The libel in this cause was exhibited by Foost Fansen, matter of the Vrouw Christiana Magdalena, a Dutch brigantine, owned by citizens of the United Netherlands ; and its prayer is, that Edward Ballard, and all others, having claim, may be compelled to make restitution. The District Court directed restitution; the Circuit Court affirmed the decree; and the cause is now before this court for revision. The Magdalena was captured by Ballard, or by Ballard and Talbot, and brought into Charleston. The general question is, whether the decree of restitution was well awarded. In discussing the question, it will be necessary to consider the capture as made,
1. By Ballard,
By Ballard and Talbot.
1. By
Ballard.
This ground not being tenable, has been almost abandoned in argument. It is, indeed, impossible to suggest any reason in favor of the capture on the part of
Ballard.
Who is he ? A citizen of the
United States
: For, although he had renounced his allegiance to Virginia, or declared an intention of expatriation, and admitting the fame to have been constitutionally done, and legally proved, yet he had not emigrated to, and become the subject or citizen of, any foreign kingdom or republic. He was domiciliated within the
United
States, from whence he had not removed and joined himself to any other country, settling there his fortune, and family.
But there is another ground, which renders the capture on the part of Ballard, altogether unjustifiable. The Ami de la Liberte was built in Virginia, and is owned by citizens of that state; she was sitted but as an armed floop of war, in, and, as such, failed from, the United States, under the command, of Ballard, and cruised against, and captured vessels belonging to, the subjects of European powers, at peace with the said Hates. Such was her predicament, when she took the Magdalena. It is idle to talk of Ballard's commission ; if he had any, it was not a commission to cruise as a privateer, and if so, it was of no validity, because granted to an American citizen, by a foreign officer, within the jurisdiction of the United States. We are not, however, to presume, that the French Admiral or Consul would have issued a commission of the latter kind, because it would have been a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the United States; and of course incompatible with his official duty. Therefore, it was not, and, indeed, could not, have been a war commission. It is not necessary, at present, to determine, whether acting under colour of such a commission would be a piratical offence ? Every illegal act, or transgression, committed on the high seas, will not amount to piracy. A capture, although hot piratical, may be illegal, and of such a nature as to induce the court to award restitution.
It has been urged, in argument, that the
Ami de la Liberte
is the property of the
French
republic. The assertion is not warranted by, the evidence ; and if it was, would not, perhaps, be of any avail, so as to prevent restitution by the competent authority.The proof is clear and satisfactory, that she was an
American
vessel, owned by citizens of the
United States,
II. To consider the capture as having been made by
Ballard
and
Talbot. Talbot
commanded the privateer
L’Ami de la Point a Pirre.
The question is,as the
Magdalena
struck to and was made prize of by Ballard, and as Talbot, who knew his situation, aided in his equipment, and acted in confederacy with him, afterwards had a fort of joint possession, whether
Talbot
can detain her as prize by virtue of his
French
commission ? To support the validity of
Talbot’s
claim it is contended, that
Ballard
had no commission or an inadequate one, and therefore his capture was illegal: That it was lawful for
Talbot
to take possession of the ship to captured, being a
Dutch
bottom, as the
United Netherlands
were at open war and enmity with the
French
republic, and
Talbot
was a naturalized
French
citizen, acting under a regular commission from the Governor of
Guadaloupe.
It has been already observed, that
Ballard
was a citizen of the
United States; t
hat the
Ami de la
Liberte, of which he had the command, was fitted out and armed as a vessel of war in the
United
States; that as such she failed from the
United
States, and cruised against
I am, therefore, of opinion, that the decree of the Circuit Court ought to be affirmed. Being clear on the preceding points, it supersedes the necessity of deciding upon other great questions in the cause ; such as, whether Redick and Talbot were French citizens; whether the bill of sale was colourable and fraudulent; whether Redick, if a French citizen, did not lend his name as a cover ; and whether the property did not continue in Sinclair and Wilson, citizens of the United States.
In delivering my opinion on the great points arising in this case, I shall divide the consideration of it under the following heads:
1. Whether the District Court had jurisdiction prima facie upon the subject matter of the libel, taking for granted that the allegations in it Were true.
2. Admitting that the court had jurisdiction prima facie, whether William Talbot had stated and supported a case sufficient to entitle him to hold the property as prize, exempt from the jurisdiction and controul of the District Court.
Í. The first enquiry is,
Whether the district Court had jurisdiction prima facie upon the subject matter of the libel, taking for granted that the allegations in it were true.
These allegations in substance are,
That the ship was taken on the high seas, by a schooner called L' Ami de la Liberte, commanded by Edward Ballard, who had no lawful commission, to take her as the property of an enemy of the French Republic, under whose authority the capture was alledged to be made.
That William Talbot, who came up after the surrender, and put some men on board, when; the'prize was in possession of Ballard, had also no lawful commission for the purpose of such a capture, being an American citizen, and his owners American citizens likewise.
Such, substantially, are the allegations of the libel, and admitting them to be true, nothing is more, clear than that the capture was unlawful.
But it is objected that this is a question of prize of no prize, and whether the ship was lawfully a prize, or not, is for some court of the French Republic alone to determine, under wholauthority Ballard and Talbot alledge they acted; and it is contended, that the capture in question being of a Dutch ship, and not an American, the United States have no right to decide a dispute between the Dutch and the French, in regard to a capture on the high seas, claimed as lawful by one party, and denied to be such by the other, since such an interposition would be equally a violation of the law of nations, and of the 17th article of the treaty with France.
To this objection, the following answers appear to me to be satisfactory:
1. That it is true, both by the law of nations, and the treaty with France, if a French privateer brings an enemy’s ship into our ports,, which she has taken as prize oh the high seas, the United States, as a nation, have no right to detain her, or make any enquiry into the circumstances of the capture.
But this exemption from enquiry, by our courts of :uftice, in this refpefi, only belongs to a French privateer, lawfully com-miffioned, and, therefore, if a veffel claims that exemption, but does not appear to be duly-entitled to it, it is the éxprefs duty of the court, upon application, to make enquiry, 'whether fin is the vessel fie pretends, to be, lince her title to fuch exemption, depends on that very fact.
Otherwise, any vessel whatever, under a colour of that kind, might capture with impunity, and defy all enquiry, if she kept out of a French port, equally in violation of the law of nations, and insulting to the French Republic, which, from a regard to its own honour and a principle of justice, would undoubtedly disdain all piratical assistance. She might say, now, I trust, with as much truth as dignity, Non tali auxilio, nec Defensoribus if is tempus eget.
2. That such, an enquiry being thus proper to be made, if upon the enquiry it shall appear, that the vessel pretending to be a lawful privateer, is really not such, but uses a colourable commission for the purposes of plunder, she is to be considered by the law of nations, so far at least as a transfer of properly is concerned, or a title to hold it infilled upon, in the same light as having no commission at all.
3. That
prima facie
all piracies and trespasses committed
It is expressly held, in an authority quoted I Lex Mercatoria 252. “ That if a Spaniard robs a Frenchman on the high “ feas, their princes being both then in amity with the crown “ of England, and the ship is brought into a port in England, “ the Frenchman may proceed criminaliter against the Span i ard, to punish him, and civiliter, to have restitution of his “vessel.” The authorities referred to are, Selden mare claus. Lib. I chap. 27. Grotius de Jure Belli et Pacis, b. 3. c. 9. f. 16. both books of very high authority.
What is called robbery on the land, is piracy if committed at fea. 3 In ft. 113. 1 Com. Dig. 269. And as every robbery oh land includes a trespass, so does every piracy at fea. 1 Com. Dig. 268. Consequently, if there be an unlawful taking, it may be piracy or trespass according to the circumstances of the case, both being equally unlawful, though one a higher species of offence than the other, which cannot alter the intrinsic illegality of the fact common to both, hut only occasion a greater or less degree of punishment proportioned to the nature of the offence. It is, therefore, no answer to say, in bar of restitution, that no piracy has been committed, and therefore no restitution is to follow,since, if a trespass has been committed, though not a piracy, restitution is equally proper as if the offence had amounted to piracy itself.
4. That by a due consideration of the law of nations, whatever opinions may have prevailed formerly to the contrary, no hostilities of any kind, except in necessary self-defence, can lawfully be practised by one,individual of a nation, against an individual of any other nation at enmity with it, but in virtue of some public authority. War can alone be entered into by national authority; it is instituted for national purposes, and directed to national objects ; and each individual on both sides is engaged in it as a member of the society to which he belongs, not from motives of personal malignity and ill will. He is not to fly like a tyger upon bis prey, the moment he sees an individual of his enemy before him. Such savage nations, I believe, obtained formerly. Thank God, more rational ones have succeeded, and a liberal man can frequently fee great integrity and honor on both sides, though different and irreconcileable views of national interest or principles may unfortunately engage two nations in hostility. Even in the case of one enemy against another enemy, therefore, there is no colour
of justification
for; any offensive hostile act, unless it be authorised
5. That nowithstanding an apparent contrariety of opinions on this subject, it would be easy to shew, upon principle, if not by authority, that such hostility committed without public authority on the high feas, is not merely an offence against the nation of the individual committing the injury, but also against the law of nations, and, of course, cognizable in either countries : But that is not material in the present stage of the enquiry, which affects only the conduct of our own citizens in our own vessels, attacking and taking, under colour of a foreign commission, on the high feas, goods of our friends.
This is so palpable a violation of our own law (I mean the common law, of which the law of nations is a part, as it subsisted either before the act of Congress on the subject, or since that has provided a particular manner of enforcing it,) as well as of the law of nations generally; that I cannot entertain the flighted: doubt, but that upon the case of the libel, prima facie, the District Court had jurisdiction.
2. The next enquiry is,
Whether William Talbot has stated and supported a case sufficient to entitle him to hold the property as prize, exempt from the jurisdiction of the District Court.
This claim is grounded as follows :
1. That at the time of his receiving the commission, and at the time of the capture, he was a real French citizen, and his vessel was French property, viz. the property of Samuel Redick, a French citizen at Point-a-Pitre- in Guadaloupe.
2. That he had a lawful commiflion to cruize from the French Republic.
3. That whether Ballard had a lawful commission or not, he himself was lawfully entitled: 1. To part, if Ballard had a lawful commission, as having been in fight at the time of the capture, and therefore contributing to intimidate the enemy into a surrender upon the common principle. 2. If Ballard had no lawful commission, and is to be considered as a pirate, his capture did not change the property; of course, it remained Dutch, and he, as captain of a French privateer, had a right to feize and retain it.
The first point to be considered is,
Whether Talbot at the time of his receiving the commission, and at the time of the capture, was a French citizen.
This involves the great question as to the right of expatriation, upon which so much has been said in this cause. Perhaps it is not necessary it should be explicitly decided on this occasion; but I shall freely express my sentiments on the subject.
The only difference of opinion is, as to the proper manner of executing this right.
Some hold, that it is a natural unalienable right in each individual ; that it is a right upon which no act of legislation can lawfully be exercised, inasmuch as a legislature might impose dangerous restraints upon it; and, of course, it must be left to every man’s will and pleasure, to go off, when, and in what manner, he pleases.
This opinion is deserving of more deference, because it appears to have, the sanction of the Constitution of this State, if not of some other states in the Union.
I must, however, presume to differ from it, for the following reasons:
1. It is not the exercise of a natural right, in which the individual is to be considered as alone concerned. As every man is entitled to claim rights in society, which it is the duty of the society to protect; he, in his turn, is under a solemn obligation to discharge all those duties faithfully, which he owes, as a citizen, to the society of which he is a member, and as a, man to the several members of the society individually with whom he is associated. Therefore, if he has been in the exercise of any public trust, for which he has not fully accounted, he ought not to leave the society until he has accounted for it. If he owes money, he ought not to quit the country, and carry all his property with him, without leave of his creditors. Many other cases might be put, shewing the importance of the public having some hold of him, until he has fairly performed all those duties which remain unperformed, before he can honestly abandon the society forever. But it is said, his ceasing to be a citizen, does not deprive the public, or any individual of it, of remedies in these respects : Yet the right of emigration is aid to carry with it the right of removing his family, and effects. What hold have they of him afterwards ?
2. Some writers on the subject of expatriation say, a man shall not expatriate in a time of war, so as to do a prejudice to his country. But if it be a natural, unalienable, right, upon the footing of mere private will, who can say this shall not be exerciled in time of war, as well as in time of peace, since the
3. The very statement of an exception in time of war, shews that the writers on the law of nations, upon the subject in general, plainly mean, not that it is a right to be always exercised without the leaft restraint of his own will and pleasure, but that it is a reasonable and moral right which every man ought to be allowed to exercise, with no other limitation than such as the public safety or interest requires, to which all private rights ought and must forever give way. And if in any government, principles of patriotism and public good ought to predominate over mere private inclination, surely they ought to do so in a Republic founded on the very balls of equal rights, to be perfectly enjoyed in every instance, where the public good does not require a restraint.
4. In fome inftances, even in time of war, expatriation may fairly be permitted. It ought not then to be. retrained. But who is to permit it ? The Legiflature furely; the conftant guardian of the public intereft, where a new law is to be made, or an old one difpeufed with, If they may take cognizance in One inftance, (as for example, in time of war) becaufe the public fafety may require it, why not in any other inftance, where the public fafety, for fome unknown caufe, may equally require it ? _ Upon the eve of a war, it may be ftill more important to exercife it, as we often fee in cafe of embargoes.
.5. The fuppóíítiori, that the power may be abufed, is. of no importance, if the public good requires its exercife. This fe.ver'Hh jealoufy, is a paflion that can never, be fatisfied. No man denies the propriety of the Legiflature having a taxative power. Suppofe it íhould be ferioufly objidled to, becaufe the Legiflature might tax to the amount of
tqf.
in the pound ? They have the power, bur does any man fear theexe.rcifeof ic ? A Legiflature mull pofiefs'every power necefiary to the making of laws. When conftrudted as ours is, there is no danger of any material abufe. But a Legiflature mifft be weak to the extremeft verge of folly, to wifli to retain any iban as a citizen, whofe heart and affedtións áre fixed on a foreign country, in preference to his-own. They would naturally wifli to get rid of him as foon as they could, and, therefore, perhaps, the proper precaution would be, to reftrain adts of ■ baniihment, (if fach could be at all permitted) rather than to limit the legifla-tivecontroul over expatriation. But .is there no danger of abufe on the other fide ? Have not all the contentions about, expatriation "in the courts, arifen from
a want of the exercife
I, therefore, have no doubt, that when-the queftion is in regard to a citizen of any country, whofe conftitution has not prohibited the exercife óf the legiflative power in this inftance, it not, only is a proper inftance in which it may be exercifed, but it is the duty of the Legiilature to make fuch provifion, and for my part, I have always thought thé Virginia afíembly ihew-ed a very judicious foreiight in this particular»
Whether the'
Virginia
a<ft of expatriation be now in force, is a.queftion fo important, that I would not wiíh unneceilarily to decide it. If it be, I have no doubt that a citizen of that State, cannot expatriate himfelf in any other manner. It feems tnoft probable (but I think not certain) from this record,- that
Talbot
"was a citizen of
Virginia.
We are, however, undoubtedly to coniider him as a citizen of' the
United States.
Admitting he had a right to expatriate himfelf, without any law- pre-fcribing tbe method of his doing fo, we furely muft have feme evidence that he 1 ad done it. There is none, but that he went to the
Weft
Indies, and took an oath to the
French
Republic, and became a citizen.there. I do not think that merely taking fuch an oath, and being admitted a citizen there, initfelf, is evidence of a
bona fide
expatriation, or completely difeharges the obliga-tionshe owes to his own conntry. Had there been any reftric-tions by our own law on his quitting this country, could any a ¿i of a foreign country, operate as a repeal of thefe ? Certainly not, When he goes there, they know nothing of him, perhaps, but from his own reprefentation. He becomes a citizen of the new country, at his peril,- The a£t is complete, if he has legally quitted his own: if not, it is fubbrdinate to the allegiance he originally owed. By allegiance, I mean, that tie by which a'citizen of the
United States
is bound as a member of the fociety. Did any man fuppofe, when tbe rights of ci-tizenihip were fo freely and honorably Bellowed on the unfortunate
Marquis de la
Fayette, that
that
abfolved him, as a fub-je£t or citizen of his own country ? It had only'this effl-ét, that whenever he came into this conntry, and chofe to refide here, he was
ipfo fia/rto
to be deemed a citizen, without any thing farther. The fame confcqúence, I think, would follow in'refpeS to rights of eifizenihip, conferred by the
French
Republic, upon fome iiluftjious cbaraclers, in our own, and other countries, if merely intended, as ingeniouily fuggefted at the bar, that upon going to France, and performing the ufual requifites, they ihould be then
French'
citizens, where is the
His going to the Wejl Indies, and taking an oath of allegiance there, coniidering it in itfelf, is an equivocal act. It might be done, with a view to relinquiih his own country forever. It might be done, with a view to relinquiih it for a time, in order to gain fome temporary benefit by it. If the former, and this was clearly proved, it poffibly might have'the ciFeft contended for. If the latter, it would fliew, that he voluntarily fubm.itted to the émbarraflments of two diftinft allegiances. He muft make them as confiftcnt as he can. By our treaty with Holland, any American citizen, cruifing. upon Dutch fubjefts, as commander of a privateer, under a foreign' commiffion, is to be deemed a pirate. If he left America, for the very purpofe of doing this, and became a French citizen, that'he might have a colour for doing fo, then his taking a French commiffion could not abfolve him from a crime .which he was committing in the very aft of taking it, and of which the French government might not be aware, as they are ’not bound to take notice of any other treaties but their own. If he went, intending to refide there for a-time, and to aóí under a commiffion, which he believed would, for the prefentj juftify him, tho’ this might excufe him from the guilt of piracy, it would not make i'uch a contradi lawful, becaufe, in this cafe, even his intention Was not] to expatriate himfelf forever ; and, confequently, he Hill remained an American citizen, and had no authority to take a commiffion at all. It furely is impoffible for us to fay, he meant a real expatriation, when his conduft prima facie, as much indicates a crime, as any thing elie. If he had fuch an intention before he left this country, why not mention it If a citizen of Virginia, andtheir-aft of expatriation was not in force, yet, furely, it preferibed as good a method of eftefting'it as any other, andhisnot purfuingthis method, (if he really meant an expatriation) can be accounted for in no other manner, but that he was confcious, the vsflel he was fitting out, was for the purjiofe of cruifing, and would havebeer.ftopt by the government, had his delign of expatriation fo plainly evinced it.. •
I therefore, muft fay, there is no evidence to fatisfy me, that, he ceafe'd to be an American citizen, fo as to be abfolved from the duties he owed' to his own country;. and, among others, that duty of not cruifing againft the Dutch, in violation of the law of nations, generally, andcf the treaty , with Flolland, in particular.
In addition to my other obfervations, I may add, how is it poffible, upon this principle, for the public to know in.what lit nation they Hand, as to any one of thefeperfons? Itisnotimpoffible, (I believe inftances indeed have already happened of it) that an American citizen may go to fome of the dominions of the French, become a French citizen for a time, enjoy all the benefits of fuch, and afterwards, return to his .own country, and claim, and enjoy, all the privileges of a citizen there, without the leaf!: poffibility of the public knowing, otherwife than from accident, whether he has become a citizen of another government, or not. S.uppofe one of them was to infift on hplding an eftate in land, devifed to him after his new citizen&ip, how could it be proved he was an alien ?
Whether, therefore, the property of the privateer, was in-Redick, or in Wilfon and Sinclair, I think it was equally Ame-., rican property, tho’ I cenfefs, the weight of the evidence, im preffes.me ftrongly with a belief, that the property was Wilfon and Sinclair1 s. ■ And, in regard to the objedtion, that nothing they could fay or do, or Talbot either, could affect Redick, I think, as Talbot appears as the agent of Redick, of whom, we know nothing but through him, his declarations are. to be regarded as Redick's own, and any declarations of Wilfon or Sinclair, in his prefence, and any of the conduit: of either of them, fan&ioned by him, muft have the fame effeit, as if the declarations had been made in the prefence of Redick, and fuch conduit fanitioned by himfelf.
I confider the proof of the commiffion fufficient, but deny its operation, as I confider the veffel to have been an American vef-fel, owned by an American or Americans, and with an American Captain on board.
I now proceed to enquire into the confequences of Bailar As capture, and Talbot's co-operation with him, tho’ perhaps, up-en my principles, it is'not absolutely neceffary.
I.
Ballard’s
capture, I think, is clearly infupportable. Admitting him to have been expatriated, (which, if the
Virginia
Jaw was in force, I think he was) he did not become a
French
citizen at all. Only one of the crew was a
Frenchman.
I think, all the reft were proved to be Americans, or
BngUJh.
She
• 2. Talbot (confidering hirafeif as mafter-of a lawful priya-teei) claims .upon two grounds:. 1. Upon fuppofition of Ballard's being a lawful commiffi'on,. he- claim's, as being in fight at the time of the capture. To this, it' isfufficient to fay, that it was not a lawful commiffion. % If Ballard had no lawful commiffion, he claims upon his independent right, alledging, that if Ballard had no lawful commiffion, the property was not changed to Ballard, and therefore he had a right to take.
This claim (if
Talbot’s
was a lawful privateer) would undoubtedly be good, if he was not a confederate with
Ballard.
But it is clear that he was, that he cruized before and after, in company wiih him, that he put guns on board of- his veftel ; and there is the ftrongeft reafon to believe, that they both belonged to the fame owners. It is true, if
Talbot
had come up, ignorant of
Ballard’s
authority, and inadvertently put men on board the prize in conjunction with Ballard, fuppofing he had-a lawful commiffion, when in reality he had not, it might with fome reafon be' contended, that
Talbot
fiiould. hold the prize. But, wilful ignorance, is never excufeable ; when there is time to enquire, enquiry ought to be made. .There is not, however, the leaft reafon for fuppofing any ignorance in the cafe. He abetted
Ballard’s
authority, fuch as it. was. He acted in fupport of it, not in oppofition to it. It does not appear that he ever quéftioned it, until after his arrival in
Charlejton.
It was, therefore, a mere after-thcüght. A man having a com- . million, is authorized, but not compelled, to exercife it His will muft concur to make a capture under it. It does not appear, that he relied, at fea, upon his own force, but upon
Bal
lard’s; at leaft, in this inftancc, upon his own and
Ballard’s,'
in conjunction1. A man having a lawful commiffion, isautho-rifecl to cruize himfelf, and to cruize in company with others, having lawful authority. It docs not authoriie him to afibciate with pirates, or any unlawful depredators, on the high feas. If he does fo, he departs from his commiffion, a (Turnes a new cha-rafter,’ which that docs not author!fc, .and rifques all the con-fequences oí it. It is/impoffible that
Ballard
pan be guilty of-
Í therefore think, upon this ground, even admitting, that Talbot’s was a rightful privateer, his claim is iiifupportable.
As I decided this caufe in the Circuit Court, it gives me pleafure to be relieved from the neceifity of giving any opinion on the appeal, by the unanimity of fentnnent that prevails among rhe judges.
The fails in this cafe, fo fat as they appear to me to be eiibntial for forming an opinion, may be reduced to a very narrow ccmpafs, Ballard, the commander of a veil'd, -which was illegally fitted-out in the
United
States, cruizes in company with Talbot, who alledges that he is a
French
citizen, and produces a
French
commiifion.
Ballard
captures the Magdalena, a
Dutch
p: ize; then
Talbot
joins him ; and both, having put prize-maírers on board, bring the prize into the harbour of
Charlejlon.
The questions nrifing ■ on this ftatement are, limply, whether the capture, under fuch ciicumftances, is a violation of ohr treaty with
Holland ?
And whether it is fuch a cafe of prize, at the courts of the
United Stales
can take cognizance of, conhilently with the treaty between
America
and
France?
Now, the whole traniadtion at Gaitclaloupc, as well as here, prefents itfelf to my mind as fraudulent and collufive. But even fuppofing that
hlalbot was, bona fide,
a
French
citizen, the other circumftanccs-of the cafe are iufficient to render the capture void. It was, in truth, a capture by Ballard, who had no authority, or colour of authority, for his condudl. He was an
Aynerican
citizen; he had never left the
United'States
; his veil'd was owned by
American
citizens; and the commiiiion, which he held by afiignment, was granted by a
French
admiral, within the-
United States,
to another-perlón, for a particular purpofe, but not for the pttr-poie of capture. Then, ihall not the property, which he has thus taken-from-a nation at peace with'the
United States,
and
On the important right of expatriation; I do not think it ne-ceiTa.ry to give an opinion; but the.docftrine mentioned by Hci- n-eccius, feems to furnifh a reafonable and fatisfaflorv rule. The adf of expatriation ihould be buna fide, and maniídíced, at leaft, by the emigrant’s aifu'al removal, with his family and effedfs, into another country. This, however, forms no part of the ground, on which I think the decree of the Circuit Court ought to be affirmed.
The merits of the caufe are fu obvious, that I do not conceive there is much difficulty in pronouncing a fair and prompt deciiion, for affirming the decree of the Circuit Court.
The dodfrine of expatriation is certainly of great magnitude; but it is not necefiary to give an opinion upon it, in the pre-fent caufe, there being no proof, that Captain Talbot's admif-iion as a citizen of the French Republic, was with a view to relinquifh his native country; and a man may, at the fame time, enjoy the rights of citizenihip under two governments.
It appears, upon the whole, that Ballard's veil'd was illegally fitted out in the United States; and the weight of evidence fa&isfies my mind, that Talbot's veil'd, which was originally American property, continued fo at the time of the capture, notwithftanding all the fraudulent attempts to give it a different complexion. The capture, therefore, was a violation of the law of nations, and of the treaty with Holland. The court has a,clear jurifdidion of the caufe, upon the exprefs authority of Pelacbes's Cafe. q. Iijl. And every motive of good faith and juftice muft induce us to concur with the Cir-cit Court, in awarding reiiitution.
The Decree of the Circuit Court affirmed.
The Counfel for the Appellees, then moved the court to ailefs additional damages, which was oppofed by Dallas, for the Appellant; and, after argument, the following order was made:
Ordered, that the decree of the Circuit Court
of South Carolina
diftriéf, pronounced on the 5th day of November, in the year of our Lord one thoufand feven hundred and ninety-four, affinning the decree of the Diftrici Com:: of the fame diftridt, pronounced on the fixth day of Angttjl, in the year of our Lord one thoufand feven hundred and ninelyty-four, be in all its parts eftabliíhed and affi -mcd. And it is further confidered, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the laid
William
Talbot, the Plaintiff in do to the fa id