further and
to answer the entire TRADE which The gentleman has given