gress, to be finally determined, as near as might be, in the same manner as the foregoing. Thus limited was the judicial power under the confederation.

1. An ordinance was very soon passed* for establishing Courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, by which persons charged with these offences, or accessaries thereto, were to be inquired of and tried by the grand and petit jurors according to the course of the common law, in like manner as if committed on land. The justices of the Supreme or Superior Court of judicature, and Judge of the Court of Admiralty of the several and respective States, or any two or more of them, were thereby appointed Judges.† The punishment was to be the same as if the offence were committed on land. When there was more than one Judge of a Court of Admiralty, the supreme executive power of the State was to commissionate one (of them,) exclusively, to join in performing the duties required by the ordinance. All forfeitures were to go to the State, when conviction took place.

When Courts were held under the authority of this ordinance, the Judges sat in the State Court house, the prisoners were confined in the State gaol under the custody of State officers, and were executed, on conviction, by the order of the Sheriff.‡

• April 5th, 1781. 7 Journ. Cong. 65.

†By an ordinance passed in March, 1783, a Judge of the Admiralty was always to form one of the Court. 8 Journ. Cong. 146.

+ 2 vol. Debates of Congress, in 1789, page 286, speech of Mr. Smith of South Carolina.

2. No new Court of appeals was constituted after the articles of confederation; but the Court, as then organised, appears to have continued. The extent of the judicial power of Congress under the articles of confederation, in appeals in cases of capture, seems, however, to have been narrowed considerably by the construction given to the articles of confederation in the State Courts. Thus in Pennsylvania, by an act of the Legislature passed prior to the complete ratification of the articles of confederation, a Court of appeals was constituted "for reviewing, re-considering, and correcting the definitive sentences and decrees of the Court of Admi. ralty of that State, other than in cases of capture upon the water in time of war from the enemies of the United States." A complainant filed a libel in the State Court of Admiralty, to recover damages against the defendant, for taking from him, on the high seas, an English vessel, which he had captured as prize, in which the State Court of Admiralty decreed damages and costs. On appeal to the State Court of appeals, that Court held, 1st. That an appeal did not lie in the case to the Court established by Congress, because the words of the articles of confederation authorising the establishing of Courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of capture, meant captures as prize, when such prize was brought infra præsidia of the United States, and, as the prize in this case was not brought infra præsidia of the United States, but was afterwards re-captured by the Bri

tish, that Court had no jurisdiction. 2d. That the State Court of appeals had jurisdiction, because the Legislature intended to give it jurisdiction in appeals from the admiralty, in all cases in which the appeal was not resigned to the United States, and if this were not the case there would be a defect of justice.*

3. A Court consisting of five commissioners, or. ganised under the articles of confederation, sat at Trenton, in November and December, 1782, to decide the controversy which had long subsisted between the States of Pennsylvania aud Connecticut, relative to the territory of Wyoming. These States appeared respectively by counsel, as agents, and their proofs and arguments were heard. On the 30th December, 1782, the Court decreed unanimously, that the State of Connecticut had no right to the lands in controversy, and that the jurisdiction and pre-emption of all the territory lying within the charter boundary of Pennsylvania claimed by Connecticut, of right belonged to the State of Pennsylvania.†

Proceedings also took place in the year 1786 and 1787, for constituting Courts to determine controversies respecting territory, between the State of Massachusetts and New York, and also between the States of South Carolina and Georgia: but they were never completed, as these States amicably adjusted the disputes.‡

Talbot v. Comman ers, &c. of three brigs. 1 Dall. 95.

+8 Journ. Cong. 83. The Court consisted of William Whipple, Welcome Arnold, Wm. C. Houston, Cyrus Griffin, and David Brearly, Esqrs. 12 Journ. Cong.

X

As well before as after the articles of confederation, Congress, by the exercise of an appellate jurisdiction in all cases of capture, had the means of enforcing the law of nations, so far as related to questions of prize. To enforce it in other respects, they were dependent on the aid of the State governments. In August 1779, they resolved, that the President and Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania be informed, that any prosecution which it might be expedient to direct for such matters and things in certain publications and transactions, as were against the law of nations, should be carried on at the expense of the United States.* In November 1781, they recommended to the Legislatures of the States to pass laws punishing infractions of the laws of nations, committed by violating safe conducts or passports granted by Congress; by acts of hostility against persons in amity with the United States: by infractions of the immunities of ambassadors: by infractions of treaties or conventions: and to erect a tribunal, or to vest one already existing with power, to decide on offences against the law of nations, and to authorise suits for damages by the party injured, and for compensation to the United States for damage sustained by them, from an injury done to a foreign power by a citizen.†

In the case of De Longchamps, who was convict

*5 Journ. Cong. 367. In the case of Cornelius Sweers in the year 1778, reported 1 Dall. 41, Congress employed counsel to prosecute in the State Court. 4 Journ. Cong. 494. See also 5 Journ. Cong. 283, in the year 1779. t7 Journ. Cong. 234.

ed and sentenced in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Pennsylvania in the year 1784, for committing a violation of the law of nations by insulting M. Marbois, the secretary of the French legation, and for assault and battery, the Court declared, that the law of nations formed a part of the municipal law of Pennsylvania, and it seems enforced it.* No act appears to have been passed in this State in pursuance of the recommendation of Congress. After the arrest of De Longchamps the supreme executive council of Pennsylvania gave information of it in a letter to Congress, and requested their advice, and the committee of States approved thereof.‡

f

On the 24th June, 1776, after independence had been resolved upon, but before it was declared, Congress defined allegiance and treason; declaring the latter to consist in levying war against any of the colonies within the same, or being adherent to the king of Great Britain, or other enemies of the said colonies, or any of them, within the same, giving to him or them aid or comfort; and recommended it to the Legislatures of the colonies, to pass laws for punishing persons proveably attainted of open deed by people of their condition. We find several instances of persons convicted in Pennsylvania in the year 1778, under the laws of that State, for treasons committed in that State.§

Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 Dall 111.

†9 Journ Cong. 277.

§ See 1 Dall. 35. 39.

9 Journ. Com. of Stutes, 6.