I TRAITE D’AMITIE ET DE COMMERCE Entre les Etats Unis d ’Amérique et sa Majesté tres Chretiérme. TRAITE D’AMITIE ET DE COMMERCE. Lt: Roi tres Chretien et les treize Etats Unis de l’Amérique Septentrionale, savoir, New Hampshire, la Baye de Massachusset, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pensylvanie, les comtés de Newcastle, de Kent et de Sussex sur la Delaware, Maryland, Virginie, Caroline, Septentrionale, Caroline Méridionale, et Georgie, voulant établir d’une maniere equitable et permanente les regles qui devront Stre suivies relativement a la correspondence et au commerce que les deux parties désirent d’établir entre leurs Pais Etats et sujets respectifs, sa Majesté tres Chretienne et les dits Etats Unis ont jugé ne pouvoir mieux atteindre it ce but qu’en prenant pour base de leur arrangement l’égalité et la réciprocité la plus parfaite, et en observant d’éviter toutes les preferences onéreuses, source de discussions, d’embarras, et de mecontentemens, de laisser a chaque partie la liberté de faire, relativement au commerce et 5. la navigation les réglemens intérieurs qui seront a sa convenance, de ne fonder les avantagcs du commerce que sur son utilité reoiproque et sur les loix d’une juste concurrence, et dc conserver ainsi de part et d’autre la liberté de faire participer, chacun selon son gre, les autres nations, aux memes avantages. C’est dans cet esprit et pour remplir ces viies que sa df Majesté ayant nornmé et constitué pour son plénipotentiaire le S. Conrad Alexandre Gerard, Sindic Rotal de la ville de Strasbourg, Secretaire du Conseil d’Etat de sa Majesté, `et les Etats
America was bound as an ally of France bylthe capitulation between France and Great Britain for the surrender of Dominica. Miller v. The Ship esclution, 2 Dall. Rep. 15. The Phoebe Ann, a British vessel, had besncapltured by s French privateer, and sent into Charleston. Restituticn of the prize was claimed by the Britis consul, who filed a libel in the district court, suggesting that the privateer had been illegally fitted put, and had illegally augmented her force within the United States. It appeared in proof that the privateer had originally entered the port of Charleston, armed and commissioned for war; and that she had taken out her guns, masts and sails, which remained on shore until the general repairs of the vessel were completed, when they were again put on board, with the same force, or thereabouts; and on a subsequent cruise, the prize was taken. ELLswoa·rn, Chief Justice. Suggestions of policy and convenience cannot be considered in the judicial determination of a question of right: the treaty with France, whatever that is, must have its effect B · the nineteenth article, it is declared that French vessels, whether public and of war, or private and oi, merchants, may, on any urgent necessity, enter our ports, and be supplied with all things needful for repairs. In the present case, the privateer only underwent arepair; an the mere replacement of her force cannot be a material au mentation; even if an aupmentation of force could bqlproven, which we do not decide a sufficient cause oirestitution. Moodie 1:. he Sloop Pbcebe Ann, 2D . Rep. 319; 1 Cond. R . 139. giihe appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States extends to a final judgment or decree in an suit in the highest court of the United States, where is drawn in question the validity of u treaty, and the judgment or decree is against the validity of the right claimed under the treaty; an such 'udgment may be re-examined by writ of error, in the same manner as if rendered in a circuit court. Martin v. Hunter's lessee, 1 Wheat. 104; 3 Cond. Rep. 575. _ _ By the treaty with France of 1778, articles 17 and 22, the subjects of France had a right to equip and arm their vessels in the ports of the United States, to bring in their prizes and depart wrt them, without interference by the courts of the United States. Bee's Admiralty §eports, 40, 43. (lf)
