Hence, an
injury from the government gives a right to take away, in
war, the property of its innocent subjects.
injury from the government gives a right to take away, in
war, the property of its innocent subjects.
Hamilton - 1834 - Life on Hamilton - v2
net/2027/uva.
x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www.
hathitrust.
org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
241
once stranger boy, the now powerful advocate of mercy
to its apprehensive . denizens, hastening to shield them from
persecation for the venial offence of mistaken loyalty.
The impression which his congressional career had pro-
duced, is shown in the letters received by him at this time.
McHenry, who had recently taken a seat in congress,
writes:--
Princeton, Oct. 22, 1783.
DEAR HAMILTON,
The homilies you delivered in congress, are still recol-
lected with pleasure. The impressions they made, are in
favour of your integrity, and no one but believes you a man
of honour and republican principles. Were you ten years
older, and twenty thousand pounds richer, there is no doubt
but that you might obtain the suffrages of congress for the
highest office in their gift. You are supposed to possess
various knowledge, useful, substantial, and ornamental.
Your very grave, and your cautious--your men who meas-
ure others by the standard of their own creeping politics,
think you sometimes intemperate, but seldom visionary,
and that were you to pursue your object with as much
cold perseverance as you do with ardour and argument,
you would become irresistible.
In a word, if you could submit to spend a whole life in
. dissecting a fly, you would be, in their opinion, one of the
greatest men in the world. Bold designs--measures calcu-
lated for their. rapid execution--a wisdom that would con-
vince, from its own weight--a project that would surprise
the people into greater happiness, without giving them an
opportunity to view it and reject it--are not adapted to a
council composed of discordant materials, or to a people
which have thirteen heads, each of which pays superstitious
adorations to inferior divinities.
I have reported on Fleury's case on the principle you
recommend. I fear his half-pay will not be granted.
31
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 242
THE LIFE OF
Adieu, my dear friend, and in the days of your happiness
drop a line to your
McHenry.
P. S. --Our exemplification of the treaty has passed, and
will be transmitted to the state officially.
The other was from Jay, at Passy:--
"DEAR SIR,
"You was always of the number of those I esteemed,
and your correspondence would be both interesting and
agreeable. I had heard of your marriage, and it gave me
pleasure, as well because it added to your happiness, as
because it tended to fix your residence in a state of which
I long wished you to be and remain a citizen.
"The character and talents of delegates to congress
daily become more and more important, and I regret your
declining that appointment at this interesting period. Re-
spect, however, is due to the considerations which influ-
ence you; but as they do not oppose your accepting a
place in the legislature, I hope the state will still con-
tinue to derive advantage from your services: much re-
mains to be done, and labourers do not abound.
"I am happy to hear that the terms of peace and the
conduct of your negotiators give general satisfaction.
But there are some of our countrymen, it seems, who are
not content, and that too with an article which I thought
to be very unexceptionable, viz: the one ascertaining our
boundaries. Perhaps those gentlemen are latitudinarians.
"The American newspapers for some months past con-
tain advices which do us harm; violences and associations
against the tories pay an ill compliment to government,
and impeach our good faith in the opinion of some, and
our magnanimity in the opinion of many. Our reputa-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
243
tion, also, suffers from the apparent reluctance to taxes,
and the ease with which we incur debts without providing
for their payment. The complaints of the army--the
jealousies respecting congress--the circumstances which
induced their leaving Philadelphia--and the too little ap-
pearance of national spirit pervading, uniting, and invigo-
rating the confederacy, are considered as omens which
portend the diminution of our respectability, power, and
felicity. I hope that as the wheel turns round, other and
better indications will soon appear. I am persuaded that
America possesses too much wisdom and virtue to permit
her brilliant prospects to fade away for want of either.
"The tories are almost as much pitied in these coun-
tries as they are execrated in ours; an undue degree of
severity towards them would, therefore, be impolitic, as it
would be unjustifiable. They who incline to involve that
whole class of men in indiscriminate punishment and ruin,
certainly carry the matter too far. It would be an in-
stance of unnecessary rigour and unmanly revenge, with-
out a parallel, except in the annals of religious rage in
times of bigotry and blindness. What does it signify
where nine-tenths of these people are buried? Victory
and peace should in my opinion be followed by clemency,
moderation, and benevolence, and we should be careful
not to sully the glory of the revolution by licentiousness
and cruelty. These are my sentiments, and however un-
popular they may be, I have not the least desire to conceal
or disguise them. Believe me to be, with great regard
and esteem. "
Notwithstanding urgent solicitations, Hamilton adhered
to his purpose of retiring wholly from public life, and was
soon immersed in the labours of his profession; in which,
without the advantages of much previous study, by the
energies of a mind peculiarly adapted to the analysis of first
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 244
THE LIFE OF
principles, he rose to an unequalled, unapproached dis-
tinction.
His letter to McHenry was written to obtain an exem-
plification of the treaty. The state of New-York was
ruled at this time by cruel counsels. Taking advantage
of the doubt as to the period of its execution, it passed
laws in direct violation of this treaty, and, in despite of the
most earnest intercessions, refused to stay the prosecutions
commenced against proscribed persons. Shocked at these
proceedings, Hamilton took up the cause of these perse-
cuted individuals with all the zeal of his boundless benevo-
lence.
The definitive treaty having arrived, he addressed a
memorial to congress asking a record of it; in which, to
prompt its immediate ratification, he stated that there ap-
peared to be no probability that the legislature will inter-
pose its authority to stay the prosecutions until it is an-
nounced; a measure that would "conduce to the security
of a great number of individuals who derive their hopes
of safety from the national faith. "
Hamilton now commenced his professional career; and
it is one of the most interesting incidents of that career,
that the first exertion of his talents as an advocate, was in
the cause of clemency and good faith. It was in the in-
most privacy of his quiet hours, reflecting on such exer-
tions, that he exclaimed, "The Almighty has given me a
good head, and thank God, he has also given me a good
heart. "
This was a suit in the mayor's court of the city of New-
York, to recover the rents of property held by the defend-
ant under an order of Sir Henry Clinton, and was found-
ed on a recent enactment called "The Trespass Act. "
This act authorized an action of trespass in favour of per-
sons who had left their abodes irt consequence of the
invasion of the enemy, against those who had been in pos-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
245
session of them during the war, and expressly precluded a
justification of this occupancy by virtue of a military or-
der. It was contended that the case was not within the
statute; that the laws of nations controlled it and barred
the suit, and that the treaty included an amnesty, which
extinguished the statute right.
No precedent, it is believed, exists for such an act of
legislation; an act providing that after a war solemnly
terminated by a treaty duly executed, suits could be com-
menced by the subjects of one belligerent against those
of another for injuries committed during the war by mili-
tary order.
No case could have arisen of greater interest, higher
moment, or larger considerations. It was a question of
national faith and national character--it was a question
between the subjects of two independent nations, relating
to transactions in a war between those nations.
It involved a determination of the powers of the con-
federacy, and of its constitutional supremacy over a law
of a member of that confederacy. It was of the most
grave and weighty magnitude, for it would decide wheth-
er a state tribunal would recognise the laws of nations and
of the confederation as the rule of its decisions when in
conflict with a local statute. It might determine the con
duct of Great Britain as to the execution of the treaty, the
surrender of the posts, and the peace of the union.
It involved property of a great amount, and numerous
cases depending on the same principle. It was the deci-
sion of a controversy between a wealthy merchant--a
British subject, an adherent of the enemy--and a fugitive,
an exile, a poor American widow, impoverished by the
war. It was tried while the strife of the fierce contest
was recent, in the midst of a dilapidated and yet disorder-
ed city, when all around were beheld the ravages of the
invader, in a hall of justice desecrated and marred by
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 216
THE LIFE OF
the excesses of its late occupants, a licentious soldiery.
On one side was the attorney-general of the state, armed
with all its authority to sustain its laws, representing the
passions of an inflamed community, pleading for the
widowed exile. On the other stood Hamilton, resting on
the justice of this mighty cause.
The plaintiff's task was obvious. It was to insist upon
the statute. The statute was explicit. Both the parties
were within its provisions. It was obligatory, and no
court of that state, no court especially of limited jurisdic-
tion, could look beyond it. Look where? To the laws
of nations,--laws having no settled foundation, undergo-
ing constant change, affording no certain rule, and which
ought to have no influence on the government of this state
or upon the people. The war was unjust, admitted by
the enemy to be unjust. By an unjust war, the unjust
party acquires no rights, for no rights can be derived from
an injury. It was not a solemn war, and therefore con-
ferred no rights upon the captor. Nor was that court to
be controlled by the treaty. New-York was a sovereign,
independent state. Congress had no right to bind the
state in this matter; it was interfering with its internal
police. Can they by treaty give away the rights of its
citizens 1 A case like this had never before been heard
of. It was without a precedent, and stood upon the sta-
tute.
Hamilton felt the advantageous position of his oppo-
nent. He passed by the immediate parties to the suit, and
spoke to the question. In a brilliant exordium,* he dila-
ted on its importance in all its various aspects; declared
that the decision might affect all the relations of two great
empires, might be discussed in Europe, and might produce,
* The outline of this speech is framed from an extended brief, giving all
the points of the argument and the authorities.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
247
according to the issue, a good or bad impression of our
country. It would establish precedents that might give a
complexion to future decisions, would remain a record of
the spirit of our courts, and would be handed down to
posterity as indicating the character of our jurisprudence.
It was a question of a most comprehensive nature; its
merits include all the principles which govern the inter-
course between nations. Heretofore our courts have
seemed to consider themselves in an inferior light; their
decisions must hereafter form precedents.
Having thus appealed to the pride of the court, he pro-
ceeded :--" We are told there is no precedent. Then, in-
deed, it is a new case, and a new case must be determined
by the law of nature and the public good. Where the
law is silent, the judge speaks; and the most ancient au-
thority states that in England cases were adjudged accord-
ing to equity, before the customs of the realm were writ-
ten and made certain. This question must be decided by
the laws of nations. But what, it is asked, are the laws of
nations? Where are they to be found? --They are the
deductions of reason, to be collected from the principles
laid down by writers on the subject and established by
the authorized practice of nations, and are a part of the
law of the land. The laws of nations and the laws of
war are part of the common law. "
He then stated the two great divisions of the laws of
nations. The natural, necessary, or internal, universally
binding on the conscience of nations; but in its external
obligations, controlled by the positive or voluntary law
for the good of mankind, which is equally obligatory, and
is enjoined by the natural law.
By the necessary law, the party making an unjust war
acquires no rights, and is bound to make reparation for all
damages. By the voluntary law--which may be defined,
that system of rules which grow out of the independence
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 218
THE LIFE OF
of distinct political associations, qualifying their natural
rights as individuals--both parties have equal rights, hav-
ing no common judge; and the effects of a war on both
sides, are the same.
These effects are principally impunity, the acquisition
of property; a rule established to promote the general
peace of mankind, by removing discussions about the jus-
tice of the war, and the proportion of the damages to the
injury and the security of purchasers, especially neutrals.
But it is objected, this was not a solemn war. The ap-
proved practice of nations is against this objection. But
it was a solemn war. Formalities are arbitrary--an act
of parliament authorized hostilities. The declaration of
independence speaks of an open war subsisting. Congress
formally authorized our citizens to cruise. It has been
said that the state of New-York has no common law of
nations. The answer is, that law results from the relations
of universal society--that our constitution admits the
common law, of which the law of nations is a part--and
that the United States direct our foreign intercourse, and
have expressly become parties to the law of nations. What
are the effects of a war? The general proposition is, that
movable goods belong to the captor forever, as soon as
the battle is over; the fruits of immovables, while they are
in possession. Other rules have been laid down with re-
spect to movables; but the true rule is, the battle being
over. The ancient precedents of pleading are not that
the prize remained a night with the enemy, but that it was
gained by battle of the enemy; and pleading is the touch-
stone of the law. The common law carries the rights of
war so far as to give property in a prisoner, and an action
of trespass for taking him away. Hence, we see the com-
mon law not only adopts the law of nations in its full ex-
tent as a general doctrine, but particular adjudications
recognise the operation of capture.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON. 249
r
The second branch of the discussion related to the effect
of the treaty of peace, and tended to show that this action
could not be maintained without a violation of the treaty;
every treaty of peace including an amnesty, which is of
its very essence, between private persons as well as the
contending publics. To the objection, that congress had
no right to bind the state, that it was meddling with its in-
ternal police, he replied, that on that construction," the
confederation was the shadow of a shade;" but that con-
gress had an unquestionable right; that " the sovereignty
and independence of the people began by a federal act;
that our external sovereignty is only known in the union--
that foreign nations only recognise it in the union; that the
declaration of independence was the fundamental consti-
tution of every state, all of which was acceded to by the
convention of New-York, which does not pretend to au-
thenticate the act, but only to give their approbation to it:"
that hence it followed," that congress had complete sover-
eignty; that the union was known and legalized in the
constitution of New-York previous to the confederation,
and that the first act of the state government adopted it as
a fundamental law; from which reflections," he says, " we
are taught to respect the sovereignty of the union, and to
consider its constitutional powers as not controllable by
any state. "
The confederation is an abridgment of those powers;
but, mutilating as it is, it leaves congress the full and ex-
clusive powers of war, peace, and treaty. The power of
making peace, is the power of determining its conditions.
It is a rule of reason and law, that to whomsoever any
thing is granted, that also is granted without which it can-
not exist. If congress have not a power to adjust an
equivalent for damages sustained, and remit the rest, they
have no power to make peace. It is true that this power
32
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 250
THE LIFE OF
does not permit the making all possible conditions,--such
as dismembering the empire, or surrendering the liberties
of the people; but it includes the power of making all rea-
sonable and usual conditions--such is a remission of dam-
ages,--for without it the state of war continues.
But it may be asked, tiow can congress, by treaty, give
away the rights of citizens of New-York? To this I an-
swer--First, that the citizens of New-York gave them
power to do it for their own safety--Secondly, that the
power results from this principle of all governments: that
the property of all the individuals of a state is the property
of the state itself, in regard to other nations.
Hence, an
injury from the government gives a right to take away, in
war, the property of its innocent subjects. Hence, also,
the claim of damages for injuries done is in the public, who
may agree for an equivalent, or release the claim without
it; and, our external sovereignty existing in the union,
the property of all the citizens, in regard to foreign states,
belongs to the United States, as a consequence of what is
called the eminent domain. Hence, to make the defend-
ant answerable, would be a breach of the treaty of peace.
It would be a breach, also, of the confederation. Con-
gress have the exclusive right of war and peace. Congress
have made a treaty of peace, pursuant to their power; a
breach of the treaty is a violation of their constitutional
authority, and a breach of the confederation. The power
of congress in making treaties, is of a legislative kind:
their proclamation enjoining the observance of it is a law,
and a law paramount to that of any particular state. But
it is said," the sovereign authority may, for reasons of state,
violate its treaties, and the laws in violation of them bind
its own subjects. This allegation goes on bold ground,
that the legislature intended to violate the treaty. But I
aver that in our constitution it is not true that the sover-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TIAMILTON.
251
eignty of any one state has legally this power. Each state
has delegated all power of this kind to congress. They
are equally to judge of the necessity of breaking, as of the
propriety of making, treaties. "
"The legislature of any one state has nothing to do with
what are called ' reasons of state/ We might as well say
a particular county has a right to alter the laws of the state,
as a particular state the laws of the confederation. It has
been said, and it may be said again, that the legislature
may alter the laws of nations. But this is not true in the-
ory, nor is it constitutional in our government; for con-
gress have the exclusive direction of our foreign affairs, and
of all matters relating to the law of nations. No single
state has any legal jurisdiction to alter them.
"It may again be said, that the accession to the confed-
eration was an act of our legislature. Why may not an-
other act alter or dissolve it? I answer, it is not true; for
the union is known in our constitution as pre-existing.
The act of confederation is a modification and abridgment
of federal authority by the original compact.
"But if this were not the case, the reasoning would not
apply. For this government, in acceding to the confeder-
ation, is to be considered, not as a sovereign enacting a law,
but as a party to a contract; as a member of a more ex-
tensive community agreeing to a constitution of govern-
ment. It is absurd to say, one of the parties to a contract
may, at pleasure, alter it without the consent of the others.
It will not be denied that a part of an empire may, in cer-
tain cases, dismember itself from the rest. But this sup-
poses a dissolution of the original compact. While the
confederation exists, a law of a particular state derogating
from its constitutional authority is no law. But how, you
ask, are the judges to decide? they are servants of the
state. I answer, the confederation vesting no judicial
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 252
THE LIFE OF
powers in congress, excepting in prize causes, in all other
matters the judges of each state must of necessity be judges
of the United States, and they must take notice of the law
of congress as a part of the law of the land. For it must
be conceded, that the legislature of one state cannot repeal
a law of the United States.
"What is to be done in such a case? It is a rule of law,
that when there are two laws, one not repealing the other,
expressly or virtually, the judges must construe them so as
to make them stand together. That golden rule of the
Roman orator may be applied: 'Primum igitur leges
oportet contendere considerando utra lex ad majores, hoc
est ad utiliores, ad honestiores ac magis necessarias res perti-
nent. Ex quo conficiscitur utsi leges duce aut si plures aut
quotcunque erunt conservari non possint quia discrcpent
inter se, ea maxime conservanda putetur qua? ad maxi-
mas res pertinere videntur'--'Where two or more laws
clash, that which relates to the most important concerns
ought to prevail. '
"Many of these arguments are on the supposition, that
the trespass act cannot stand with the laws of nations and
the treaty. It may, however, legally receive such a con-
struction as will stand with all; and to give it this con-
struction is precisely the duty of the court. We have seen
that to make the defendant liable, would be to violate the
laws of nations, and forfeit our character as a civilized
people; to violate a solemn treaty of peace, and revive the
state of hostility; to infringe the confederation of the United
States, and to endanger the peace of the whole. Can we
suppose all this to have been intended by the legislature?
The answer is,'the law cannot suppose it: if it were in-
tended, the act is void. '"
He then proceeded to state rules for the construction of
statutes, which rendered this extremity unnecessary, quo-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
253
ting the observation of Cato, "Leges enim ipsac cupiunt
ut jure regantur. "
The argument extended to an examination of the juris-
diction of the court, and to a minute investigation of the
distinctions to be taken between citizens and British sub-
jects, claiming the protection of the law of nations. It
closed with a strong exposure of the criminality of the
procedure, and with a vehement exhortation to preserve
the confederation and the national faith; quoting the
beautiful apothegm of Seneca, " Fides sanctificissimum hu-
mani pectoris bonum est. "
Amidst all the refinements which have been resorted to
in order to impair the powers of the constitution, and to
construe it as a compact of states, revocable at the will of
either of the contracting parties, it is deeply interesting
to advert to this early exposition of the true principles of
the American union. An union formed indeed by com-
pact, but by a compact between the people of these
colonies with every individual colonist before the ex-
istence of states; recognised by the people of each
state, in their state constitutions; confirmed by them
as states, in the articles of confederation; and sub-
sequently "perfected" in a constitution ordained and
established by the people "for the United States of
America. "
The result of this argument was a triumph of right over
usurpation. The decision indicates the difficulties with
which the defendant contended ; but the force of the
treaty to overrule the inhibition against pleading a milita-
ry order, was admitted. The court also declared--" Our
union, as has been properly observed, is known, and le-
galized in our constitution, and adopted as a fundamental
law in the first act of our legislature. The federal com-
pact hath vested congress with full and exclusive powers
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 254 THE LIFE OF
to make peace and war. This treaty they have made
and ratified, and rendered its obligation perpetual; and
we are clearly of opinion, that no state in this union can
alter or abridge, in a single point, the federal articles or
the treaty. "
This decision is the more meritorious, because made by
judges holding by a temporary tenure, soon after the ses-
sion of a legislature which had shown a fixed purpose to
persevere in their odious and impolitic violence.
A few days after this judgment was rendered, a large
public meeting was convened,* and an address to the peo-
ple of the state was passed. This address,f after remark-
ing on "the immense ability and learning" of the argu-
ment, exhorted the people, in their choice of senators, to
elect men who would spurn any proposition that had a
tendency to curtail the privileges of the people, and who
would protect them from judicial tyranny. "Having con-
fined themselves," it stated, "to constitutional measures,
and disapproving all others, they were free in sounding
the alarm. If their independence was worth contending
for against a powerful and enraged monarch, and at the
expense of the best blood of America, surely its preserva-
tion was worth contending for against those among our-
selves who might impiously hope to build their greatness
upon the ruins of that fabric which was so dearly estab-
lished. "
The legislature assembled soon after this meeting.
Without waiting the result of an appeal, which the consti-
tution secured, this decision, made in due form of law, and
with unimpeached fairness, was brought before the assem-
bly. Resolutions were passed, declaring it to be subversive
? Sept. 13th, 1784.
t It is related to have been from the pen of Melancton Smith.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
255
of all law and good order, and the council of appointment
were recommended at their next session, "to appoint such
persons mayor and recorder of New-York, as will gov-
ern themselves by the known law of the land. "
The ability displayed by Hamilton on these occasions,
his liberal views and distinguished probity, gathered around
him the enthusiastic confidence and affection of the better
part of his fellow-citizens; and at a time when the judicial
character of the state was to be formed, and, from the dis-
turbed situation of the community, professional trusts were
of the most important and extensive influence, he was fore-
most in endeavouring to secure to the laws an honest and
enlightened administration.
This was not an easy task. The general relaxation of
morals, an usual and most lamentable concomitant of war,
was attended with a prevailing disregard of, and disposi-
tion to question, the decisions of the courts. In the politi-
cal speculations to which the revolution had given rise,
the sovereignty of the popular will, which was recognised
as the basis of every proceeding, was pushed to the utmost
extremes in its application; and wherever the operations
of the laws bore hard, in the then unsettled relations of
society, to recur to the elementary principles of govern-
ment, and resolve every rule by its apparent adaptation to
individual convenience, was the prevailing tendency of
public opinion. The course of the contest, the means by
which it had been conducted, the extravagant schemes it
had engendered, gave every citizen a strong personal in-
terest in its results, and, long before its termination, had
divided the population into the opposite and hostile classes
of debtors and creditors; each of which being compelled
to unite, either for the common purpose of delaying or en-
forcing justice, acquired the dangerous, disorganizing, and
formidable character of an intestine party.
The laxity of the national faith, as it sprung from, also
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 256
THE LIFE OF
confirmed this distinction. The loose opinions which had
gradually led on to an unjust discrimination between the
public creditors of different descriptions, soon took posses-
sion of the popular mind, induced preferences equally un-
just in private affairs, and ultimately prostrated all respect
for the obligations of contracts, and for the tribunals by
which they were to be expounded and enforced. This
lawless spirit which pervaded the country, was principally
shown in questions growing out of the claims of two class-
es of creditors, whose situation, though totally different,
it was sought to confound,--those of British merchants,
for debts incurred previous to the revolution, and the
claims of thp tories, either for money due to them, or for
lands of which possessions,' had been taken as enemies'
property.
The animosity natural to the combatants in a civil con-
flict; the enormities committed by the refugees, when the
scale of war seemed to incline in their favour, or where
they could continue their molestations with impunity; the
harassing inroads and depredations which they had made
on private property, and on the persons of non-combatants,
and the harsh and cruel councils of which they were too
often the authors, appeared to the people at large to sane
tion every species of retaliation, and to place the tories be-v
yond the pale of humanity.
This was merely the popular feeling. Both the govern
ments of the United States, and of the individual states,
with few exceptions, resisted these attempts, and sought
to instil a spirit of moderation and forbearance, becom-
ing the victorious party. In the progress of the conflict,
and particularly in its earliest periods, attainder and confis-
cation had been resorted to generally, throughout the conti-
nent, as a means of war. But it is a fact important to the
history of the revolting colonies, that the acts prescribing
penalties, usually offered to the persons against whom they
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
257
were directed the option of avoiding them, by acknow-
ledging their allegiance to the existing governments.
It was a preventive. not a vindictive policy. In the
-? game humane spirit, as the contest approached its close
and the necessity of these severities diminished, many of
the states passed laws offering pardons to those who had
been disfranchised, and restoring them to the enjoyment
of their property; with such restrictions only as were
necessary for the protection of their own citizens. In
others, different councils unfortunately prevailed. In New-
Jersey, meetings were held urging a non-compliance with
the treaty, in consequence of the non-fulfilment by Eng-
land of the seventh article, stipulating the return of the
negroes and the restoration of the posts.
In Virginia,* the house of delegates resolved,f "That
confiscation laws, being founded on legal principles, were
strongly dictated by that principle of common justice
which demands that if virtuous citizens, in defence of their
natural rights, risk their life, liberty, and property on
their success; vicious citizens who side with tyranny and
oppression, or cloak themselves under the mask of neu-
trality, should at least hazard their property, and not enjoy
the labours and dangers of those whose destruction they
wished. And it was unanimously declared, that all demands
and requests of the British court for the restitution of pro-
perty confiscated by this state, being neither supported by
law, equity, or policy, are wholly inadmissible; and that
our delegates be instructed to move congress that they
may direct their delegates, who shall represent these states
in a general congress for adjusting a peace or truce, nei-
ther to agree to any such restitution, or submit that the
laws made by any independent state of this union, be
* Almon's Remembrances, p. 92, v. 10, 2d part.
t December 17th, 1782.
33
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 258
THE LIFE OP
subject to the adjudication of any power or powers on
earth. "
A proclamation was subsequently issued by its governor,
enjoining all those who had adhered to the enemy since
the nineteenth April, seventeen hundred and seventy-five,
or had been expelled by an act of the legislature, or who
had borne arms against the commonwealth, to leave the
state. And an address from the county of Caroline was
presented to the legislature, stating," they see the impolicy,
injustice, and oppression of paying British debts! "
In Massachusetts, a committee of the legislature of which
Samuel Adams was chairman reported that no person
who had borne arms against the United States, or lent
money to the enemy to carry on the war, should ever be
permitted to return to the state. * Resolutions of an intem-
perate character were also brought forward at public
meetings in Maryland; and a bill containing many objec-
tionable features was introduced in the popular branch of
its legislature, but it was resisted with great eloquence, ad-
mirable sense, and unyielding firmness in the senate by
two respected individuals, Charles Carroll and Robert
Goldsborough, and was essentially modified.
In New-York, the division of public sentiment at the
opening of the revolution being very great, each party
viewed the other with the most jealous eyes, and felt more
seriously the importance of individual exertions. The
first act of hostility invited retaliation. Instead of looking
to general results, the people of that state were driven to
desperation by their continued uncertainty and alarm from
dangers which menaced their double frontier.
The laws which were passed for their protection, for
the apprehension of persons of "equivocal character,"
* Report on the files of the general court of Massachusetts, March 16th,
1784.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON. 259
early in the warfare, were soon followed by the establish-
ment of a board of commissioners of sequestration. An
institution which, though at first confided to safe hands,
was unavoidably intrusted with powers that naturally lead
to abuse, and ultimately became the organ of many harsh
and oppressive proceedings.
Civil discord striking at the root of each social relation,
furnished pretexts for the indulgence of malignant pas-
sions; and the public good, that oft-abused pretext, was
interposed as a shield to cover offences which there were
no laws to restrain.
The frequency of abuse, created a party interested both
in its continuance and exemption from punishment, which
at last became so strong, that it rendered the legislature
of the state subservient to its views, and induced the en-
actment of laws attainting almost every individual whose
connections subjected him to suspicion, who had been
quiescent, or whose possessions were large enough to pro-
mise a reward to this criminal cupidity.
It must not be supposed that these attempts were unre-
sisted. On the contrary, those who were most efficient in
their support of the revolution--those who had incurred
the greatest losses--some of those to whom the contest had
offered few other fruits than an uninterrupted sacrifice of
feeling and property, and who might with much plausibility
have thus reimbursed themselves--offered a steady resist-
ance to these arbitrary edicts; and when it was at last
found to be unavailing, by appearing to unite in the
measures of persecution, and by including in the number
of the attainted the names of those whose proscription
threatened to affect the personal interest of the most vio-
lent, showed them the danger of this game of intoler-
ance.
These proceedings only exasperated the passions of the
populace, and soon after the intelligence of peace, tumult-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 260
THE LIFE OF
uous meetings were convened under the thus disgraced
name of " the sons of liberty," to denounce the tories, to
menace them from returning to claim their estates, and to
remonstrate with the legislature against measures that
could affect titles by confiscation.
The circumstances under which the election in the city
of New-York was held, bespeak the character of the now
dominant party. A council had been created for the
temporary government of the southern district of the
state, who were directed to impose a prescribed oath to
its electors--an oath that they had not been guilty of any
past offences. In reference to this retrospective inquisi-
tion into the consciences of men, Hamilton remarked--" A
share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by
the citizens at large in voting at elections, is one of the
most important rights of the subject, and in a republic
ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law. It
is that right by which we exist a free people; and it cer-
tainly, therefore, will never be admitted, that less ceremo-
ny ought to be used in divesting any citizen of that right,
than in depriving him of his property. Such a doctrine
would ill suit the principles of the revolution, which taught
the inhabitants of this country to risk their lives and for-
tunes in asserting their liberty; or, in other words, their
right to a share in the government. That portion of the
sovereignty to which each individual is entitled, can never
be too highly prized. It is that for which we have fought
and bled ; and we should cautiously guard against any
precedents, however they may be immediately directed
against those we hate, which may in their consequences
render our title to this great privilege precarious. "
These considerations were disregarded, and this oath
was prescribed. The election was thus in the hands of a
few violent persons, together with those who were tempt-
ed, by this bribe, to perjury.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva.
? HAMILTON.
241
once stranger boy, the now powerful advocate of mercy
to its apprehensive . denizens, hastening to shield them from
persecation for the venial offence of mistaken loyalty.
The impression which his congressional career had pro-
duced, is shown in the letters received by him at this time.
McHenry, who had recently taken a seat in congress,
writes:--
Princeton, Oct. 22, 1783.
DEAR HAMILTON,
The homilies you delivered in congress, are still recol-
lected with pleasure. The impressions they made, are in
favour of your integrity, and no one but believes you a man
of honour and republican principles. Were you ten years
older, and twenty thousand pounds richer, there is no doubt
but that you might obtain the suffrages of congress for the
highest office in their gift. You are supposed to possess
various knowledge, useful, substantial, and ornamental.
Your very grave, and your cautious--your men who meas-
ure others by the standard of their own creeping politics,
think you sometimes intemperate, but seldom visionary,
and that were you to pursue your object with as much
cold perseverance as you do with ardour and argument,
you would become irresistible.
In a word, if you could submit to spend a whole life in
. dissecting a fly, you would be, in their opinion, one of the
greatest men in the world. Bold designs--measures calcu-
lated for their. rapid execution--a wisdom that would con-
vince, from its own weight--a project that would surprise
the people into greater happiness, without giving them an
opportunity to view it and reject it--are not adapted to a
council composed of discordant materials, or to a people
which have thirteen heads, each of which pays superstitious
adorations to inferior divinities.
I have reported on Fleury's case on the principle you
recommend. I fear his half-pay will not be granted.
31
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 242
THE LIFE OF
Adieu, my dear friend, and in the days of your happiness
drop a line to your
McHenry.
P. S. --Our exemplification of the treaty has passed, and
will be transmitted to the state officially.
The other was from Jay, at Passy:--
"DEAR SIR,
"You was always of the number of those I esteemed,
and your correspondence would be both interesting and
agreeable. I had heard of your marriage, and it gave me
pleasure, as well because it added to your happiness, as
because it tended to fix your residence in a state of which
I long wished you to be and remain a citizen.
"The character and talents of delegates to congress
daily become more and more important, and I regret your
declining that appointment at this interesting period. Re-
spect, however, is due to the considerations which influ-
ence you; but as they do not oppose your accepting a
place in the legislature, I hope the state will still con-
tinue to derive advantage from your services: much re-
mains to be done, and labourers do not abound.
"I am happy to hear that the terms of peace and the
conduct of your negotiators give general satisfaction.
But there are some of our countrymen, it seems, who are
not content, and that too with an article which I thought
to be very unexceptionable, viz: the one ascertaining our
boundaries. Perhaps those gentlemen are latitudinarians.
"The American newspapers for some months past con-
tain advices which do us harm; violences and associations
against the tories pay an ill compliment to government,
and impeach our good faith in the opinion of some, and
our magnanimity in the opinion of many. Our reputa-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
243
tion, also, suffers from the apparent reluctance to taxes,
and the ease with which we incur debts without providing
for their payment. The complaints of the army--the
jealousies respecting congress--the circumstances which
induced their leaving Philadelphia--and the too little ap-
pearance of national spirit pervading, uniting, and invigo-
rating the confederacy, are considered as omens which
portend the diminution of our respectability, power, and
felicity. I hope that as the wheel turns round, other and
better indications will soon appear. I am persuaded that
America possesses too much wisdom and virtue to permit
her brilliant prospects to fade away for want of either.
"The tories are almost as much pitied in these coun-
tries as they are execrated in ours; an undue degree of
severity towards them would, therefore, be impolitic, as it
would be unjustifiable. They who incline to involve that
whole class of men in indiscriminate punishment and ruin,
certainly carry the matter too far. It would be an in-
stance of unnecessary rigour and unmanly revenge, with-
out a parallel, except in the annals of religious rage in
times of bigotry and blindness. What does it signify
where nine-tenths of these people are buried? Victory
and peace should in my opinion be followed by clemency,
moderation, and benevolence, and we should be careful
not to sully the glory of the revolution by licentiousness
and cruelty. These are my sentiments, and however un-
popular they may be, I have not the least desire to conceal
or disguise them. Believe me to be, with great regard
and esteem. "
Notwithstanding urgent solicitations, Hamilton adhered
to his purpose of retiring wholly from public life, and was
soon immersed in the labours of his profession; in which,
without the advantages of much previous study, by the
energies of a mind peculiarly adapted to the analysis of first
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 244
THE LIFE OF
principles, he rose to an unequalled, unapproached dis-
tinction.
His letter to McHenry was written to obtain an exem-
plification of the treaty. The state of New-York was
ruled at this time by cruel counsels. Taking advantage
of the doubt as to the period of its execution, it passed
laws in direct violation of this treaty, and, in despite of the
most earnest intercessions, refused to stay the prosecutions
commenced against proscribed persons. Shocked at these
proceedings, Hamilton took up the cause of these perse-
cuted individuals with all the zeal of his boundless benevo-
lence.
The definitive treaty having arrived, he addressed a
memorial to congress asking a record of it; in which, to
prompt its immediate ratification, he stated that there ap-
peared to be no probability that the legislature will inter-
pose its authority to stay the prosecutions until it is an-
nounced; a measure that would "conduce to the security
of a great number of individuals who derive their hopes
of safety from the national faith. "
Hamilton now commenced his professional career; and
it is one of the most interesting incidents of that career,
that the first exertion of his talents as an advocate, was in
the cause of clemency and good faith. It was in the in-
most privacy of his quiet hours, reflecting on such exer-
tions, that he exclaimed, "The Almighty has given me a
good head, and thank God, he has also given me a good
heart. "
This was a suit in the mayor's court of the city of New-
York, to recover the rents of property held by the defend-
ant under an order of Sir Henry Clinton, and was found-
ed on a recent enactment called "The Trespass Act. "
This act authorized an action of trespass in favour of per-
sons who had left their abodes irt consequence of the
invasion of the enemy, against those who had been in pos-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
245
session of them during the war, and expressly precluded a
justification of this occupancy by virtue of a military or-
der. It was contended that the case was not within the
statute; that the laws of nations controlled it and barred
the suit, and that the treaty included an amnesty, which
extinguished the statute right.
No precedent, it is believed, exists for such an act of
legislation; an act providing that after a war solemnly
terminated by a treaty duly executed, suits could be com-
menced by the subjects of one belligerent against those
of another for injuries committed during the war by mili-
tary order.
No case could have arisen of greater interest, higher
moment, or larger considerations. It was a question of
national faith and national character--it was a question
between the subjects of two independent nations, relating
to transactions in a war between those nations.
It involved a determination of the powers of the con-
federacy, and of its constitutional supremacy over a law
of a member of that confederacy. It was of the most
grave and weighty magnitude, for it would decide wheth-
er a state tribunal would recognise the laws of nations and
of the confederation as the rule of its decisions when in
conflict with a local statute. It might determine the con
duct of Great Britain as to the execution of the treaty, the
surrender of the posts, and the peace of the union.
It involved property of a great amount, and numerous
cases depending on the same principle. It was the deci-
sion of a controversy between a wealthy merchant--a
British subject, an adherent of the enemy--and a fugitive,
an exile, a poor American widow, impoverished by the
war. It was tried while the strife of the fierce contest
was recent, in the midst of a dilapidated and yet disorder-
ed city, when all around were beheld the ravages of the
invader, in a hall of justice desecrated and marred by
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 216
THE LIFE OF
the excesses of its late occupants, a licentious soldiery.
On one side was the attorney-general of the state, armed
with all its authority to sustain its laws, representing the
passions of an inflamed community, pleading for the
widowed exile. On the other stood Hamilton, resting on
the justice of this mighty cause.
The plaintiff's task was obvious. It was to insist upon
the statute. The statute was explicit. Both the parties
were within its provisions. It was obligatory, and no
court of that state, no court especially of limited jurisdic-
tion, could look beyond it. Look where? To the laws
of nations,--laws having no settled foundation, undergo-
ing constant change, affording no certain rule, and which
ought to have no influence on the government of this state
or upon the people. The war was unjust, admitted by
the enemy to be unjust. By an unjust war, the unjust
party acquires no rights, for no rights can be derived from
an injury. It was not a solemn war, and therefore con-
ferred no rights upon the captor. Nor was that court to
be controlled by the treaty. New-York was a sovereign,
independent state. Congress had no right to bind the
state in this matter; it was interfering with its internal
police. Can they by treaty give away the rights of its
citizens 1 A case like this had never before been heard
of. It was without a precedent, and stood upon the sta-
tute.
Hamilton felt the advantageous position of his oppo-
nent. He passed by the immediate parties to the suit, and
spoke to the question. In a brilliant exordium,* he dila-
ted on its importance in all its various aspects; declared
that the decision might affect all the relations of two great
empires, might be discussed in Europe, and might produce,
* The outline of this speech is framed from an extended brief, giving all
the points of the argument and the authorities.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
247
according to the issue, a good or bad impression of our
country. It would establish precedents that might give a
complexion to future decisions, would remain a record of
the spirit of our courts, and would be handed down to
posterity as indicating the character of our jurisprudence.
It was a question of a most comprehensive nature; its
merits include all the principles which govern the inter-
course between nations. Heretofore our courts have
seemed to consider themselves in an inferior light; their
decisions must hereafter form precedents.
Having thus appealed to the pride of the court, he pro-
ceeded :--" We are told there is no precedent. Then, in-
deed, it is a new case, and a new case must be determined
by the law of nature and the public good. Where the
law is silent, the judge speaks; and the most ancient au-
thority states that in England cases were adjudged accord-
ing to equity, before the customs of the realm were writ-
ten and made certain. This question must be decided by
the laws of nations. But what, it is asked, are the laws of
nations? Where are they to be found? --They are the
deductions of reason, to be collected from the principles
laid down by writers on the subject and established by
the authorized practice of nations, and are a part of the
law of the land. The laws of nations and the laws of
war are part of the common law. "
He then stated the two great divisions of the laws of
nations. The natural, necessary, or internal, universally
binding on the conscience of nations; but in its external
obligations, controlled by the positive or voluntary law
for the good of mankind, which is equally obligatory, and
is enjoined by the natural law.
By the necessary law, the party making an unjust war
acquires no rights, and is bound to make reparation for all
damages. By the voluntary law--which may be defined,
that system of rules which grow out of the independence
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 218
THE LIFE OF
of distinct political associations, qualifying their natural
rights as individuals--both parties have equal rights, hav-
ing no common judge; and the effects of a war on both
sides, are the same.
These effects are principally impunity, the acquisition
of property; a rule established to promote the general
peace of mankind, by removing discussions about the jus-
tice of the war, and the proportion of the damages to the
injury and the security of purchasers, especially neutrals.
But it is objected, this was not a solemn war. The ap-
proved practice of nations is against this objection. But
it was a solemn war. Formalities are arbitrary--an act
of parliament authorized hostilities. The declaration of
independence speaks of an open war subsisting. Congress
formally authorized our citizens to cruise. It has been
said that the state of New-York has no common law of
nations. The answer is, that law results from the relations
of universal society--that our constitution admits the
common law, of which the law of nations is a part--and
that the United States direct our foreign intercourse, and
have expressly become parties to the law of nations. What
are the effects of a war? The general proposition is, that
movable goods belong to the captor forever, as soon as
the battle is over; the fruits of immovables, while they are
in possession. Other rules have been laid down with re-
spect to movables; but the true rule is, the battle being
over. The ancient precedents of pleading are not that
the prize remained a night with the enemy, but that it was
gained by battle of the enemy; and pleading is the touch-
stone of the law. The common law carries the rights of
war so far as to give property in a prisoner, and an action
of trespass for taking him away. Hence, we see the com-
mon law not only adopts the law of nations in its full ex-
tent as a general doctrine, but particular adjudications
recognise the operation of capture.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON. 249
r
The second branch of the discussion related to the effect
of the treaty of peace, and tended to show that this action
could not be maintained without a violation of the treaty;
every treaty of peace including an amnesty, which is of
its very essence, between private persons as well as the
contending publics. To the objection, that congress had
no right to bind the state, that it was meddling with its in-
ternal police, he replied, that on that construction," the
confederation was the shadow of a shade;" but that con-
gress had an unquestionable right; that " the sovereignty
and independence of the people began by a federal act;
that our external sovereignty is only known in the union--
that foreign nations only recognise it in the union; that the
declaration of independence was the fundamental consti-
tution of every state, all of which was acceded to by the
convention of New-York, which does not pretend to au-
thenticate the act, but only to give their approbation to it:"
that hence it followed," that congress had complete sover-
eignty; that the union was known and legalized in the
constitution of New-York previous to the confederation,
and that the first act of the state government adopted it as
a fundamental law; from which reflections," he says, " we
are taught to respect the sovereignty of the union, and to
consider its constitutional powers as not controllable by
any state. "
The confederation is an abridgment of those powers;
but, mutilating as it is, it leaves congress the full and ex-
clusive powers of war, peace, and treaty. The power of
making peace, is the power of determining its conditions.
It is a rule of reason and law, that to whomsoever any
thing is granted, that also is granted without which it can-
not exist. If congress have not a power to adjust an
equivalent for damages sustained, and remit the rest, they
have no power to make peace. It is true that this power
32
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 250
THE LIFE OF
does not permit the making all possible conditions,--such
as dismembering the empire, or surrendering the liberties
of the people; but it includes the power of making all rea-
sonable and usual conditions--such is a remission of dam-
ages,--for without it the state of war continues.
But it may be asked, tiow can congress, by treaty, give
away the rights of citizens of New-York? To this I an-
swer--First, that the citizens of New-York gave them
power to do it for their own safety--Secondly, that the
power results from this principle of all governments: that
the property of all the individuals of a state is the property
of the state itself, in regard to other nations.
Hence, an
injury from the government gives a right to take away, in
war, the property of its innocent subjects. Hence, also,
the claim of damages for injuries done is in the public, who
may agree for an equivalent, or release the claim without
it; and, our external sovereignty existing in the union,
the property of all the citizens, in regard to foreign states,
belongs to the United States, as a consequence of what is
called the eminent domain. Hence, to make the defend-
ant answerable, would be a breach of the treaty of peace.
It would be a breach, also, of the confederation. Con-
gress have the exclusive right of war and peace. Congress
have made a treaty of peace, pursuant to their power; a
breach of the treaty is a violation of their constitutional
authority, and a breach of the confederation. The power
of congress in making treaties, is of a legislative kind:
their proclamation enjoining the observance of it is a law,
and a law paramount to that of any particular state. But
it is said," the sovereign authority may, for reasons of state,
violate its treaties, and the laws in violation of them bind
its own subjects. This allegation goes on bold ground,
that the legislature intended to violate the treaty. But I
aver that in our constitution it is not true that the sover-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TIAMILTON.
251
eignty of any one state has legally this power. Each state
has delegated all power of this kind to congress. They
are equally to judge of the necessity of breaking, as of the
propriety of making, treaties. "
"The legislature of any one state has nothing to do with
what are called ' reasons of state/ We might as well say
a particular county has a right to alter the laws of the state,
as a particular state the laws of the confederation. It has
been said, and it may be said again, that the legislature
may alter the laws of nations. But this is not true in the-
ory, nor is it constitutional in our government; for con-
gress have the exclusive direction of our foreign affairs, and
of all matters relating to the law of nations. No single
state has any legal jurisdiction to alter them.
"It may again be said, that the accession to the confed-
eration was an act of our legislature. Why may not an-
other act alter or dissolve it? I answer, it is not true; for
the union is known in our constitution as pre-existing.
The act of confederation is a modification and abridgment
of federal authority by the original compact.
"But if this were not the case, the reasoning would not
apply. For this government, in acceding to the confeder-
ation, is to be considered, not as a sovereign enacting a law,
but as a party to a contract; as a member of a more ex-
tensive community agreeing to a constitution of govern-
ment. It is absurd to say, one of the parties to a contract
may, at pleasure, alter it without the consent of the others.
It will not be denied that a part of an empire may, in cer-
tain cases, dismember itself from the rest. But this sup-
poses a dissolution of the original compact. While the
confederation exists, a law of a particular state derogating
from its constitutional authority is no law. But how, you
ask, are the judges to decide? they are servants of the
state. I answer, the confederation vesting no judicial
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 252
THE LIFE OF
powers in congress, excepting in prize causes, in all other
matters the judges of each state must of necessity be judges
of the United States, and they must take notice of the law
of congress as a part of the law of the land. For it must
be conceded, that the legislature of one state cannot repeal
a law of the United States.
"What is to be done in such a case? It is a rule of law,
that when there are two laws, one not repealing the other,
expressly or virtually, the judges must construe them so as
to make them stand together. That golden rule of the
Roman orator may be applied: 'Primum igitur leges
oportet contendere considerando utra lex ad majores, hoc
est ad utiliores, ad honestiores ac magis necessarias res perti-
nent. Ex quo conficiscitur utsi leges duce aut si plures aut
quotcunque erunt conservari non possint quia discrcpent
inter se, ea maxime conservanda putetur qua? ad maxi-
mas res pertinere videntur'--'Where two or more laws
clash, that which relates to the most important concerns
ought to prevail. '
"Many of these arguments are on the supposition, that
the trespass act cannot stand with the laws of nations and
the treaty. It may, however, legally receive such a con-
struction as will stand with all; and to give it this con-
struction is precisely the duty of the court. We have seen
that to make the defendant liable, would be to violate the
laws of nations, and forfeit our character as a civilized
people; to violate a solemn treaty of peace, and revive the
state of hostility; to infringe the confederation of the United
States, and to endanger the peace of the whole. Can we
suppose all this to have been intended by the legislature?
The answer is,'the law cannot suppose it: if it were in-
tended, the act is void. '"
He then proceeded to state rules for the construction of
statutes, which rendered this extremity unnecessary, quo-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
253
ting the observation of Cato, "Leges enim ipsac cupiunt
ut jure regantur. "
The argument extended to an examination of the juris-
diction of the court, and to a minute investigation of the
distinctions to be taken between citizens and British sub-
jects, claiming the protection of the law of nations. It
closed with a strong exposure of the criminality of the
procedure, and with a vehement exhortation to preserve
the confederation and the national faith; quoting the
beautiful apothegm of Seneca, " Fides sanctificissimum hu-
mani pectoris bonum est. "
Amidst all the refinements which have been resorted to
in order to impair the powers of the constitution, and to
construe it as a compact of states, revocable at the will of
either of the contracting parties, it is deeply interesting
to advert to this early exposition of the true principles of
the American union. An union formed indeed by com-
pact, but by a compact between the people of these
colonies with every individual colonist before the ex-
istence of states; recognised by the people of each
state, in their state constitutions; confirmed by them
as states, in the articles of confederation; and sub-
sequently "perfected" in a constitution ordained and
established by the people "for the United States of
America. "
The result of this argument was a triumph of right over
usurpation. The decision indicates the difficulties with
which the defendant contended ; but the force of the
treaty to overrule the inhibition against pleading a milita-
ry order, was admitted. The court also declared--" Our
union, as has been properly observed, is known, and le-
galized in our constitution, and adopted as a fundamental
law in the first act of our legislature. The federal com-
pact hath vested congress with full and exclusive powers
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 254 THE LIFE OF
to make peace and war. This treaty they have made
and ratified, and rendered its obligation perpetual; and
we are clearly of opinion, that no state in this union can
alter or abridge, in a single point, the federal articles or
the treaty. "
This decision is the more meritorious, because made by
judges holding by a temporary tenure, soon after the ses-
sion of a legislature which had shown a fixed purpose to
persevere in their odious and impolitic violence.
A few days after this judgment was rendered, a large
public meeting was convened,* and an address to the peo-
ple of the state was passed. This address,f after remark-
ing on "the immense ability and learning" of the argu-
ment, exhorted the people, in their choice of senators, to
elect men who would spurn any proposition that had a
tendency to curtail the privileges of the people, and who
would protect them from judicial tyranny. "Having con-
fined themselves," it stated, "to constitutional measures,
and disapproving all others, they were free in sounding
the alarm. If their independence was worth contending
for against a powerful and enraged monarch, and at the
expense of the best blood of America, surely its preserva-
tion was worth contending for against those among our-
selves who might impiously hope to build their greatness
upon the ruins of that fabric which was so dearly estab-
lished. "
The legislature assembled soon after this meeting.
Without waiting the result of an appeal, which the consti-
tution secured, this decision, made in due form of law, and
with unimpeached fairness, was brought before the assem-
bly. Resolutions were passed, declaring it to be subversive
? Sept. 13th, 1784.
t It is related to have been from the pen of Melancton Smith.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
255
of all law and good order, and the council of appointment
were recommended at their next session, "to appoint such
persons mayor and recorder of New-York, as will gov-
ern themselves by the known law of the land. "
The ability displayed by Hamilton on these occasions,
his liberal views and distinguished probity, gathered around
him the enthusiastic confidence and affection of the better
part of his fellow-citizens; and at a time when the judicial
character of the state was to be formed, and, from the dis-
turbed situation of the community, professional trusts were
of the most important and extensive influence, he was fore-
most in endeavouring to secure to the laws an honest and
enlightened administration.
This was not an easy task. The general relaxation of
morals, an usual and most lamentable concomitant of war,
was attended with a prevailing disregard of, and disposi-
tion to question, the decisions of the courts. In the politi-
cal speculations to which the revolution had given rise,
the sovereignty of the popular will, which was recognised
as the basis of every proceeding, was pushed to the utmost
extremes in its application; and wherever the operations
of the laws bore hard, in the then unsettled relations of
society, to recur to the elementary principles of govern-
ment, and resolve every rule by its apparent adaptation to
individual convenience, was the prevailing tendency of
public opinion. The course of the contest, the means by
which it had been conducted, the extravagant schemes it
had engendered, gave every citizen a strong personal in-
terest in its results, and, long before its termination, had
divided the population into the opposite and hostile classes
of debtors and creditors; each of which being compelled
to unite, either for the common purpose of delaying or en-
forcing justice, acquired the dangerous, disorganizing, and
formidable character of an intestine party.
The laxity of the national faith, as it sprung from, also
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 256
THE LIFE OF
confirmed this distinction. The loose opinions which had
gradually led on to an unjust discrimination between the
public creditors of different descriptions, soon took posses-
sion of the popular mind, induced preferences equally un-
just in private affairs, and ultimately prostrated all respect
for the obligations of contracts, and for the tribunals by
which they were to be expounded and enforced. This
lawless spirit which pervaded the country, was principally
shown in questions growing out of the claims of two class-
es of creditors, whose situation, though totally different,
it was sought to confound,--those of British merchants,
for debts incurred previous to the revolution, and the
claims of thp tories, either for money due to them, or for
lands of which possessions,' had been taken as enemies'
property.
The animosity natural to the combatants in a civil con-
flict; the enormities committed by the refugees, when the
scale of war seemed to incline in their favour, or where
they could continue their molestations with impunity; the
harassing inroads and depredations which they had made
on private property, and on the persons of non-combatants,
and the harsh and cruel councils of which they were too
often the authors, appeared to the people at large to sane
tion every species of retaliation, and to place the tories be-v
yond the pale of humanity.
This was merely the popular feeling. Both the govern
ments of the United States, and of the individual states,
with few exceptions, resisted these attempts, and sought
to instil a spirit of moderation and forbearance, becom-
ing the victorious party. In the progress of the conflict,
and particularly in its earliest periods, attainder and confis-
cation had been resorted to generally, throughout the conti-
nent, as a means of war. But it is a fact important to the
history of the revolting colonies, that the acts prescribing
penalties, usually offered to the persons against whom they
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
257
were directed the option of avoiding them, by acknow-
ledging their allegiance to the existing governments.
It was a preventive. not a vindictive policy. In the
-? game humane spirit, as the contest approached its close
and the necessity of these severities diminished, many of
the states passed laws offering pardons to those who had
been disfranchised, and restoring them to the enjoyment
of their property; with such restrictions only as were
necessary for the protection of their own citizens. In
others, different councils unfortunately prevailed. In New-
Jersey, meetings were held urging a non-compliance with
the treaty, in consequence of the non-fulfilment by Eng-
land of the seventh article, stipulating the return of the
negroes and the restoration of the posts.
In Virginia,* the house of delegates resolved,f "That
confiscation laws, being founded on legal principles, were
strongly dictated by that principle of common justice
which demands that if virtuous citizens, in defence of their
natural rights, risk their life, liberty, and property on
their success; vicious citizens who side with tyranny and
oppression, or cloak themselves under the mask of neu-
trality, should at least hazard their property, and not enjoy
the labours and dangers of those whose destruction they
wished. And it was unanimously declared, that all demands
and requests of the British court for the restitution of pro-
perty confiscated by this state, being neither supported by
law, equity, or policy, are wholly inadmissible; and that
our delegates be instructed to move congress that they
may direct their delegates, who shall represent these states
in a general congress for adjusting a peace or truce, nei-
ther to agree to any such restitution, or submit that the
laws made by any independent state of this union, be
* Almon's Remembrances, p. 92, v. 10, 2d part.
t December 17th, 1782.
33
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 258
THE LIFE OP
subject to the adjudication of any power or powers on
earth. "
A proclamation was subsequently issued by its governor,
enjoining all those who had adhered to the enemy since
the nineteenth April, seventeen hundred and seventy-five,
or had been expelled by an act of the legislature, or who
had borne arms against the commonwealth, to leave the
state. And an address from the county of Caroline was
presented to the legislature, stating," they see the impolicy,
injustice, and oppression of paying British debts! "
In Massachusetts, a committee of the legislature of which
Samuel Adams was chairman reported that no person
who had borne arms against the United States, or lent
money to the enemy to carry on the war, should ever be
permitted to return to the state. * Resolutions of an intem-
perate character were also brought forward at public
meetings in Maryland; and a bill containing many objec-
tionable features was introduced in the popular branch of
its legislature, but it was resisted with great eloquence, ad-
mirable sense, and unyielding firmness in the senate by
two respected individuals, Charles Carroll and Robert
Goldsborough, and was essentially modified.
In New-York, the division of public sentiment at the
opening of the revolution being very great, each party
viewed the other with the most jealous eyes, and felt more
seriously the importance of individual exertions. The
first act of hostility invited retaliation. Instead of looking
to general results, the people of that state were driven to
desperation by their continued uncertainty and alarm from
dangers which menaced their double frontier.
The laws which were passed for their protection, for
the apprehension of persons of "equivocal character,"
* Report on the files of the general court of Massachusetts, March 16th,
1784.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON. 259
early in the warfare, were soon followed by the establish-
ment of a board of commissioners of sequestration. An
institution which, though at first confided to safe hands,
was unavoidably intrusted with powers that naturally lead
to abuse, and ultimately became the organ of many harsh
and oppressive proceedings.
Civil discord striking at the root of each social relation,
furnished pretexts for the indulgence of malignant pas-
sions; and the public good, that oft-abused pretext, was
interposed as a shield to cover offences which there were
no laws to restrain.
The frequency of abuse, created a party interested both
in its continuance and exemption from punishment, which
at last became so strong, that it rendered the legislature
of the state subservient to its views, and induced the en-
actment of laws attainting almost every individual whose
connections subjected him to suspicion, who had been
quiescent, or whose possessions were large enough to pro-
mise a reward to this criminal cupidity.
It must not be supposed that these attempts were unre-
sisted. On the contrary, those who were most efficient in
their support of the revolution--those who had incurred
the greatest losses--some of those to whom the contest had
offered few other fruits than an uninterrupted sacrifice of
feeling and property, and who might with much plausibility
have thus reimbursed themselves--offered a steady resist-
ance to these arbitrary edicts; and when it was at last
found to be unavailing, by appearing to unite in the
measures of persecution, and by including in the number
of the attainted the names of those whose proscription
threatened to affect the personal interest of the most vio-
lent, showed them the danger of this game of intoler-
ance.
These proceedings only exasperated the passions of the
populace, and soon after the intelligence of peace, tumult-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 260
THE LIFE OF
uous meetings were convened under the thus disgraced
name of " the sons of liberty," to denounce the tories, to
menace them from returning to claim their estates, and to
remonstrate with the legislature against measures that
could affect titles by confiscation.
The circumstances under which the election in the city
of New-York was held, bespeak the character of the now
dominant party. A council had been created for the
temporary government of the southern district of the
state, who were directed to impose a prescribed oath to
its electors--an oath that they had not been guilty of any
past offences. In reference to this retrospective inquisi-
tion into the consciences of men, Hamilton remarked--" A
share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by
the citizens at large in voting at elections, is one of the
most important rights of the subject, and in a republic
ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law. It
is that right by which we exist a free people; and it cer-
tainly, therefore, will never be admitted, that less ceremo-
ny ought to be used in divesting any citizen of that right,
than in depriving him of his property. Such a doctrine
would ill suit the principles of the revolution, which taught
the inhabitants of this country to risk their lives and for-
tunes in asserting their liberty; or, in other words, their
right to a share in the government. That portion of the
sovereignty to which each individual is entitled, can never
be too highly prized. It is that for which we have fought
and bled ; and we should cautiously guard against any
precedents, however they may be immediately directed
against those we hate, which may in their consequences
render our title to this great privilege precarious. "
These considerations were disregarded, and this oath
was prescribed. The election was thus in the hands of a
few violent persons, together with those who were tempt-
ed, by this bribe, to perjury.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva.
