Open main menu

Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/240

This page needs to be proofread.

234 Casas ruled and adjudged in the ¥79S· _ V*`*` - Catcrtar 1.·nj‘:.r Ps·r·1·1·1· e!.¤I. _ IIIIS was a Sdre Fader a ini! the defendants, as garni- . IE lhees of Gilfaud, Rouge E; Co.- French citizens, reliding in e Welt Indies. _A rule was obtained by the defendants to llzew caufe why`the proceedings ihould not be quafhed, upon ' the ground, that the plaintiff was alfo'a, French citizen, and ‘ that, therefore, the Court was precluded from exerciling any ju- _ rifdiétion, by the 12th article of the Confular Convention, _ which provides, that •¢ all dilkrences and fuits between the ci- tizens of Franré, in the United Stater, or between the citiz s of the United States, within the dominions of France, 8tc. {hall _ be determined by the refpeflive Coufuls and Vice-Confuls, ei- ' ther by :1 reference to arbitrators, or by a fummary judgment and without coifs. No oflicer of the country, civil or military, {hall interfere therein, or take any part whatever in the matter: and the appeals from the faid Confular fentences {hall be carried before the tribunals of France, or of the United Slater, to whom it may appertain to take cognizance thereof." The faéfs, refpefting the plaintilf’s citizenfhip, were brielly thefe:—He was a native of France, and relided in the Illand of St. Domingo, at the period of the French revolution. He had af- terwards accepted an ollice from Louie ZVL under the conili· tution eltablilhing a limited monarchy; but previouily to the abolition of monarchy, and the introduflion of the Republican fyltem (the 1oth of Sept. 1792) he came to zlmenl-a, tool: an oath of allegiance to the State of Pmtfylvarzia, under the a& of March 1789 (2 vol. DalL Edit. p.616) which aét, however, was at that time obfolete,* and purchafed a trad: of land, on which he relided. He had not been naturalized conformably to the at]: of Congrefs; but he had frequently been heard to exprefs his abhorrence of the exiliing conllitution of France; he had never done any af.} fhewing his alfent to it; and he had decla- red an intention to fetrle, permanently, in America. The plaintiffs counfel {Lewi: &Levy) made two points—·1ft. That the 1 2th att. of theConfularConvention applies only to cafes , where both panics, being I·l·encb citizens, are affually relident within the United Statu, and, therefore, does not embrace the cafe of a foreign artacliment.-2d. That the plaintiff never was a citizen of the Frenrlv Republic; and in fupport ofthe latter po- lition they cited the following authorities: Vat:. B. 1. el:. 13. ji 161. 167. 2 Vent. 362. 3. 3 BI. Cm:. 298. Vatt. B. 3. eb. 18. JC 293-29;. Ibid. B. 1. rb.19._/I 22o. 213. 2 Heine:. 22o. Art. gf Canfida ji 4. job:]/bra': Diff. “ Cilizm." I Da}!. Rep. 58.

  • See Caller v.Callet and Tbr United State: u. Wlatto, past; F

. or