relation to Englishmen, it would be difficult to show, that it is defective in relation to the citizens of other countries; and of course, it will occur to every one, it must in its applications be attended with serious inconveniences, since the man, who is naturalized, is made by it to sustain characters and relations, which seem to be wholly inconsistent with each other. VI, TRIES. CONTRACTS IN RELATION TO DIFFERENT COUN-On this topic we will merely make an extract from the Treatise of Judge Story, on the Conflict of Laws; a Work, which one would judge to be almost expressly written for the purpose of showing the importance of a Congress of nations." A few simple cases will sufficiently illustrate the importance of some international principles in matters of mere private right and duty. Suppose a contract, valid by the laws of the country, where it is made, is sought to be enforced in another country, where such a contract is positively prohibited by its laws; or, vice versa, suppose a contract, invalid by the laws of the country, where it is made, but valid by that of the country, where it is sought to be enforced; it is plain, that unless some uniform rules are adopted to govern such cases, (which are not uncommon,) the grossest inequalities will arise in the administration of justice between the subjects of the different countries in regard to such contracts. Again; by the laws of some countries marriage cannot be contracted until the parties arrive at twenty-one years of age; in other countries not until they arrive at the age of twenty-five years. Suppose a marriage to be contracted between two persons in the same country, both of whom are over twenty-one years but less than twenty-five, and one of them is a subject of the latter country. Is such a marriage valid, or not? If valid in the country, where it is celebrated, is it valid also in the other country? Or the question may be propounded in a still more general form, Is a marriage, valid between the parties in the place, where it is solemnized, equally valid in all other countries? Or is it obligatory only as a local regulation, and to be treated every where else as a mere nullity ?"* VII,- -MAJORITY, EVIDENCE, AND LAW OF DOMICIL. -At what period a man is to be regarded as old enough to act for himself, and to make valid contracts, is not decided by nature, but by express legislation, or by the customary law of different countries. In the United States a man is legally of age at twenty-one; but in France he is not regarded as of age until twenty-five. Consequently if an American, twenty-one years of age, and resident in the United States, should purchase goods in France, the contract would be binding upon him. On the contrary, a Frenchman of the same age, domiciled in France, who should order a like purchase in the United States, "would not be bound by his contract, for he would be deemed incapable of making such a contract.”† This single fact will illustrate what we mean. The Law of nations, or perhaps more properly the practice of nations, is unsettled also, in relation to the subject of Evidence and proofs. If a contract, or any instrument or act involving the nature of a contract, is made in France or the Netherlands, but is to be carried into effect by a course of judicial proceedings in America, in what way is such instrument or act to be proved? Is it sufficient to authenticate it by the process of France and Holland, and the evidence which is considered sufficient there? Or is it necessary in the authentication of it to conform strictly to the ceremonies and the evidence, which are required in the United States?" Various cases may be put to illustrate these questions. A contract or other instrument is executed and recorded be • Story's Conflict of Laws, Ch. I, § 5. +Ch. IV, § 66, fore a Notary Public in a foreign country, in which by law a copy of the contract or other instrument certified by him is sufficient to establish its existence and genuineness; would that certificate be admissible in the courts of common law of England or America to establish the same facts? Again; persons who are interested, and even parties in the suit are in some foreign countries admissible witnesses to prove contracts, instruments, and other acts, material to the merits of the suit; would they be admissible as witnesses in suits brought in the course of common law in Englan 1 and America to prove the like facts in relation to contracts, instruments, or other acts made or done in such foreign countries material to the suit? These are questions more easily put than answered."* On the subject of Domicil and of the rights and duties connected with domicil, the doctrines and practices of different countries are at variance with each other. What constitutes a domicil-whether the rights and obligations, which attach to a person in connection with his domicil, are to be recognized and respected in all other places—the application of the doctrine of domicil to the marriage relation, particularly in its bearing upon the matters of property and divorce-the connection of the doctrine of domicil with the testamentary disposition of property at death-these are some of the important topics, on which different opinions have been expressed, and different practices have been adopted. Certainly on some of the subjects, which have been introduced under this head, there would be ample opportunity for the exercise of that high degree of wisdom, which we might suppose to be assembled in a Congress of Nations. VIII, -RETALIATION IN WAR. -If war is less horrid in its results than it was once, there still remain features * Story's Conflict of Laws, Ch. XVH, § 630. hardly less atrocious than those, which have been expunged from it. One is the assumed right of retaliation. -The instances of cruelty, which have originated in connection with this alledged right, are exceedingly numerous, and of the most affecting character. Facts will best show what we mean. In the Spanish civil war now in progress, Zumalacarreguy defeated at the battle of Los Compos de Larion a division of Rodil's army under the command of General Carandolet. Among the prisoners taken by the Carlists were the Conde de Villa Manuel, a grandee of Spain, and several officers of rank. Zumalacarreguy, who has not the reputation of being a blood thirsty ruffian, immediately despatched a courier to Rodil, informing him of these officers and noblemen being in custody, and offering to exchange them for several officers of his own, who had been taken previously in Biscay and Guipuscoa. In the meantime the prisoners shared the table of their captor, and were treated with all the respect due to their rank. In two days the courier returned, and found the General seated with his prisoners at his mess, over a puchero. Rodil's letter was instantly opened, and contained the following laconic reply: "The officers you require, I have already shot." The fate of the unfortunate nobleman and his officers is soon told. "Gentlemen," said Zumalacarreguy, throwing the letter to them, "I am sorry it is so, but there is no alternative. Blood for blood! Send for the confessor, for you have but a few minutes to live!" And, in effect, they were dragged from the very table at which they had been seated together, and shot in the court yard! "* Take another instance still more atrocious, which has already been referred to. In the revolutionary war of the Netherlands, which terminated in their independence, the Spaniards repeatedly threw the Dutch priso* The Calumet, Vol. II, No. 4. ners, whom they had taken and detained on board their ships, into the ocean. The Dutch, having at a certain time taken a considerable number of Spanish prisoners, tied five companies of them together in pairs, and in retaliation of the cruelties of the Spaniards threw them, on a given signal, alive into the sea. When Bonaparte was carrying on the war in Egypt and Syria, he sent a messenger to Jaffa for the purpose of demanding the surrender of that place. The messenger was beheaded by order of the governor. Among the prisoners subsequently taken at Jaffa were found a part of the garrison of El Arish, who had been taken once before, and had pledged themselves not to serve against the French. These transactions were the grounds of great offence; and on the principle of retaliation Bonaparte ordered two thousand prisoners who had fallen into his power, to be escorted out to the sand-hills to the south-east of Jaffa, and to be put to death in cold blood. "The execution lasted a considerable time, and the wounded, as in the fusillades of the Revolution, were despatched with the bayonet. Their bodies were heaped together, and formed a pyramid which is still visible, consisting now of human bones, as originally of bloody corpses."* In the course of the dreadful civil wars in South America there were similar instances; and they are to be found more or less frequently, in all periods of history. If wars are to exist and to be carried on in future, can it be too much to expect, that improvements will continue to be made in the principles and modes of their prosecution, and that this repulsive and cruel feature, which is equally repugnant to reason and humanity, will be removed? Certain it is, that no subject could be more worthy of the prompt and effectual attention of the as * Scott's Life of Napoleon, Vol. I, Chap. 29. |