RESPUBLICA versus DE LONGCHAMPS.
C
HARLES JULIAN DE LONGCHAMPS, commonly called the Chevalier De Longchamps, was indicted, that“he on the 17th of May, 1784, in the dwelling-houfe of his Excellency the French Minister Plenipotentiary, in the presence of Francis Barbe Marbois, unlawfully and inʃolently did threaten and menace bodily harm and violence to the person of the said Francis Barbe Marbois, he being Consul General of France to the United States, Consul for the State of Pennʃylvania, Secretary of the French Legation &c. resident in the house aforesaid, and under the protection of the law of nations and this Common-wealth.’’ And that ‘‘afterwards, to writ on the 19th of May in the public sreet &c. he had said Charles Julian de Longchamps unlawfully, premeditatedly and violently, in and upon the person of the said Francis Barbe Marbois under the protection of the laws of nations, and in the peace of this Commonwealth, then and there being, and assault did make, and him the said Francis Barbe Marbois unlawfully and violently did strike and otherwise &c in violation of the laws of nations, against the peace and dignity of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Pennʃylvania,” —To these charges the defendant pleaded not guilty.
The evidence, in support of the first Count, was, that on the 17th of May, De Longchamps went to the house of the Minister of France, and after fome converfation with Monsieur Marbois, was heard to exclaim in a loud and menacing tone, ‘‘ Je vous deʃbonnarera, Poliçon, Coquin ’’ , addressing himself to that gentleman. That the noise being heard by the Minister, he repaired to the room from which it issued, and that in his presence the defendant repeated the insult offered to Monʃieur Marbois in nearly the same terms.
In support of the second Count, it appeared, that De Longchamps and Monsieur Marbois, having met in Market Street, near the Coffee House, entered into a long conversation, in the course of which, the latter said that he would complain to the civil authority, and the former replied, ‘‘ you are a Blackguard.’’ The witnesses generally deposed that De Longchamps struck the cane of Monsieur Marbois,
1784.
before that gentleman ufed any violent geftures, or even appeared incenfed ; but that as foon as the stroke was given, Monʃieur Marbois employed his ftick with great feverity, till the fpectators interfered and feparated the parties. One of the witneffes, indeed, faid that previoufly to engaging with their canes, he obferved the two gentlemen, at the fame inftant, lay their hands on each others fhoulders, in a manner fo gentle, that he, who had heard it was cuftomary among the French to part with mutual falutations, imagined a ceremony of that kind was about to take place and was furprized to fee De Longchamos ftep back, and ftrike the cane of Monʃieur Marbois.
On the part of the defendant, evidence was produced of his having ferved with honour in the French armies, and his commiffion of Sub-Brigadier in the dragoons of Neattles, was read. It appeared that the occafion of his calling on Monʃieur Marbois, was to obtain authentications of thefe, and fome other papers relative to his family, his rank in France, and his military promotions, in order to refute feveral publications, which had been in the news-papers, injurious to his character and pretenfions. The refufal of Monʃieur Marbois to grant the authentications required was the ground of De Longchamps’ refentment, and the immediate caufe of his meances at the Minifter's houfe.
With refpect to the affault, one witnefs (a Frenchman) fwoe that he faw Monʃieur Marbois give the firft blow, and his Excellency the Prefident of the State, teftified, that Monʃieur Marbois, having complained to him of the infult received in the Minifter's houfe, he fent a meffage to De Longchamps, requefting to fee him ; that the defendant readily attended, when his Excellency explained his reafons for apprehending, that he meditated fome perfonal violence upon Monʃieur Marbois that the Chevalier fhould be bound over for his good behaviour ; but that gentleman would not acceded to the propofal.
Sergeant and Vannoʃt, for the defendant, contended, that the expreffiions laid in the firft part of the indictment, were too equivocal to be conftrued into meances of corporal harm. ‘‘ I will difhonour you’’, is a fentence that conveys more than one fignification ; and the threat would have been fully accomplifhed, had the Chevalier defcended to any of thofe very libellous publications, with which his own character had been afperfed. The eftablifhed maxim, that words ought to be taken in their mildeft fenfe, operates, therefore, in favour of the defendant ; and, at all events, that they do not amount to an affaults, and are not the fubject of an Indictment, are principles incontrovertibly eftablifhed. 3 Bl. Conn. 20. Finch L. 202. 4. Inʃt. 108. They infifted, that the President offered Monʃieur Marbois the only fecurity which the law will allow on fuch occafions, and which would effectually have reftrained any future violence intended
to be committed upon his perfon. That therefore his having fuffered a fecond infult, muft be impofed to his refufal to accept that fecurity.
It is pretended, that by the menaces at the houfe of the Minifter, the law of nations was violated ; yet, it muft be remembered, that the reparation fought, and the remedy offered, are confined to the municipal law of Pennʃylvania yields no further relief, than the impofition of a legal reftraint on the execution of thofe menaces. The degree of outrage is, likewife, to be computed by the quality of the perfon offended ; and as the application of the defendant was to procure a certificate from the Conʃul oƒ France, if Monʃieur Marbois has been at all infulted, it is only in that character, which is not protected by the law of nations. Vat, lib. 4. §. 75. and confequently there is no redrefs, but what the law of the State provides.
On the fecond Count, of the Indictment, they argued, that it was not fufficiently proved, that De Longchanps was the aggreffor.. One witnefs have fworn pofitively, that the firft blow was given by Monʃieur Marbois, and another defcribes the parties to have laid their hands on each other, at the fame inftant. Though other witneffes did not fee thefe circumftances, yet they are grounded upon affirmative teftimony, which cannot be deftroyed by that which is merely negative. Gilb. L. B. 157. If, therefore, the evidence of the defendant was entitled to credit, it appeared, that Monʃieur Marbois was the author of the outraged ; and, it is fo well eftablifhed that no elevation, rank, or immunity of character, can abrogate the right of felf defence that if a Sovereign Minifter offend a Citizen, the latter may oppofe hime, without departing from the refpect due to his ftation, and give him a leffon that fhall both efface the ftain and expofe the author of the outrage. Vatt. lib. 4. §. 80.
The Attorney General, affifted by Wilʃon, fupported the profecution. The neceffity of fuftaining the law of nations, of protecting and fecuring the perfons and privileges of Ambaffadors ; the connection between the law of nations and the municipal law ; and the effect which the decifion of this cafe muft have upon the honor of Pennʃylvania, and the fafety of her Citizens abroad, were ftated at lenght from 3 Burr. 1480. 1 Bl. Com. 70. Vatt. preƒ. 6. page 203. Vat. lib. 1. §. 6. lib. 4. §.84.§. 80. Ayliƒƒ's Pandect. lib. 2. 132.
On the firft part of the Indictment, they obferved, that the meaning of the menace ufed in the Minifter's houfe, was to be fought for in the opinion of the French nation. With them, the phrafe extended farther than colloquial difhonor (that Monʃieur Marbois had already fuffered) it implied perfonal violence. This was the idea, likewife, of his Excellency, the Prefident of the State, and the event confirms it beyond a doubt. If, therefore, the menace had been attended with its natural effect, impreffing Monʃieur Marbois with an apprehenfion for his own fafety, the Conful General of France,
1784.
and the Secretary of the French Legation to the United States, and have been prevented from paying a proper attention to his appointments, which is certainly a violation of the law of nations. Vatt. lib 2.§. 218. Upon the fame principle that the infringement of a Statute, is an indictable offence, though the mode of punifhment in not pointed out in the Act itfelf, and offence againft the laws of Nations, while they compofe a part of the Law of the Land, muft neceffary be indictable.
With refpect to the affault, they contended, that the weight of the teftimony proved De Longchamps to be the aggreffor ; and the refpective characters of the parties tend to confirm it: Monʃieur Marbois preferved during the whole tranfaction, his conftitutional temperament—cool, deliberate, and felf poffeffed ; while De Longchamps, naturally captious and impetuous, became incenfed at the imaginary injuries he had received, and, by his own declarations, was determined to be revenged.
The CHIEF JUSTICE, after minutely recapitulating the evidence, and applying it to the charges in the the indictment, expreffed the following fentiments
M‘KEAN, Chief Juʃtice. This is a cafe of the firft impreffion in the United States. It muft be determined on the principles of the laws of nations, which form a part of the municipal law of Pennʃylvania ; and, if the offences charged in the indictment have been committed, there can be no doubt, that thofe laws have been violated. The words ufed in the Minifter's houfe, (which is to be confidered as a Foreign Domicil, where the Minifter refides in full reprefentation of his fovereign, and where the laws of the State do not extend) may be compared to the fame words applied to the Judges, in a Court of Juftice, where they fit in reprefentation of the majefty of the People, of Pennʃylvania, In that cafe, the offender would be immediately committed to jail, without the preliminary procefs of an indictment by a Grand Jury; and, in the cafe before us, it the offender is convicted, he may certainly be punifhed by fine and imprifonment.
In actions of Slander, words were formerly conftrued in the mildeft fenfe they would admit ; but reafon has fuperceded fuch forced interpretations, and words are now to be taken according to their ordinary import and meaning. Thofe expreffed by the defendant, are evidently of a tendency fo opprobrious and violent, that they cannot fail to aggrevate the outrage which has been committed.
As to the affault, this is, perhaps, one of that kind, in which the infult is more to be confidered, than the actual damage ; for, though no great bodily pain is fuffered by a blow on the palm of the hand, or the fkirt of the coat, yet thefe are clearly within the legal difinition of Affault and Battery, and among gentlemen, too often induces dwelling, and terminate in murder. As, therefore, anything attached to the perfon partakes of its inviolability ; De Longchamps’ striking Monʃieur Marbois’ cane, is a fufficient juftification of that gentleman's fubfequent conduct.
1784.
BRYAN, Juftice. The diftinction, between a Conful and a member of the Legation, is not warranted in this cafe ; for, Monʃieur Marbois never ceafed to be the latter. As Secretary to the Legation, his authority defcends from a high fource, his commiffion being made out in the fame form as the Minifter's, and figned in the fame manner, by the King his mafter.
The Jury, as firft, found the defendant guilty of the Affault only ; but, the Court of defiring them to re-confider the matter, they returned with a verdict againft him on both Counts.
The fentence of the Court was fufpended, in confequence of a cafe ftated by his Excellency, the Prefident, and the Honorable Supreme Executive Council, for the opinion of the Judges. It was argued in open Court, on the 10th and 12th of July, by five Council, two for the affirmative, and three for the negative ; and on the 7th of October, the prifoner being brought before the Court, the CHIEF JUFTICE ftated the cafe, repeated the anfwers of the Judges, and, finally, pronounced the judgment of the Court, in the following manner.
M‘KEAN, CHIEF JUʃTICE.— Charles- Julian De Longchamps :— You have been indicted for unlawfully and violently threatening and menacing bodily harm and violence to the perfon of the honorable Francis-Berbe De Marbois, Secretary to the Legation from France, and Conful General of France to the United States of America, in the manfion-houfe of the Minifter Plenipotentiary of France ; and for an Affault and Battery committed upon the faid Secretary and Conful, in a public ftreet in the City of Philadelphia. To this Indictment you have pleaded, that you were not guilty, and for trial put yourfelf upon the country ; — an unbiafed Jury, upon a fair trial, and clear evidence, have founded you guilty.
Thefe offences having been thus legally afcertained and fixed upon you, his Excellency, the Prefident,, and the Honorable the Supreme Executive Council, attentive to the honor and intereft of the State, were pleafed to inform the Judges of this Court, as they had frequently done before, that the Minifter of France had earneftly repeated a demand, that you, having appeared in his houfe in the uniform of a French Regiment, and having called yourfelf an officer in the troops of his Majefty, fhould be delivered up to him for thefe outrages, as a Frenchman to be fent to France ; and wifhed us in this ftage of your profecution, to take into mature confideration, and in the moft folemn manner to determine :—
1ft. Whether you could be legally delivered up by Council, according to the claim made by the late Minifter of France ?
2dly. If you could not be thus legally delivered up, whether your offences in violation of the law of nations, being now afcertained and verified according to the laws of this Commonwealth, you ought not to be imprifoned, until his moft Chriftan Majefty fhall declared, that the reparation is fatisfactory ?
And 3dly. If you can be thus imprifoned, whether any legal act can be done by Council, for caufing you to be fo imprifoned?
1784.
To thefe queftions we have given the following anfwers in writings :—
“ In compliance with the requeft of his Excellency, the Prefident,
“ and the Honorable the Supreme Executive Council, we poftpon
“ed paffing fentence upon Charles-Julian De Longchamps, until
“ we had maturely confidered the three queftions above propofed
“ for our determination. On the 10th and 12th days of July the
“ feveral queftions were argued before the Court by five Counfel,
“ two on the affirmative and three on the negative side. We have
“ kept the matter under advifement until this day, and now deli-
“ ver our opinion thereupon.
1. “And as to the firft queftion, we anfwer, That it is our
“ opinion, that in this caʃe, Charles-Julian De Longchamps cannot
“ be legally delivered up by Council, according to the claim made
“ by the Minifter of France. Though, we think, cafes may occur,
“where Council could, pro bone publico, and to prevent attrocious
“ offenders evading punifhment, deliver them up to the Juftice
“ of the Country to which they belong, or where the offences were
“ committed.
2. “Punifhments muft be inflicted in the fame County where
“ the Criminals were tried and convicted, unlefs the record of the
“ attainder be removed into the Supreme Court, which may award
“ execution in the County were it fits ; they muft be fuch as the
“ laws exprefsly prefcribe ; or where no ftated or fixed judgment
“ is directed, according to the legal diʃcretion of the Court ; but
“ judgments muft be certain and deƒinite in all refpects. Therefore,
“ we conclude, that the Defendant cannot be imprifoned, until his
“ moft Chriftian Majefty fhall declare, that the reparation is fatis-
“factory.
3.“The anfwer to the laft queftion is rendered unneceffary
“ by the above anfwer to the fecond queftion.”
The foregoing anfwers having been given, it only remains for the Court to pronounce fentence upon you. This fentence muft be governed by a due confideration of the enormity and dangerous tendency of the offences you have committed, of the willfulnefs, deliberation, and malice, wherewith they were done, of the quality and degree of the offended and offender, the provocation given, and all other circumftances which may any way aggravate or extenuate the guilt.
The firft crime in the indictment is an infraction of the law of Nations. This law, in its full extent, is part of the law of this State, and is to be collected from the practice of different Nations, and the authority of writers.
The perʃon of a public minifter is facred and inviolable. Whoever offers any violence to him, not only affronts the Sovereign he reprefents, but alfo hurts the common fafety and well-being of nations ; —he is guilty of a crime againft the whole world.
All the reafons, which eftablifh the independency and inviolability of the perʃon of a Minifter, apply likewife to fecure the immunities of his boujo : It is to be defended from all outrage ; it is under a peculiar protection of the laws ; to invade it‘s freedom is a crime againft the State and all other nations.
The Comites of a Minifter, or thofe of his train, partake alfo of his inviolability. The independency of a Minifter extends to all his houfhold ; theʃe are fo connected with him, that they enjoy his privileges and follow his late. The Secretary to the Embaffy has his commiffion from the Sovereign himfelf ; he is the moft diftinguifhed character in the fuite of a public Minifter, and is in fome inftances confidered as a kind of public Minifter himfelf. Is it not then an extraordinary infult to ufe threats of bodily harm to his perfon in the domicil of the Minifter Plenipotentiary ? If this is tolerated, his freedom of conduct is taken away, the bufinefs of his Sovereign cannot be tranfacted, and his dignity and grandeur will be tarnifhed.
You then have been guilty of an attrocious violation of the law of nations ; you have gofsly infulted gentlemen, the pecuilar objects of this law (gentlemen of admiable characters, and highly efteemed by the government of this State) in a moft wanton and unprovoked manner : And it is now the intereft as well as duty of the government, to animadvert upon your conduct with a becoming feverity,—fuch a feverity as may tend to reform yourfelf, to deter others from the commiffion of the like crime, preferve the honor of the State, and maintain peace with our great and good Ally, and the whole world.
A wrong opinion has been entertained concerning the conduct of Lord Chieƒ Juʃtice Holt and the Court of King's-Bench in England, in the noted cafe of the Ruffian Ambaffador. They detained the offenders, after conviction, in prifon, from term to term, until the Czar Peter was fatisfied, without ever proceeding to judgment ; and from this it has been inferred, that the Court doubted, whether they could inflict any puniʃhment for an infraction of the law of nations. But this was not the reafon. The Court never doubted, that the law of nations formed a part of the law of England, and that a violation of this general law could be punifhed by them ; but no punifhment lefs than death would have been though by the Czar an adequate reparation for the arreft of his Ambaffador ; This punifhment they could not inflict, and ʃuch a fentence as they could have given, He might have though a frefh infult. Another expedient was therefore fallen upon. However, the Princes of the world, at this day, are more enlightened, and do not require impracticable nor unreafonable reparations for injuries of this kind.
The fecond offence charged in the indictment, namely the Affault and Battery, needs no obfervations.
Upon the whole the court, after a moft attentive confideration on of every circumftance in this cafe, do award, and direct one to pronounce the following fentence :––
1784.
That you pay a fine of one hundred French Crowns to the Commonwealth ; that you be imprifoned until the 4th day of July 1786, which will make a little more than two years imprifonment in the whole ; that you then give good fecurity to keep the peace, and, be of good behaviour to all public Minifters, Secretaries to Embaffies, and Confuls, as well as to all the liege people of Pennʃylvania, for the fpace of feven years, by entering into a recognizance, yourfelf in a thoufand pounds, and two fecurities in five hundred pounds each : that you pay the cofts of this pofecution, and remain committed until this fentence be complied with.