[wQg

*

Scott Rllle l j S * » , Spc 79 l ^ l l l ^ 560 W Pleasant Ave. • Tulare, CA 93274-1873

FILEO MJ6 I

32 0 1 3

SUPREME

COUMr CT K,rch:.\h\

£4k^iL^

i J ' ^

(n-^

IX-TX^
^

p-CL>-j,

ffvus,,

/?,G^-vwii.<-«^^ A * - " ! - ''•^•^""J ' S - * ' ^
r -"^ / - . - v ^ ^ i w

J—'^'-e*!-^^
w ^ Y T ^

<2ii,2«^ ; : z i « - ^ A J - ^

^f~/t^jg

^rf^^«-trf-^ S^'-C=*-e-^

The Law ofNatiom
\\\ I M I H I> t \ V t Ii1

Bdited xnA w t i h a n Iniroducuon by Bcia Kopony and R k i u r d W I u H n o K 1lwxppaniKcinr7t1fof/>>v*f^,fr)u,or 7iV £.tip^A!MMi*.cstabtnhcd its author, Emer
V a n d . a> a n u f o r a u t h o r i t y o n n a t u r ^ i u r i i f m M l c n ^ . WMJ his boolt ^uiddy became t h e i m m i m p o m m worit o n i n i e n u i i o f u l l a w i n i h c c ^ t c c n t h otntury. A phJoao^hct; putst.

a n d difibunac, Vattet <[7i4-(7A7) n o u f ^ l o aiapt i b c t u i m a n t H h c r i t ^ o f Swiss politks to the m l i t i n of a modern e c o n o m y .

i H \ P T E R XIX Of our Witiie (.oitntTy. andseteral that TfLite to it. Things

tiy c e r t a i n d i i u f * j i i J s i i h i i X i t n i i * J i i i h o r i t \ v they cqujUy p j r i i i i i p j i c i n

il\ .ulxantjpcs. 7Tic n j t u o . i>r n j i u r j l - h o r n tid/ens. arc IHOMT horn i n
i h c L c i u n i r ^ , i>f [ l i r t - i u v v s h o -irr t u i / r n s As ihc i c i v . . J n i i o i cx>M jntl

DES GENS
lf;i Mll'ifllf-

Lt DROIT

1758

NJG 132013

The Law of Nations. Ch. XIX. Emer de Vattel (1714-1767), First French Edition 1758, First English ASliSfiSfeptriudlJaalfonssen, General Editor, LIBERTY FUND, INC., 833S Allison Polnte Trail, Suite 300, Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-1684 © 2008.
Natural bom citizen of the United States

From Wjkjpedia, the firee encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural born dtizen of the United States

There is no record of a debate on the "natural bom Citizen" qualification during the Constitutional Convention. This dause was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Convention as a whole. One possible source of the clause can be traced to a July 25,1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington.

presiding officer of the Convention. Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare exp that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural bom Citizen.

John Jay (December 12,1745 - May 17,1829) was an American politician, statesman, revolutionary, diplomat, a Founding Father of the United States, and the first Chief Justice of the United States (1789-95). http://en.wikipedia.org/wlki/John Jay
"Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother, let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges. Let it be written in primers, [in] spelling books and in almanacs. Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in the courts ofjustice. In short, let reverence for the law become the political religion of the nation... Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! - All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die bv suicide" - A b r a h a m Lincoln, The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions - 2 of 4 -

E X H I B I T S 1-9

ATTACHED TO BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA STATE OF ALABAMA CASE NO. 1120465 ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA CV 2012-1053 by SCOTT RILLE, Amicus curiae AUGUST 4, 2013

Monsignor Charles F. W. Dumas Chez E. van Harrevelt Amsterdam Dear Sir, Philadelphia, 9 December, 1775. I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when circumstances of a rising state make it necessaryfrequentlyto consuh the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy, which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed), has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Kindest regards, Benjamin Franklin PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT 2
(COLOR PHOTOS A N D T E X T IN ORIGINAL D O C U M E N T . )

Page 1 of 4

The Law ofNations

i\\ 1 M 1 It D ) V V I J I 1 Edited a n d wtih j n Introducrion by BcJa ICipony a n d RkKard V l u i f n o r c

l l K ^ j p e a r u K c i n Vfs'i L>r»it 4n gem. at The LMw^l>UtUmi,vsiJ^tA>xA de Vatict. as a nujor auiborifv on rurural iuiii|>nidc»cc. and his b o o k ([uJicUy became the miMt impcnunt wurit n n t n i n n a t w x v a l Uw in iK< t%htccntK ccntufy. A ph^MopKet. ) u m t . a n d difdomai. Vatid (1714-1767) l o i ^ t i « adapt the h u m a n i H heritage o f Swot p o i i i k » to the m J t i i n of a m o d e m « o f i o m y C U A P T f R XIX Of our .Wllivr (.outttry. anA icrfr,il that retijtt to it. 1 hf uti/tiis .IK- ihf riicnilHTv ot [he n \ il M>..icty: Kminil to this society hvicrt.iin iliirici jnd siih|c>.t tti i(( aiithofity, thc> ctju.illiparticipaicin ([•• .ld^,uUJg^-^ The njlivo, or tuturaliiorn titircns. arc iho«-C horn in ihc (.luiDlrv. lit patents who are mi/ens. As the Lt DSOET ICIV L jnimi CtME jnd (_ii.«n, Things

DES GENS
tCt *\TVIIH I r.

1758
J

The Law of Nations. Ch. XIX, Emer de Vattel (1714-1767), First French Edition 1758, First English Edition 1760, Knud Haakonssen, General Editor, LIBERTY FUND, INC., 8335 Allison Pointe Trait, Suite 300, Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-1684 © 2008. Natural bom citizen of the United States From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wiklped(a.org/wiki/Natural born citizen of the United States

There is no record of a debate on the "natural bom Citizen" qualification during the Constitutional Convention. This clause was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Convention as a whole. One possible source of the clause can be traced to a July 25,1787 tetter from John Jay to George Washington. presiding officer of the Convention. Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare exp that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural bom Otiien John Jay (December 12,1745 - May 17,1829) was an American politician, statesman, revolutionary, diplomat, a Founding Father of the United States, and the first Chief Justice of the United States (1789-95). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John Jay "Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother. Let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges. Let it be written in primers, [in] spelling books and in almanacs. Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in the courts ofjustice. In short, let reverence for the law become the political religion of the nation... Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! ~ All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die bv suicide". - Abraham Lincoln, The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions -2of4-

JOHN JAY'S L E T T E R T O fflS E X C E L L E N C Y G E N E R A L WASHINGTON, N E W Y O R K 25 J U L Y 1787 ON THIS D A T E G E O R G E WASHINGTON WAS PRESIDING PRESIDENT OF T H E CONSTITUTIONAL C O N V E N T I O N A T PHILADELPHIA 1787

/

- 3 of 4-

TRANSCRIPTION OF JOHN JAY'S L E T T E R TO HIS E X C E L L E N C Y G E N E R A L WASHINGTON N E W Y O R K 25 J U L Y 1787

#

I Wii^ tKvj mcmux^

Kon^rcii wUhyOw tx£cUctwy'} Tt^vtJr o/

iirnty ihiiH not hv- ^i\e*\. tty, nor l i c i o i v e * ! o n , iK*\y hut it' mtCiuitti-

C t f l ^ c i v ___

)oii4' fMthf,*l ft\6*\dtt

^eJ'V^

-4of4-

EXHIBIT 2 As evidenced below,flierecan be no doubt whatsoever our Founding Fathere and Constitutional Framers relied heavily on The Law of Nations as they struggled with the weighty matter of creating oiu* Constitution and Constitutional Republic.
[ I.fHcrs of ilflcgaics in Congress, 1774-1784. Volume 2. Scptfmhcr 1 775-l)cccmbcr 1775 P^i-f I tif4

D r l r e a l n toConams . C^Mcn o f d d t c a l f s to Congress. 1774-1789, Volume2, Septcmtwr 1775Dtcembcr 1775 licctronJc Ic\t (.'enter. liiivcn.ii> nf \'irj;ini.i I ihr;ir\ T a b k of C ODlcDls for l h » work All OB-Une daufaa*w { Etem Center Homcyayc

Benjamin Franklin lo To: Charles William Frederic Dumas
IX-ar Sir. PhilaJclphiJ.

l)o:cmtx:r. 1775.

I rcccixcd >our scleral laM>rs. otMa> ISih. June 3i.Hh. and Jul\ Rih. by Mcs?irs \'atllant and IV^hard. iJ^i whom if I could scr\c upon \out rL-cornmendaitun, it wnuld ^IM: mc jircai plcas.urc, 1 heir total want ot linglish is at present an ohilruction lu their ycuiny cmphiymcni among us. but 1 hope they will soon obuin some kw'^ledgc o! « . This is ;i LIOO J counirs tor anit'iccrs or tamicrs; hut gcnttctncn ol' mere scietKC in les belles leures cannot so easilj subsist here, there K-mg link demand for their assi'ii,vicc amoni; an industrious ptMple. \'^ho. ) ei. have mil much leisure lor vtuJics of that kinj. I am much obliged by the kind present \ou ha\e made us ot"\otjr edition oJ \ altc!, It tame lo us In ^mnd sca«)n. vvhen the cirvumstanecs of:! rising state make it necessary trequentK lo consult the law of nation>. .\ci;ordinj;l\ thai topy, which I kept, (alter siept^>>iting v>nc in v > u r own public librar> here, and >endini; Ihc olhcr lo the College of Massachusetts Ha>, as j ou directed.) has been coniinually in the hands ol'the mtmbei^ of our Conj;icss. now sitting, % s h * i are much plc-iscU ^Aith \oiir notes and preface, and ha\e enterrained a h\^h and just esteem lor their author >'our manuscnpl "Idccsur le (.jou\ emcnicnl et la Royaute" is also v^cll relished, and may, m time. ha\e its cJlecC 1 thank >oii. iikewis*.-. tor the other smaller pieces, v^hich accompanied Vattel. T c coun 1 \piise de ce qui s'esi passe entrc la C'our Untanntque ct les Colonics." he hein^ a > . ery concise and clear statement ol tacts. v.ill be repnnted here for the use of our new friends in Canada The translations ot the prwecdings of our Congress arc \er\ acceptable. I send xou herev^ith what of them has been lanher published here, together with a few newspapers, containing accounts i>f some of the successes Providence has favored us v^iih We are threatened from (England svith a \.eyy p^nverful lorcc. to come ne\l scar against us.tZj V-e are makmit all the provision in our power here to oppt>sc that force, and wc hope wc shall K' able to defend oufselv But. as the ev cnt> of war are aiv*,a) s uncenatn. possibly,

after jrwiihcr campaign, we may find it necessarv to ask the aid of some loreign ptn^er. it gives us great plexsure to leam from vou, that toute I'lurope nous stiuhaite le plus heureux sueecs ptmr le mainiien de nos libcnes. liut we vush lo know, whelher any one ot them, trom principles of humanitv, is disp«.ised magnanimtm-ilv to step in for ihe relicl ol an oppressed people, or whether, it', as it seems likelv to happen, wc shi>ulii be obliged lo break off all conncvion with Hrilain. and declare ourselves an indeperhJenl people, there is anv slate or p»>wer in l--un()pe, who would he willing to enter into an jlliancc with us for the K-netli <irour commerce, which amounted, betore the war, to near seven milliims sterling per annum, and must cimtinually increase, as our pc*>ple increase most rapidiv. Contidinji:, m\ dear frvend. m sour -^iwi wUi to us and to our cause, and in >our sa.g.aciu and abiluics tot business, ihe committee ot Congress, appomied IOT the purpt>sc ol establishing arnl conduclmg a

htip: ctexi lib.Virginia edu eichia iiKcer-new I I 'id"lX-lV"oHC \ml&images" images mi^e. .

11

1011

Paee 1 of 6

PHOTO IMAGES OF "A N U M E R I C A L C A T A L O G U E " A N D " L E DROIT DES GENS" 1775 EDITION USED B Y PERMISSION F R O M T H E LIBRARY C O M P A N Y OF PHILADELPHIA

1314 Locust St, Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 546-8229

of [he

QLIARIO

4' niia^eiuijia
PHOTO IMAGE OF T I T L E P A G E OF "A N U M E R I C A L C A T A L O G U E " T H E L O G B O O K FOR INCOMING BOOKS INTO T H E L I B R A R Y C O M P A N Y O F PHILADELPHIA PHOTO USED BY PERMISSION FROM THE LIBRARY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA (PLEASE R E F E R E N C E P A G E 1 OF EXHIBIT 2.)

-2of6-

P A G E SHOWING E N T R Y OF " L E DROIT DES GENS for V A T T E L " INTO "A N U M E R I C A L C A T A L O G U E " SHORTLY A F T E R BENJAMIN F R A N K L I N DEPOSITED FT A T T H E LIBRARY IN

1775.

PHOTO USED BY PERMISSION FROM THE LIBRARY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA

-3of

6-

DE VATTEL DROIT DES GENS

LE DROIT DES GENS [1775]
PHOTO USED BY PERMISSION FROM THE LIBRARY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA

- 4 of 6 -

TITLE PAGES OF 1 OF THE 3 VOLUMES BENJAMIN FRANKLIN RECEIVED FROM PUBLISHER DUMAS IN AMSTERDAM, HOLLAND, INCLUDING HAND-WRITTEN NOTE BY DUMAS, DEPOSITED AT THE LIBRARY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA BY BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.

''Presented to the Library Company by Monsignor Dumas (Charles F. W. Dumas). "
PHOTOS USED BY PERMISSION FROM THE LIBRARY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA

-5of

6-

Le Droit Des Gens [1775], LIV. I. CHAP. XDC. 115 The Law of Nations [1775], BOOK I. CHAPTER XIX. Page 115

PHOTO USED BY PERMISSION FROM THE LIBRARY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA

Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile: lies a cette societe par certains devoirs, & soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages. Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens. -6of6-

§. 212. Des citoyens & naturals,

EXHIBIT 3 FOUNDING FATHER JOHN JAY'S COMMAND OF THE FRENCH LANGUAGE

T

tl K

L I F E J O H N
•ifr

J A Y :

KKi.ecriOSS I ' B O M

rilS

C O R R E S r O N D K N C E

MlfCCKLLlNKOIIM I'APKHX

1(

lit!

ID I T ,

W I L L I A M

JAY,

IN T W O V O L U M E S VOK

I,

NEW -VORK: rm^TTRu AM> ruBUSHfii BV J. « J, tURrns,

/

Courtesy of WESTCHESTER COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY Elmsford, New York

Page 1 of7

lo

urc or M i l

JAV.

u n or mn

JAV.

11

hii D O c W , Mr. Pr)<H)uin, of BrifliJ. Soon alWr hii return, m I7W, Prtt-r Jay manjfd Mtrjr the flanghrpr of Jwobu Van''ivilanch. HcrriHitlicrwtif tliR'lau^ftitci'orrndcnck Hiili(nr, 9i\Ma lamAy, <>ri^»ally of Uotwrnn, kftd bcoR cqtnf^tl^'i liy popi* (wrwrmirtft w tal« pcfiigQ lit Hiittiad, fn<it whauK h e lud ciii^nicd lu Ncw-Ytuk. Tim* h»i the » u t > } < M l of our incinoir Iho hiwjour lo L e ilcNCvnded in (breo iiutonct-i from niKnlan w l i t > d w K U> jimnioa their rvuiMry miJy'r Ihitn thfir rdi^i. Peter Jay (xirMxal tbc <x.>:iifntJoii of hi» faiber and grandlalber; Utd, declining a pftitici{MliuH in Uto putilical dispiNm whtrh thm <fiiilnir4rd ihn coloay. he applied himself amduvualy lo hii buiijetf >i -i TncnJi*iit< Havinji; cunicd a fotvMis wbcl^ wiikd to the propvrt)' he had ^mmi hj >nhi^tar»w gnri marmgc, hi lh<Hif[hl niKcient. lie retojrcd, when iilltu mciTD tlian forty ycart old, lo retire tula U» country, and for this purpQM pttrclnfed a firm at Rye, on the of l^Mff likiui Sound, a fcw mSci dialamfromNew-nwhrlc awl about fivc-artd-twmly from tho cily of NuW'Yoii. To thi« iiiMAin be wai SIM prompted hy a donie«tic caUmity. 'I'wo </ liii childreiv a mia nnd a iiniif;hlGr, wens allackcd in lht:ir inJaocy by mwllpox, and wer« dqirivcd or«f(ht hy xiiia l^^inidalih! duKiue, the rijhl In-jtunciit of w h m h wac I h c m unknnwn or not pnictiKil. It w » thought that ttr two liltic niflcrrr* could be brought Dp nwtn mMy ami iidvaiil«AQou*ly ia tho cotmtry than the ciiy. i'eCcr Jay had bi^n fiiildrrn; jontt wnx lun rigNlt diilal, aitd was Ituni in OK city of New-Yvrk the I3th Dccmher, 1715. Hr vmn nainetl nficr tho Honwinible Ji)l>n<'lHiinbuni,<iiH! nf lUe Ju^goa of ihe Supreme C<nin of ihe prtniDM. vho bad rmrrinl I t i a motlmrN ni^rr. (hi the roTtmvitl of tim tttiuiy ki Kyc, Ui w a > cariKd ihcre in ha Durwc'ii anna; Therht»m.tfr tlm pniit*,*lw n u w tWvulcd thanK K U tu tho edwaiuun uf their children, dcMTVcs to b« BoliaML It «mi a theme an which their ten doJighted to ooft-

aodreTcrawed •tth^wmbrMm. Berth father •«! moiher vrero actuated 1^flitwontuwlfcrveolpiecy j both had w a r m hearti •nd dtmtrtti tmpen; and both poaaeMed, ttader nhcd tnore tnaU, a tna&iUUe degnc of «(|uuuauty. But ^othtrretpectaiheydiAered widely. 1I« j w a s e a a t ^ strong flHiculbw aam, was a >ki«wd obterrer and adinirablti jod|aofiiMa; mahN^psraereritif,andpinkleni; an afleetfoMU 6thar, a kint tnaitcr. hil goirmiag all ttnder hia control with mild but abaolute sway. Nlio Md a cultivated mind todfinetmafpimlioa; mild and aBi.'cliomtc in tier (•mjier BIMI maiwen, ihe took ilclight >ii I\K dunk* aa well u ihg pleatnns of dotnotjc life; while a rhcrrful re«gna> t > M tA die w r R of Proridenc«, durinit many y*^r» of n-kOBH anl tuAerinf;, bar* wilnna to llw •In.-x^h of her religiota Aith. So happily did ihenc various di*j>o«iti«MM harMonilo together, that Ihit nutijrart 'if ihts RWRKHT often dadaied, that he )md nrvnr, in a ^ttf^-. ijwtaHce, bnrd eilhtr of his parenu uae l»waid« the other an Kfi^y or WBhisd word. NotwilhKaiiding tb«! cares of a \ainf: family, the moihrr devotett mucli of her time lo th-. imlructitin nf t l > e tw« blind eUdrCB aiw) of the ltllh> JnhiL To ^ fomwr tht read the beM aDthOTi; to ihe latter laiiKht the nidimenti of Sa^A, and tho l^arin frniransr. Wbcti between MI and •PV«a jnetn o)d.hii lalher, w r i ^ about him lo ooe of the tuaSfy, mnarted, *• J<rfinny ii of a yery gan ditpuailion. ud taka lo kkraiag exceedingly welL lit will a o o n be fit tofftto agnmmar'Mhool." Wbeaei^tyainoidhewaa •MU to a gniniMr-wJwol kept by the Rer. Mr. Stoope, ptMorof the French church It New-RocheUe. Hiicharactar,«VM at dui earty a ^ a e e m a to have b e e n raAcgeotly Miked toflicitethefavouraUoaitlidpatioosof InidiKerRiag MK, wtw, IB a letter to Mr, PeloqiBii of BtiMol, «lMemd, " I cannot tbihetr takii^ the (itedom of htnling 1 0 you chiC my Johaay gtvai m e « very fkttieg prapcct

•mmtfarleMim haw p««ii» been aoloftti

logo to a grftmniftr-sdux}!.*' When eight jrearvoEdhe wa« sent toftgnunnur-Khool kept by the Rev. Mr. Stoopcp piistor of the Pranch church i t Nev-Rochette. Hii cliaimc-

"When eight years old he was sent to a grammar-school kept by the Rev. Mr. Stoope, pastor of the French church at New-Rochelle."

-2 of 7-

ijrc or

JOMK J A V .

u n or JoiM Jar. tare pioduwd mote good achobri ir> i.ropoiiion to

He leemi to he p«l"»uJ uiili a voj-j' good rijncity, in ¥cry rcjcrvoi*, sod quite of hit \*milirf JUTIL-I'I dicfntrti'in Tbr g<iillirflaii to ubM»> d i a r ^ lie was iww cofMrniltd W M H nalivr of MwilzniiiMl, ;IIKI of orjil IHIJIL'. I ^ w » n l of llic VforM. f<:^aiiUi'u of mowy, 3)M1 tcin&rkabk: for IJMenre of niimi, h"^ rfirvutrtl ivi-ry uiui)n.-ul of lu» ktturc to hii sUiditi. :Liid paitimlaHy to tlic inslh'Ht*li>'j; mui Im leA theiJiHlufWhtlfpivrrmitLTAuftuiii^ilf nitd liMbowlwjd ki Ilia wift^ who w u ai penurious an W WM car«len. The parionagc oiul every thing HIK.HH il MDS «iitr>n.*l I'l tlecav, and ifw boy.t wrm t m l r J «ilh liltlo fond aril liitieh twolillag. IJule M lie wai, Jnhn .-jmirAt-J b» jirpvrnt i(v RWW from driAing uyOa hi* l»>l. I>y closiiif; tfte brvki-n junea of gtiM wiih jiiecai id" woinl. ' [ V r«nitni«l k t w i c n MKII lod^jjigi and aaeh 'jvalinfiil ami thai to which \K wai acciiirtoRH'd al honx: ^«-al iu>l piRistii);, hiit pnMhIy not vitlioul i l l uses. The plain aiv\ tannii'. itirt Ui whicii he wainnnhnnrihil irt tluil iiHliA'ereiictilotlicQaahty ui liiifixxl for uhich ihroufth !itc he wat miiatlLably (ttsttiiKiushcd, wkiid h» cimattditiiHi no d u i U deriviil addiUi^Hl ^lrt.•l0h and vigour from the hanWiii« i " whidi wai rijiosrd. Hin hntlth w&s nJniM: and iii nftor-tiX' t» usnJ to mrtitkiti the ploanin) he at this lime enjoyrd in PMUIIIV ihrou^ ilw Woods and (nthrriHg ruilx, wliit^h I K carried Imiv in hii ««kin([», wliich be Hrippcd off ftir tlwj |nir]«»-. The inhabit^ilii i4 tlw sjikjit: Wi^n- dui-lly ileaoMMiiiiU of French rtfu(!«f«,nwl Preuch wa« spolcn hy th.m,B«willa« i n i f r inmunaj^; aiul hf tluu aL-t^uired, wttii hldu trouble, a l u i . fuagc tir whit-h h-ir! ftflrnt'afi *> murh uae. IIa retiiainnlai (Im MrJK»tICIiR» )<-»r(, when lu» &t!ter locA him home and pU<xd hiin ottAi the iiiiin«ni(>u of a |q-ivaic tutor, whi> tjraiiplPir-d hii |>ni«irjtiini Iw coilcice. King's (now ColuuihiJi} CUJtj{c w.is ibrn in its inlancv, and had but few ntwleni*. TKs munW <if thein hai never been large, bitf ifacru ure few coUcg«j ia our couatrj' which

MuiiiiKr Ihao da*. To Ml coUege Mr. Jay was in 1760. fceliiK i mora than touitcnt y « r » old. The etoellent Dr. Saiiiildl Joluiaon waa then pRsaleDl. T t e yottng fr<*hniau waa tww tuddenly intnxluwif m a •oeoG eiititsly new to him, and was dirown am<iu({ <rtnpaoiom «f «anou> ilivpotilitMis and lutbils, wilhoot any o4her g«d« Of monitor tlian hii own gnod wntc and TJrtDe- H i i inlcrt«itir*L- with «tlli.T« luadc han aeiaAiVr of U I own deficiwJ^*. arat lic rmiiniriK^-'i ih*' work of correcting ihrm with i rMoluti^li and )x-r*evcr«i«! nol ofbii oiinfied in earfy ywilii. Iliii arlM-ulRli-w wag iwluiliucl. and hi« mode di proiKumcing itw: Ivller A expovil him w ridicule. He |Mrt*o«a a iw«>k writu-n b)- Sheridan. 1)H^ b«b!y hia Ij«:(iiref 00 Kloctttinn. (iwd, slmHiiig himself up daily in hii room, nUtAfei i( idl ta< "hjwt wii* i.ccui»)**M. Ho b«d a hiiliit oi miiinp f> rapidly »» f-^ uiukTsinorf with difficulty. Fi)r tin- pimps'* < > f corTi^-l>nx Ihis fault, l« rewlalcrtkl (o iu«»»eK waliiw J > ' • " ' 7 word, Utit be had anpiiied a conijiclc cxjiilrol of lii> VOK:« ; ami he tliM bewiiw an escelkiil P-nih:r. Wilh the tam eiKrjO" be pomwl o l hi* i«»U-s ai»l esjK-rially atlrwhxl lo Eii^Hlh CMOpwitJoB. So iBlcol 00Has'hai when «t««iv to write an K n ^ ^ fHirciw, he plmi-d a pKn- « > f [rtptr awl u ptiicil by hii It-d'tile, tlmi if. «!afc m-Jilatiu^' w hi» •Direct in tlw night, a valualth- iilra n>fUrrril In hilil, knjlbt make aune note of it, even ui the dark, that m i ^ t n ^ M it ia the momiag. B i i apfltcatitm aitd correct ilcportiniiil acquired for lw>i Ihe tautm and friemiiiJap of tli^ piwidenl. Thi« worthy Bian reaigned hJa ofl'ice after Mr. Jay had l»e*n Ihre* yvan inconege,Bnd retired lo C<mnecti«ntl,from whrricc Iw wrote • Und letter to fan late pupil, inviting him to vitil Nm. and aaauiig him of hii praycn Uml k i i i i i ^ "rontinue luaei ft good part" Dr. Jobti«») was gitcceedol in the pres-

P. 12

Stocking*,

which

l*e

stripped! o f f

fw

tSo

imrixwc.

Tiie

i n h f t b i l a t i M r i f t h o villn ^rirefugees, a n d |j«n«M»gc; g t j a g e for Preuch was

cjiicriy dotcsindauts of F r c n d i s p o k o n l)y

iht-m, an

M t:ll as

in

OK;

a i u l lie t l n u a c q i u p j d ^ wiUj h U l u i r f u b l e . a w i i k - . h l»e h a d a r t o r u a r t ! mi i n i u h U M ^ . HI.

laii-

n t f t i i K x l at tltiM home Aitij

avUft]

t h r w ; y<-.-*i-ii, \ v l t v » hiti f a t l w r t o o k h i i o i i u t i n ^ H t i H t oV a jwivalc

pUccd

liijn u m U - r

"The inhabitants of the village were chiefly descendants of French refiigees, and French was spoken by them, as well as in the parsonage; and he thus acquired, with little trouble, a language -3of7-

for which he had afterward so much use." John Jay's grandfather, Augustus Jay, was bom in France. Important: " . . . a language for which he had afterword so much use." French was the diplomatic and court language in use in Europe in the 1700s. John Jay was the United States Minister to Spain [September 27,1779 - May 20,1782]; Minister to France [1782-1784], assisting in the Treaty of Paris negotiations; and 2 " * ^ Secretary of Foreign Affairs [May 7,1784 - March 22, 1790]. His command of the French language served our country well.

Etienne Claviere pour la' Societe des Amis des Noirs [Etienne Claviere for the Society of Friends of the Blacks] - Paris Manumission Society to the New York Manumission Society.

a

/tJ X^/ltU-oU-Ai

r*//a*«.

m*4itu*-f turn* ^ "f/^ *^ ^ tt^U, 'iM'aa M<«>^c mtMml^J nimnjm

.'s'( j" '•\-

' f^tittfiimtJK.^^ywwAA.^ffAx-.

ha^iJ *M«A^, JM.fmdmt ^

ttm,fm*, imd iU-

-4 of 7-

A.

^ .a.it M H < u ( Z * ^ * . * A> lVii-T ^ M - f . ^ ^ - ^ ^ -

A

•y'*-^ V— * ^ *»

^f^^

Jif^^tt, «la.^tAlr Jfay.W,

^<>^ •''"V^ *"

*

^M^....

X-«i^Ai.iV^/Cr— « ^

V

.*«,5t ».W

^^ur* &

-

y»*-jf

JOHN JAY'S TRANSLATION OF THE ABOVE FRENCH DOCUMENT INTO ENGLISH "Trans, in JJ's hand". TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL FRENCH AND TRANSCRIPTION OF JAY'S TRANSLATION BELOW.
Courtesy of The Papers of John Jay Project, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Butler Library, Columbia University.

E t i e n n e C l a v i e r e pour l a ' S o c i e t e des Amis des N o i r s t o t h e New York Manumission S o c i e t y [ P a r i s , l e 29. A v r i l . 1788.]

-5of7-

La S o c i e t e e t a b l i e a P a r i s , a I ' i n s t a r de c e l l e d ' A n g l e t e r r e e t d'Amerique, pour operer I ' a b o l i t i o n de l a T r a i t e e t de I ' E s c l a v a g e des Negres; des E s c l a v e s :

a l a S o c i e t e e t a b l i e a New-Yorck, pour 1 ' A f f r a n c h i s s e m e n t

La c o n f o r m i t e q u i e x i s t e , e n t r e l e s vues de n o t r e S o c i e t e , es l e s v o t r e s , nous engage a vous i n f o r m e r que M. Jeau P i e r r e B r i s s o t de W a r v i l l e , q u i a e t e , j u s q u ' lumieres et aux

a p r e s e n t , n o t r e S e c r e t a i r e , e t q u i , p a r ses sentimens d'humanite, ses et un z e i e i n f a t i g u a b l e , a p r i n c i p a l e m e n t c o n t r i b u e a 1 ' e t a b l i s s e m e n t

p r o g r e s de n o t r e S o c i e t e , a e n t r e p r i s un voyage dans I'Amerique S e p t e n t r i o n a l e ; que dans l e course de ce voyage, i l se propose se r e c u e i l l i r t o u t e s l e s l u m i e r e s p o s s i b l e s , s u r l e s o r t des Negres, dans c e t t e p a r t i e du monde; s u r l e s mesures p r i s e s s o i t pour l e s a f f r a n c h i r , s o i t pour m e t t r e f i n a l e u r importation, sur l e s

r e s u l t a t s a c t u e l s de ces mesures, tous p a r r a p p o r t a l a c u l t u r e des t e r r e s , qu'au c a r a c t e r e m o r a l des Negres, et en g e n e r a l s u r t o u t ce q u i concerne c e t t e malheureuse, mais i n t e r e s s a n t e p o r t i o n de I'espece humaine, e t pour s e r v i r a determiner en sa f a v e u r l e s Gouvernemens e t l e s I n d i v i d u s : et comme l e succes des

pour e t a b l i r e n t r e n o t r e S o c i e t e e t l a V o t r e , une

r e l a t i o n de f r a t e r n i t e , e t de de

Correspondance m u t u e l l e : a q u o i nous esperons que vous ne r e f u s e r e z pas

c o n c o u r r i r e t nous vous p r i o n s d ' a j o u t e r p l e i n e e t e n t i e r e f o i , a t o u t ce que l a d i t S i e u r de W a r v i l l e vous e x p o s e r a , a ce s u j e t de n o t r e p a r t . notre

En f o i de q u o i nous avons f a i t apposer a c e t t e L e t t r e , l e sceau de S o c i e t e , e t l a s i g n a t u r e de n o t r e P r e s i d e n t . F a i t , a P a r i s , l e 29. A v r i l . 1788.

E. C l a v i e r e , P r e s i d e n t

-6of7-

[ P a r i s , 29 Ap.

1788]

The S o c i e t y e s t a b l i s h e d a t P a r i s , l i k e t h o s e of England and America, t o promote the a b o l i t i o n of t h e Treatment^ and S l a v e r y o f Negroes To the S o c i e t y E s t a b l i s h e d a t New York f o r t h e L i b e r a t i o n of Slaves—• & of y o u r s , been, and

The C o n f o r m i t y which e x i s t s between the Views o f our S o c i e t y

induces us t o i n f o r m you t h a t M ' ^ John P i e r r e B r i s s o t de W a r v i l l e , who has u n t i l now, our S e c r e t a r y ; and who by h i s S e n t i m e n t s o f Humanity,

h i s Talents

h i s z e a l u n r e m i t t e d Z e a l , has p r i n c i p a l l y c o n t r i b u t e d

t o the I n s t i t u t i o n &

P r o g r e s s o f our S o c i e t y , has u n d e r t a k e n a Voyage t o N o r t h A m e r i c a ; — That i n the Course of t h i s Voyage he proposes t o a c q u i r e a l l the Information possible.

C r e d i t t o whatever the S a i d M^. de W a r v i l l e s h a l l communicate t o you on t h i s S u b j e c t on our Part^ I n Witness whereof we have caused the S e a l o f our S o c i e t y t o be a f f i x e d t o t h i s L e t t e r , eftd and a l s o the S i g n a t u r e Done a t P a r i s 29 Ap. 1788 (signed) E. C l a v i e r e , LS, NNC President o f our President

(EJ: 7287). T r a n s , i n J J ' s hand ( E J : 7288). Endorsed: " T r a n s l a t i o n o f dated 22 Apr. 1788, i n de l a S o c i e t e e t a b l i e a

L e t t e r from P a r i s S o c i e t y — / 2 9 A p r i l 1788". E n c l o s u r e , French and t r a n s , i n J J ' s hand: " E x t r a i t des R e g i s t r e s P a r i s , pour d ' a b o l i t i o n de l a T r a i t e des Negres," 1. T r a i t e des Negres r e f e r s t o the s l a v e

( E J : 7286, 7289).

trade.

2. For B r i s s o t de W a r v i l l e ' s v i s i t t o A m e r i c a , see the e d i t o r i a l note "John Jay, A n t i - S l a v e r y , and the New York Manumission S o c i e t y , " above [5 Feb. 1785].

-7 of 7-

EXfflBIT 4
FRENCH TO ENGLISH TRANSLATION AND DICTIONARY EXCERPTS REVEAL NATURAL & NATIVE "BORN" ROOT MEANINGS.

GOOGLE TRANSLATE: FRENCH: naturels indigenes

ENGLISH: natural indigenous, natives

1758 First French Edition of Le Droit Des Gens: §. 212 Les Citoyens sont les nnembres de la Societe Civile: Lies a cette Societe par Des ctioyens certains devoirs, & sounnis a son Autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses advan& Naturels. tages. Les Naturels, ou Indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pais, de Parens Citoyens. 1760 Edition of The Law of Nations, First English Translation:
§.212.

Oftheciti-

zens and
natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society: boimd to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those bom in the country of parents who are Citizens.

1787 Edition, The Law of Nations, English Translation:
C H A P . (^tie i a>t. Ctmtitrjy XIX. the ftvtral TUngt that rtlmtt te it.

' ~ r ^ H E wbok of 1 coDrtry poAcftd bf aimioa and X UJbfcQ. to its b v t , (oim, at we b m drcidf laid, i u terrinricsi md tl K ibe cominua coanUr gf lU tW iodin d m b of iHc mtkia. oar inbf W e havefaeeno b l i ^ to anticipate beuufe a ibc ikfinitioo of tbe term tur tmmlrj (). i l l . )

led us to treat of the lore of om amaaj,

virtoe estfcmelf cxcdknt lod BecdQjf in a ftate. Sappofing thait ttitt <lefimikra aktadf known* it l a m i n i Aat we
OKMIU

hcie etflaiii fefcnl cHings tbu have a

yebtKHi to it, vul aafwer ibe <|tieftioiu that b a n been made oo tUs fubjctl. 0 :^*'!'.wii M i aunct, 'Hie cioMSS are the memben of die d n l fociety: Tbe bound to this focictf b j cenatD dutiet, and ftdijeO to its amburity, ihey etjuaHy participate in its advantages. parems wbo are diizens. Atffcr/i or ituTigtiKt, are ihofc bom in the coonory of Sodetjr not hang aUe to Tubfift» aad perpetuate it&lf» but by the chiUrcn of ibe citizens; tboCc cbiktrea naiurallj rbUow the condition of their falherS) and fucceed to all their riglMs. The 'orirty is fuppofed 10 defire this > ia "Hifequence of what owe* to its own prefervatton; aad it b prcfumcd tba« each citizen, on entering into fociety, .eferves to tiU chtUren ibe rigbt of tbeir becoming members. Tbe coutury of tbe

Page 1 of 6

1775 Edition, Le Droit des Gens, Livre I, Chapitre XIX Edition used by the Founders Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile: lies a cette societe par certains devoirs, & soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages. Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens. §. 212.
Des citoyens & naturels.

A French teacher, of French ancestry and heritage, provided Amicus curiae herein with the following insight: DearMrRille, Vattel used the words "naturels" (naturals/naturally born) and "indigenes" (from the Latin word "indigena" which means "natives" ) to refer to French natives who inherit their French citizenship through their French parents (right of blood) as opposed to foreigners born in France who would only be considered as inhabitants of France, not as French citizens. http://www. 1828-dictionarv.com/

Nafu'nl
[OE.

ncBt^il

F.

natural ft.

L,

nattealiz,

fr.

nmura.

S«e Nature 1

F. naturel

1S28 Df finldoD
N A T U R A L , » . [to be b o m or p f o d u c e d ] 1. Pertaintfig to l u t u r e ; p r o d u c e d o r effected b y n a m r e , o r b y tlie \x^t gton^ih^foroation o r m o t i o n ts^^ressed o n b o d i e s o r b e t ^ dhine of

to be bom

pcrsm^

T b u s w e speak o f tbe n a t u f i l groiAth o f animals o r p l a n t s ,

the

natural m o t i o n o f a gn>'itatin| b o d y ; t u t u n l strength o r d i s p o s i t i o n ; ihs natural beat o f tbe bod>'; natural color, natural beauty. In is o p p o s e d to a n i S c t a l o r a c q u i r e d sense, natural

1!. Qkfitimate; bom out of wedlock; as a natural soa - 2 of 6 -

bom out of wedlock

http://www.mernam-webster.com/ Merriam-Webster Dictionary n a t u r a l - b o m adj
Oefmition of NATURAL-BORN |3.^-

: having a spBcifi«d status or charactftr by birth <a nazyral^ bcm describ«r A-ith a memory for details — Efn«stine Evans> <she's a nawnUbom nursft — Winston Churchtll>; «sp : having th« lagal status of citizsn or subjact <no parson except a natut^l-bofn citizen shall be eligible to the ofBce of president — US. Cortsvtytion> — compare \i.Tr,f-SOJ^*.

* Next word in the Dictionary: natural bridge * Previous Word in the Dictionary: natural bark ' All Words Near: natural-born

nat-u-ral

adj

'.na-chs-rsl, nach-ral-

Definition of NATURAL 1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <nstur3l justice> 2 a : being in accordance with or determined bv nature

C

b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature becottcn 3 a (l) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : ^smMuTS (2): being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <nazural parents> . , „ ^ / Lijs. b : :«^GT:MiiT£ <a natural child> 4 : having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a natural deduction from the evidence> 5 : implanted or being as If implanted by nature : seemingly inborn <a natural talent for art> Inborn ILLEGITIMATE (born out of ^. ., wedlock)

- 3 of 6 -

Origin of NATURAL Middle English, from Anglo-French mzuref, from Latin nstunlis of nature, from natura nature First Known Use: I4th century ReUted to NATURAL Synonyms: born, congenital Antonyms: nonnatural : - : more Synonym Discussion o f NATURAL
\i,Tu^i.-^ :*.;^E\U0-JS, u\&D5--iST:caED, i.!^TL£S5 mean free

Anglo-French naturel

born, congenital

from pretension or calculation. \ J . T u ^ & . implies lacking artificiality and self-consciousness and having a spontaneousness suggesting the natural rather than the man -made world <her unaffected, natural manner>. implies inability to disguise or conceal one's feelings or intentions <the ingenuous enthusiasm of children>. suggests lack of worldly wisdom often connoting credulousness and unchecked innocence <politicallv na)Ve>.

C O l l g e n i tal

^'l)

adjective

\ken-je-n3 e i , kan-\

Definition of CONGENITAL 1 a : existing at or dating from birth <congenital deafness>

Related to CONGENITAL S y n o n y m s : born, natural A n t o n y m s : nonnatura born, natural

- 4 of 6 -

• g 6 n 6

^

noun

> m-Ce-j^n

Oefin.tron o f INDIGENE

NATIVE
V a r i a n t s of I N D I G E N E

in*di-g«n« • <

also *i»^i-g«n 4

f xrantples o f I N D I G E N E

• <the mdfg^nts had not merely adapted to the harsh climate, but had in fact prospftr«d in it>
Ofigin o f INDIGENE

Latin indigena

Latin ind>g^na First Known Use. 1598
in-dig-e-nous ^ arf> m d. n=3

Definitton o f INDIGENOUS

B^^^

1 : produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment <indigencus ptants> <the indigenous culture>

naturally

INBORN

native

^l)

adjective

\na tiv\

Definition of NATIVE

Bl-i^« <native

1:N iB O R N jI N N A T E

t a l e n t 5 >

INBORN by birth

2 : belonging to a particular place by birth 3 archaic : closely related 4 : belonging to or associated with one by birth

by birth NATURAL

5 :N A T U R A L ,N O R M A L
6 a : grown, produced, or originating in a particular place or in the vicinity : LOCAL b : living or growing naturally in a particular region :

I N D I G E N O U S

INDIGENOUS

- 5 of 6 -

Related to NJATIVE S y n o n y m s : aboriginal, autochthonous, born, domestic, endemic, indigenous born indigenous

Synonym Discussion of \ATIVE INDIGENOUS mean belonging to a locality. NATIVE implies birth or origin in a place or region and may suggest compatibility with it <native tnbal customs>. INDIGENOUS applies to species or races and adds to NATIVE the implication of not having been introduced from
NATIVE, INDIGENOUS, ENDEMIC, ABORIGINAL

bjrth

elsewhere <maize is indigenous

to America>. ENDEMIC implies

JOHN JAY AND THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION [May 1787],fromVolume 4 of the Selected Papers of John Jay, Columbia University (impublished work in progress). "Jay was undoubtedly the most influential proponent of constitutional reform who was denied an opportunity to attend the Philadelphia convention. Adams later said that Jay was 'of more importance than any of the rest, indeed of almost as much weight as all the rest. That gentleman had as much influence in the preparatory measures, in digesting the Constitution, and in obtaining its adoption, as any man in the nation.'"^
7. John Adams to James Lloyd, 6 Feb. 1815, LbkC, MHi: Adams; JAW, 10; 115. Courtesy of The Papers of John Jay Project, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Butler Library, Columbia University.

-6 of 6-

EXHIBIT 5
FOUNDING FATHER JOHN JAY AND LE DROIT DES GENS [THE LAW OF NATIONS] AUTHOR; EMMERICH de VATTEL FIRST FRENCH EDITION 1758; FIRST ENGLISH EDITION 1759-60; 2 ^ FRENCH EDITION 1775 John Jay was elected as a Delegate to the First Continental Congress from New York. In office September 5, 1774 - October 26, 1774. He was elected as a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress from New York. In office December 7, 1778 - September 28, 1779. He was elected the 6th President of the Continental Congress from New York. In office December 10, 1778 - September 28, 1779. Benjamin Franklin is the only Foimding Father who is a signatory of all four of the major documents of the founding of the United States: the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Paris, the Treaty of Alliance with France, and the United States Constitution. In 1775 he wrote: Monsignor Charles F. W. Dumas Chez E. van Harrevelt Amsterdam Dear Sir, Philadelphia, 9 December, 1775. I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy, which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed), has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Kindest regards, Benjamin Franklin Founding Father John Jay owned his own personal copy of The Law of Nations. John Jay was United States Minister to Spain from September 27, 1779 - May 20, 1782. He wrote the following letter [reproduced in part] to his friend and confidant Gouvemeur Morris, from San [s^. ] Ildefonso, Spain. San Ildefonso, or La Granja, or La Granja de San Ildefonso, is a town and municipality in the province of Segovia, Spain, situated some 54 km northwest of Madrid. The Royal Palace of La Granja, located at San Ildefonso, was built by King Philip V in 1724. The palace has been called "the Versailles of Spain". Gouvemeur Morris [January 31,1752 - November 6, 1816] was an American statesman, a Founding Father of the United States, and a native of New York City who represented Pennsylvania in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and U.S. Minister Plenipotentiary to France 1792-1794.

Page 1 of 5

To Gouvemeur

Morris S^. I l d e f o n s o 28 Sep. 1781

D " " . Morris My l a s t t o you was o f t h e 24^^. U l t . — T r i p l i c a t e s have been sent I have

rec'^. none from you l a t e r than 10 J u l y by Maj''. F r a n k s — Yours o f t h e 2 ' ^ . Jan^. & 4 March never reached me—^ t h e r e i s Reason t o b e l i e v e that^^ t h e m i n i s t e r PRIME MINISTER HERE HAS T H E M — T e l l me what you t h i n k o f MY LETTER, TO t h e r r o o i d c n t ^CONGRESS^ OF THE [
]

I n s t a n t ^OF THIS MONTH^ I was Peace does not appear v e r y n i g h . THIS COURT AND THAT OF
FRANCE DO NOT DRAW ODIOUS TO A

p e r f e c t l y w e l l — EXCEPT A JEW, I CAN HEAR OF n o t h i n g so p e r f e c t l y

S p a n i a r d AS A FRENCHMAN. T H I S GOVERNMENT HAS l i t t l e MONEY, LESS WISDOM, NO [ i l l e g i b l e ] ^RIGHT^ TO I T — THEY HAVE PRIDE WITHOUT DIGNITY, CUNNING WITHOUT

CREDIT, NOR ANY

roLiCY, AND NOBILITY WITHOUT HONOR— I speake w i t h c e r t a i n t y — what WHAT NEW MEN may
'^MIGHT'^ DO I S UNCERTMN — YOUR B I L L S HAVE DONE MUCH M I S C H I E F — THE KING MEANS WELL BUT KNOWS

n o t h i n g V A T T E L S L A W O F NATIONS^"^ W H I C H

I FOUND QUOTED I N a L e t t e r

I

rOG^—

f r o m C O N G R E S S I S PROHIBITED HERE I c o n f i d e i n your Prudence & S e c r e c y .

I hear so Seldom from & so l i t t l e o f my F a t h e r s F a m i l y , t h a t you w i l l o b l i g e me g r e a t l y by m e n t i o n i n g from t i m e t o Time what you may know o r hear ab*^ them The Cypher I use i s N°. 1. The o n l y one I have as y e t rec'* I hope, a

D u p l i c a t e o f i t w i l l not be sent u n l e s s by a v e r y s a f e opp^. I am v e r y much yours JJ remember us t o o u r F r i e n d s a t P h ^ . — you know who t h e y are^'

. 4. Emmerich de V a t t e l was c i t e d by d e l e g a t e s i n Congress, n o t a b l y James Madison, t o deny the r i g h t o f a n a t i o n h o l d i n g the mouth o f a r i v e r t o bar

"innocent passage." Peacemakers, 239.

Excerpted from drafts of the work on Jay and natural bom citizen being done for volume 4 of the Selected Papers of John Jay, The Papers of John Jay Project, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Butler Library, Columbia University.

Minister to Spain John Jay's instnjctions from Congress to be conveyed to "his Charles ffl. King of Spain [1759-1788].

c a t h o l i c Majesty"

From t h e P r e s i d e n t o f Congress (Samuel Jay's I n s t r u c t i o n s

Huntington)^

P h i l a d e l p h i a Oct. 17. 1780. Sir, Congress h a v i n g i n t h e i r I n s t r u c t i o n s o f t h e 4 * ^ ^ . Inst.^ d i r e c t e d you t o of the

adhere s t r i c t l y t o t h e i r former I n s t r u c t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e b o u n d a r i e s U n i t e d S t a t e s , t o i n s i s t on t h e N a v i g a t i o n o f t h e M i s s i s s i p p i

f o r the Citizens of

the U n i t e d S t a t e s i n Common w i t h t h e S u b j e c t s o f h i s Catholic Majesty, as a l s o on a f r e e P o r t o r P o r t s below t h e N o r t h e r n l i m i t o f W e s t — F l o r i d a and a c c e s s i b l e t o

Merchant S h i p s , f o r t h e Use o f t h e former and b e i n g s e n s i b l e o f t h e I n f l u e n c e which these C l a i m s on t h e P a r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s may have on your N e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h t h e Court o f M a d r i d , have thought i t e x p e d i e n t t o e x p l a i n t h e Reasons and t o s a t i s f y that

P r i n c i p l e s on which t h e same a r e founded, t h a t you may be e n a b l e d Court o f t h e E q u i t y & J u s t i c e o f t h e i r I n t e n t i o n s .

"An innocent Passage ( s a i d V a t t e l ) i s due to a l l Nations with whom a S t a t e i s a t Peace, and t h i s Duty comprehends troops e q u a l l y with I n d i v i d u a l s " i f

a Right t o a Passage by Land through o t h e r C o u n t r i e s may be claimed f o r troops which a r e employed i n the D e s t r u c t i o n o f Mankind how much more may

a Passage by Water be claimed f o r Commerce which i s b e n e f i c i a l t o a l l Nations. ^

These o b s e r v a t i o n s you w i l l r e a d i l y d i s c e r n are n o t communicated t o be urged a t a l l Events and as t h e y h e r e s t a n d i n Support o f t h e C l a i m s t o w h i c h t h e y r e l a t e . They are i n t e n d e d f o r your p r i v a t e i n f o r m a t i o n and use and a r e t o be urged so f a r and i n such form o n l y as w i l l b e s t S u i t t h e temper fi S e n t i m e n t s o f t h e C o u r t a t which you r e s i d e and b e s t f u l f i l l the o b j e c t o f t h e m . — By Order o f Congress (Signed) Sam. H u n t i n g t o n President^^ 1. I n a l e t t e r t o BF o f 28 Oct., James L o v e l l , chairman o f t h e committee f o r f o r e i g n a f f a i r s , e x p l a i n e d t h a t , on Oct. 6, Congress had s e l e c t e d a committee (James Madison, John S u l l i v a n and James Duane) t o w r i t e a l e t t e r t o J J and BF t h a t would " e n f o r c e " i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s t o J J o f 4 Oct. (above). Congress a c c e p t e d the committee's d r a f t , i n the hand o f James Madison, p r e s e n t e d t o i t on 16 Oct. committee

L o v e l l then t o l d BF t h a t he was t h e o n l y member o f the f o r e i g n a f f a i r s then a t t e n d i n g Congress and t h a t he had no s e c r e t a r y . J J a l l the papers d i r e c t e d t o J J t h a t he r e c e i v e d . PBF, 33: 471-72.

He asked BF t o t r a n s m i t t o

See JCC, 18: 908, 935-47;

P r i o r t o s u b m i t t i n g the d r a f t t o Congress, Madison had d i s c u s s e d most o f t h e major p o i n t s i t r a i s e d w i t h M a r b o i s , who u n i f o r m l y r e j e c t e d contentions. Madison's

For the i n t e n s e p r e s s u r e b o t h M a r b o i s and F r a n c i s c o Rendon e x e r t e d

on Congress t o r e t r a c t i t s i n s i s t e n c e on M i s s i s s i p p i n a v i g a t i o n and boundary, see

a Right to a Passage by Land through o t h e r C o u n t r i e s may be claimed f o r troops which a r e employed i n the D e s t r u c t i o n o f Mankind how much more may

a Passage by Water be claimed f o r Commerce which i s b e n e f i c i a l t o a l l Nations. ^

These o b s e r v a t i o n s you w i l l r e a d i l y d i s c e r n a r e n o t communicated t o be urged a t a l l Events and as t h e y h e r e s t a n d i n Support o f t h e C l a i m s t o w h i c h t h e y r e l a t e . They are i n t e n d e d f o r your p r i v a t e i n f o r m a t i o n and use and a r e t o be urged so f a r and i n such form o n l y as w i l l b e s t S u i t t h e temper & Sentiments o f the Court a t

which you r e s i d e and b e s t f u l f i l l t h e o b j e c t o f t h e m . — By Order o f Congress (Signed) Sam. H u n t i n g t o n President^^ 1. I n a l e t t e r t o BF o f 28 Oct., James L o v e l l , chairman o f t h e committee f o r f o r e i g n a f f a i r s , e x p l a i n e d t h a t , on Oct. 6, Congress had s e l e c t e d a committee (James Madison, John S u l l i v a n and James Duane) t o w r i t e a l e t t e r t o J J and BF t h a t would " e n f o r c e " i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s t o J J o f 4 Oct. the (above). Congress a c c e p t e d

committee's d r a f t , i n the hand o f James Madison, p r e s e n t e d t o i t on 16 Oct. committee

L o v e l l t h e n t o l d BF t h a t he was the o n l y member o f t h e f o r e i g n a f f a i r s then a t t e n d i n g Congress and t h a t he had no s e c r e t a r y . J J a l l the papers d i r e c t e d t o J J t h a t he r e c e i v e d . PBF, 33: 471-72.

He asked BF t o t r a n s m i t t o

See JCC, 18: 908, 935-47;

P r i o r t o s u b m i t t i n g the d r a f t t o Congress, Madison had d i s c u s s e d most o f t h e major p o i n t s i t r a i s e d w i t h M a r b o i s , who u n i f o r m l y r e j e c t e d contentions. Madison's

For t h e i n t e n s e p r e s s u r e b o t h M a r b o i s and F r a n c i s c o Rendon e x e r t e d

on Congress t o r e t r a c t i t s i n s i s t e n c e on M i s s i s s i p p i n a v i g a t i o n and boundary, see

EXHIBIT 6 Law of Nations
Emmerich de Vattel
Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature: Applies to the Conduct & Affairs of Nations & Sovereigns

1759. 1st. English Edition.

Emmerich de Vattel Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations was key in framing the United States as the world's first constitutional republic. The myth that the founding of American Republic was based on the philosophy of John Locke could only have been maintained, because the history of Leibniz*s influence was suppressed. The American Revolution was, in fact, a battle against the philosophy of Locke and the English utilitarians. Key to this struggle, was the work of the Eighteenth-century jurist, Emmerich de Vattel, whose widely read text, The Law of Nations, guided the framing of the United States as the world's first constitutional republic. Vattel had challenged the most basic axioms of the Venetian party, which had taken over England before the time of the American Revolution, and it was from VatteFs The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America's founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System. Virtually unknown today except amongst specialists, Emmerich de Vattel was bom on April 25, 1714, in the principality of Neufchatel, which was part of Switzerland. He became an ardent student of Leibniz, and in 1741, published his first work, a defense of Leibniz, Defense du systeme leibnitzien. His most famous work. The Law of Nations; or. Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns: http://\vuw lonanu.com/exlibris/vattel/index html Vattel's The Law of Nations, was the most influential book on the law of nations for 125 years following its publication. ThefirstEnglish translation appeared in 1759. Numerous editions of The Law of Nations were printed in England during the Eighteenth century, which were widely read in the American Colonies, along with editions in the original French. The first American edition appeared in 1796. Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution. Vattel's The Law of Nations arrived, shortly after its publication, in America. No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges. It was often quoted in speeches before judicial tribunals and legislatures, and used in formulating policy. Following the Revolution, Vattel's influence grew. Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day fiivolously, instead of reading and thinking, "The Idea of M . de Vattel indeed, scowling andfi-owning,haunted me. In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, "of great use to Judges," that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected. In a letter to the Foreign Minister 1

of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and "his excellent Treatise entitled Le Droit des Gens." James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here." Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations. The Law of Nations and The Declaration of Independence Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted The Law of Nations, as a reference for their discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of The Law of Nations in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, "I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting . . . . " The study of The Law of Nations by the delegates to the Continental Congress, to answer questions "of the circumstances of a rising state," is reflected in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. The central ideas of that document are coherent with Vattel's arguments on the criteria of a people to overthrow a tyrannical sovereign. The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted to fulfill the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and can be changed if they fail to meet these obligations to the people. Governments should not be changed for light and transient causes, but only after a long chain of abuses to the fiandamentalrightsof the people, with repeated requests for redress of grievances, which were refijsed. Repeated appeals were made to our "British Brethren," but since they "have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity," we are prepared to face them either in war or in peace. Therefore, we declare ourselves independent of the British Crown, with the fiill powers of a sovereign government, "to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may ofrightdo." The inclusion of the central conception of The Law of Nations, Vattel's Leibnizian concept of happiness, as one of the three inalienable rights, is a crucial statement of the Declaration's Leibnizian character. The Declaration of Independence was prepared by a committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman. Jefi'erson was assigned by this committee to write the draft of the Declaration, after John Adams turned down the task, because of his numerous other responsibilities. The fact, that Jefferson was a strong proponent of the philosophy of John Locke by as early as 1771, is often used as evidence that the Declaration was based on Locke's philosophy. However, Locke had argued, in his Two Treatises of Government, that the fundamental right of men is to "Life, Liberty, and Property." The inclusion of "the pursuit of happiness," rather than 2

.

"property," as an inalienable right, was a crucial statement, that the American Revolution would be a battle for the establishment of a true Republic, rather than merely a dispute between two groups of aristocrats over the division of property. [NOTE: Thomas Jefferson's personal copy of Vattel, "Droit des Gens", Ed. de 1775, is found in the Thomas Jefferson Library, Library of Congress, Chapter 16, item 40.] The Law of Nations and The Constitution "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."—Preamble of The Constitution of the United States The Law of Nations was crucial in shaping American thinking about the nature of constitutions. To this day, Great Britain does not have a written constitution, but instead a collection of laws, customs, and institutions, which can be changed by the Parliament. The only place of appeal which the American colonists had for unjust laws was to the King's Privy Council. Attempts by the colonists to argue that actions by the British Monarchy and Parliament were unlawful or unconstitutional would be stymied, if they stayed within this legal framework which was essentially arbitrary. Although Vattel praised the British constitution for providing a degree of freedom and lawfixlness not seen in most of the German states, his principles of constitutional law were entirely different from the British constitutional arrangements. Consequently, the American colonists attacked the foundation of the King and Parliament's power, by demanding that Vattel's principles of constitutional law be the basis for interpreting the British constitution. http://www.freerepublic.coni/focus/f-chat/2148Q74/posts

3

EXHIBIT 7

Forgotten Influences of the Founders
Our own Foimding Fathers were convinced, and history has proven them prescient, that they were building a new and everlasting republic that would do what other republics of the ancient world had failed to do: survive the effects of the maladies of self-government and bequeath to the subsequent generations of Americans a sound and stable republic — if they could keep it* For the ingredients necessary to brew the right antidote to the poisons of democracy and tyranny, the Foimders drewfromseveral sources. From the recent past, there was the English legacy of the right of the people to the enjoyment of certain unalienable rights such as trial by jury and due process; there was the legacy of ancient Greece and Rome that citizens are and byrightsshoidd be entrusted with the power of self-determination; and there was the faculty of renown continental thinkers and jurists who propoimded the principle of natural law and its blessings and burdens better than any theorists before or since. The Founders wisely chose from among the best and brightest, and combined their words and deeds into a potent concoction that they then reduced down with the fire of revolution into a remedy that, despite its base of history, was uniquely American.

Emmerich de Vattel The fourth of the Four Horsemen of American liberty is Emmerich de Vattel. Although last m this list of forgotten influences, it can be claimed, without exaggeration, that it is Vattel's interpretations and writings on the subject of the proper constitution of government that was most influential on the Founders of the American Republic. As a matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson, indisputably one of the lead framers of our nation's government, ranked Vattel's seminal The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law as highly as similar treatises by Grotius and Pufendorf Further proof of Vattel's impression on the Founders is the fact that Vattel's interpretations of the law of nature were cited more frequently than any other writer's on international law in cases heard in the courts of the early United States, and The Law of Nations was the primary textbook on the subject in use in American universities. The Swiss-born Vattel learned to love God from his father, a pastor in the Refonned Church. It was Vattel's belief that the law of nations was given to man by God for their happiness. Vattel wrote that the best constitution was that constitution founded most firmly on natural law and least liable to be unmoored from it. Vattel stated, 'Tt is ... the constitution of a state which detennines its progress and its aptitude to attain the ends of a society." These words were Page 1 of2

- instructive to the authors of the American Constitution and encouraged them in the sometimes arduous struggle to frame a well-constructed and long-lasting Constitution for the new republic. They learned from the distinguished Vattel that if a country is to be successful then it must begin as it means to continue, built upon an unshakeable foundation of natural law and separated power. As with many of the ancient historians and our own Founding Fathers, Vattel recognized the insidious harm done to constitutions by those who weaken it from the inside over time. James Madison's warning in this regard is oft quoted; 'T believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." Madison undoubtedly believed this independently, but he was certainly inspired by his reading in The Law of Nations wherein Vattel admonished. "The constitution and laws of a state are rarely attacked from the front; it is against secret and gradual attacks that a nation must chiefly guard." In this instance and many others, one can appreciate the weight and value of Vattel's theories on those of our most illustrious thinkers. Words of Wisdom The lessons oiu" Founders learned from the wise men discussed in this article are just as valuable for us, their political and philosophical heirs. We

must vigilantly and zealously guard and treasure the republican government established by the Constitution and the eternal principles of natural law upon which it is built. Let us be fervent and grateful protectors of liberty and resist all attempts to wrest our government from us or from its firm foundations of popular sovereignty and the right of selfdetermination.
http://www.freedomproiect.com/latest/articles/66-forgotten-Jnfluences

* Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,

"A Republic, if you can keep it."
http://quotes.libertv-tree.ca/quotes by/benjamin+franklin Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT 8

VatteFs Influence on the term a Natural Bom Citizen
Theodore T. Moran What is a natural bom citizen? Where did the framers come up with this term? Where was it used before? So many questions, and the answers are right there if anyone wishes to search out the tmth. The term Natural bom Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 2, Section 1, with these words, ''No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States." Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Bom Citizen is from the legal treatise "the L a w of Nations.'^ written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19, § 212. O f the citizens and natives

" The cillzefis are the members of ihe civil society; bound lo ihis sociely hy cerlain diilies, and siibjecl lo ils aiilhorily, ihey equally parlicipale ui ils advantages. The nalives, or natural-horn citizens, are those horn in die country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturallyfollowthe condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, th may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were bom. I say, that, in order to be o the country, it is necessary that a person be bom of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is bom there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country" "Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is "Of the citizens and naturals". It is not "Of citizens and natives" as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as "originaire" or "indigene", not as "naturel". For "naturel" to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In feet when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were bom in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modem day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the fiill context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fiiUy understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural bom citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it

Page 1 of 5

quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply bom in a country, but of natural bom citizens, those bom in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of "Le droit des gens," which he deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate." If not Vattel, then where did they arrive at this term. Many of those who ridicule us like to quote Blackstone as authoritative that the United States adopted English Common Law. They like to state that Blackstone's natural bom subject is equivalent of a natural bom citizen. There is no doubt that the Founding Father's were influenced from Blackstone's Commentary. However, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that it was Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution at will. Blackstone was increasingly recognized by the Americans as a proponent of arbitrary power. In fact, the framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, " The common law of England is not the common law of these States." George Mason one of Virginia's delegates to the Constitutional Convention. As to what is a natural bom subject, Blackstone went on to say that any person, freeman or alien, except those of diplomats who were bom in the realm of the King of England was a natural bom subject. There is a problem with a simple substitution of citizen in place of subject, that some people think are synonymous. In England, not all natural bom subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural bom subjects called the royalty. This is drastically dissimilar to the American concept that any Natural Bom Citizen can become President. Under Blackstone's subjects only a very, very small subset of Natural Bom Subjects could rise to be King, the American Presidency is drawn from the largest class of citizens, the natural bom. Like the analogy of a field of clover, the Founding Fathers were not looking for that elusive genetic mutation of a four-leaf clover, they were looking for the common, naturally occurring three-leaf clover to be President.

But Blackstone is confijsing on this issue. Blackstone also writes, ''To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. Ill st. 2. that all children bom abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if bom in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modem statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, bom out of the king's ligeance, whosefatherswere natural-born subjects, are now natural-bom subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception: unless their saidfatherswere attainted, or banished beyond sea,farhigh treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain." This use of Blackstone gave Great Britain claim over US Citizens, which lead to the war of 1812, when Britain went about impressing American sailors into their navy because English law did not recognize the right of our Founding Father's naturalizing themselves into our new country. "Once an Englishman, always an Englishman," was the reason the British used to impress our citizens into service for the Crown. This law and concept of claim to the subjects to the Crown, regardless of place of birth is still in effect in Great Britain, and had the effect of Congress passing a law that required all the officers and three fourths of the seamen on a ship of the United States be natural bom citizens. (Joumal of the House of Representatives of the United States. Febmary 9, 1813) Further, the Crown passed a law that made it treason for former British subjects, even though they were now American citizens to participate on the side of America during the war of 1812. Ooumal of the Senate of the United States of America. February 23, 1813) to If the Founding Fathers accepted Blackstone's definition of a natural bom subject, then impressments of American-British citizens into the Royal Navy would not have been a casus belli, for the War of 1812. The fact that Madison included the impressments of American Citizens as a reason for a state of War clearly indicates that they rejected Blackstone's definition of a natural-bom subject. John Jay's letter to Washington address this dual and permanent loyalty to England that Blackstone introduces. To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes ''''Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners -2-

into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.Jay not only knew of Vattel, as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well. Whatftirtherdiscredits Blackstone as being the author of the Natural Bom Citizen clause, is the first immigration act passed by our First Congress in 1790. In chapter III we find direct references to Vattel's assertion that citizenship is derivedfi-omthe father, in that citizenship was prohibited to children whose fathers have never gave intent to permanently reside of the Untied States. Interestingly in this same act, we also find the clarification of a Natural Bom Citizen, as being one "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be bom beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural bom citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident in the United States:" Residency was defined in that same act as someone under oath declaring that they wished to remain and live in the Untied States. It should be noted that the Supreme Court was tasked with defining several phrases in this law, and since Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and had reviewed the immigration law of 1790. If Jay was in favor of Blackstone's definition, he remained silent. To addfiirtherproof to the intent of the Founding Fathers literal meaning of Vattel's definition of a natural bom citizen being bom of two citizens, and in the country itself, and wanting a natural bora citizen having no other claim to his loyalty except that of the United States of America, in 1795 the Congress amended the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Naturalization Act of 1795. which was also signed by George Washington, recognized Blackstone's commentaries on English Common Law, making children bom overseas in the lands under British rule, British Subjects. Even if their parents were American, This act removed the words natural bom from children bom overseas of American parents, so that no other potentate could lay claim to this person, and thus establish "a presence of influence" in the Executive Branch. It was the intent of our Founding Fathers to "naturalize at birth" these children, but not give them the status "natural bom citizens." Also in this act of 1795, we see the importance of complete allegiance to the United States for all people naturalized, as this is the first appearance of the oath of allegiance "to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject." This oath is still in effect today. If it was not Blackstone who they relied on for defining the term Natural B o m Citizen, then the only remaining source is from Vattel. Many of these detractors say we are reaching to extremes to use Vattel, as the source of a Natural Bora Citizen clause. Some of there arguments are that the Law of Nations is a obscure mention to an idea, found in Article I, Section 8. What they fail to mention that this phrase is capitalized, if it was an inference to a general idea, it would not have been capitalized. School children know well the mles of capitalization, and the use of the capitalized Law of Nations would indeed make it uses consistent with a title of a publication. Let us take this and consider if indeed Vattel was a source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers and the Framers of our Constitution. The question we need to understand is were the founding fathers truly influenced by Vattel, or not. The answer to this lies with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who penned Virginia's Citizenship statue in 1779, "5e it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever bom, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not -3-

being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens" As can be seen Jefferson is equating citizenship of the child to that of the parents, and not the land. For further proof on the question of Vattel's influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, he observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions. The Library Company of Philadelphia which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775 reference to this book, as "Le droit des gens," from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the "family of nations" to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the most exact reference of Vattel's Law of Nations. There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9"* of 1775, Franklin wrote to VattePs editor, C . G . F . Dumas, "/^m much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. Ft came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. '* Samuel Adams in 1772 wrote, "Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that "the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution" Then in 1773 during a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution. John Adams as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, "The Idea ofM.de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me." These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the constitution, the Nation, (that is the individual States and the people) or Legislature (which is the federal government.) In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he wrote, ''fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness." Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting proHfically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution. In 1794, then President Washington was faced with the first threat to his Neutrality Proclamation of that same year by the Ambassador of France, Citizen Edmond-Charles Genet to honor their treaty and support France's wars with England and Spain. In a very rare agreement both Jefferson and Hamilton using Vattel's Law of Nations they were able to give Washington the international legitimacy not to commit the United States to war in 1793. Genet wrote to Washington, ''you bring forward aphorisms of Vattel, to justify or excuse infractions committed on positive treaties." At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Bom Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only -4-

political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural bom citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural bom citizen ought to lie, as Vattel's definition removes al! claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay's letter to Washington. FROM ABOVE For further proof on the question of Vattel's influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, he observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions. The Library Company of Philadelphia which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775 reference to this book, as "Le droit des gens,"fi-omthe publishing house of Chez E . van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the "family of nations" to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the most exact reference of VattePs Law of Nations.

There is no doubt that the Foimding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9^ of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel's editor, C.G.F. Dumas,

"/ am much obliged by the kind present you have made us ofyour edition of Vattel. Ft ca to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequen consult the Law of Nations, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the h of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and Just esteem for their author.^"*
http://www.freedomproiect.com/latest/articles/66-foreotten-influences

- 5-

EXHIBIT 9
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htmi/historics/USSC CR 0088 0162 ZO.html

Minor v. Happersett () 100 U.S. 1

HTML version PDF version

HTML version PDF version

WAFTE, C J . , Opinion of the Court SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

88 U.S. 162

Minor v. Happersett
Argued: February 9, ! S7S — Deck*ed: March 29,1875

The CHEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

88 U.S. 162

Minor v. Happersett

Argued: February 9, 1875 — Decided: March 29. 1875

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a dtizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the
Paop 1 nf11

right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, dedde the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination. It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, bom or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her dtizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge. There is no doubt that women may be dtizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons bom or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof* are expressly declared to be "dtizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be dtizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such dtizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166) assodation of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons assodated becomes a member of the nation formed by the assodation. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, redprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance. For convenience It has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "dtizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the govemment. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican govemment. It was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted In the Articles of Confederation and In the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more. 2

To determine, then, who were dtizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally assodated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership. Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States,"^ and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the e a r t h , a n d that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of [p167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.^ Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a dtizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons assodating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original dtizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their dtizenship if they were. Additions might always be made to the dtizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturah'zation. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides-^ that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a dtizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," ^ and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new dtizens may be bom or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born dtizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children bom in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as dtizens children bom within the jurisdiction without reference to the dtizenship of their [pi 68] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is suffident for everything we have now to consider that all children born of dtizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves dtizens. The words "all children" are certainly
3

as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of dtizens of the United States that might be bom beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born d t i z e n s . ^ These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore bom or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, dtizens of the United States, were declared to be dtizens also.-^ As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a dtizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as dtizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary o a t h ; - ^ and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [pi 69] who should be married to a dtizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a d t i z e n . - ^ From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made dtizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already dtizens by birth. But if more is necessary to show that women have always been considered as dtizens the same as men, abundant proof is to be found in the legislative and judidal history of the country. Thus, by the Constitution, the judidal power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between dtizens of different States. Under this it has been uniformly held that the dtizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist the case must be dismissed. Notwithstanding this the records of the courts are full of cases in which the jurisdiction depends upon the dtizenship of women, and not one can be found, we think, in which objection was made on that account. Certainly none can be found in which it has been held that women could not sue or be sued in the courts of the United States. Again, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, In many of 4

the States (and in some probably now) aliens could not inherit or transmit inheritance. There are a multitude of cases to be found in which the question has been presented whether a woman was or was not an alien, and as such capable or incapable of inheritance, but in no one has it been insisted that she was not a dtizen because she was a woman. On the contrary, her right to dtizenship has been in all cases assumed. The only question has been whether, in the particular case under consideration, she had availed herself of the right. In the legislative department of the govemment similar [pi 70] proof will be found. Thus, in the pre-emption l a w s , - ^ a v^dow, "being a dtizen of the United States," is allowed to make settlement on the public lands and purchase upon the terms spedfied, and women, "being dtizens of the United States," are permitted to avail themselves of the benefit of the homestead l a w . - ^ Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of dtizenship in the United States. In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws predsely apply to both. The fourteenth amendment did not affect the dtizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a dtizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of dtizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a dtizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a dtizen of the United States; but it did not confer dtizenship on her. That she had before its adoption. If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a dtizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all dtizens are necessarily voters. The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities of dtizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere. In this case we need not determine what they are, but only whether suffrage is necessarily one of them. It certainly is nowhere made so in express terms. The United States has no voters in the States of its own creation. The elective officers of the United States are all elected directly or indirectly by State voters. The members of the House of Representatives are to be chosen by the people of [pi 71] the States, and the electors in each State must have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.^^ Senators are to be chosen by the legislatures of the States, and necessarily the members of the legislature required to make the choice are elected by the voters of the State.-^ Each State must 5

appoint in such manner, as the legislature thereof may direct, the electors to elect the President and Vice-President.^^ The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives are to be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators.-^ It is not necessary to inquire whether this power of supervision thus given to Congress is suffident to authorize any interference with the State laws prescribing the qualifications of voters, for no such Interference has ever been attempted. The power of the State in this particular is certainly supreme until Congress acts. The amendment did not add to the privileges and Immunities of a dtizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. Indirectly it may have had that effect, because It may have increased the number of dtizens entitled to suffrage under the constitution and laws of the States, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the State laws, and not directly upon the dtizen. It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of dtizenship as they existed at the time It was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the dtizenship of the States at the time of Its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to dtizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every dtizen must be protected. [p172] But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed. When the Federal Constitution was adopted, all the States, with the exception of Rhode Island and Connecticut, had constitutions of their own. These two continued to act under their charters from the Crown. Upon an examination of those constitutions we find that in no State were all dtizens permitted to vote. Each State determined for Itself who should have that power. Thus, in New Hampshire, "every male Inhabitant of each town and parish with town privileges, and places unincorporated in the State, of twentyone years of age and upwards, excepting paupers and persons excused from paying taxes at their own request," were its voters; in Massachusetts "every male inhabitant of twenty-one years of age and upwards, having a freehold estate within the commonwealth of the annual income of three pounds, or any estate of the value of sixty pounds;" in Rhode Island "such as are admitted free of the company and sodety" of the colony; in Connecticut such persons as had "maturity in years, quiet and peaceable behavior, a dvil conversation, and forty shillings freehold or forty pounds personal estate," if so certified by the selectmen; in New York "every male inhabitant of full age who shall have personally resided within one of the counties of the State for six months immediately preceding the day of election . . . if during the time aforesaid he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds within the county, or have rented a tenement 6

therein of the yearly value of forty shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to the State;" in New Jersey "all inhabitants . . . of full age who are worth fifty pounds, proclamation-money, clear estate in the same, and have resided in the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election;" in Pennsylvania "every freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State two years next before the election, and within that time paid a State or county tax which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election;" in [p173] Delaware and Virginia "as exercised by law at present;" in Maryland "all freemen above twenty-one years of age having a freehold of fifty acres of land In the county in which they offer to vote and residing therein, and all freemen having property in the State above the value of thirty pounds current money, and having resided in the county In which they offer to vote one whole year next preceding the election;" in North Carolina, for senators, "all freemen of the age of twenty-one years who have been inhabitants of any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceding the day of election, and possessed of a freehold within the same county of fifty acres of land for six months next before and at the day of election," and for members of the house of commons "all freemen of the age of twenty-one years who have been inhabitants In any one county within the State twelve months Immediately preceding the day of any election, and shall have paid public taxes;" in South Carolina "every free white man of the age of twenty-one years, being a citizen of the State and having resided therein two years previous to the day of election, and who hath a freehold of fifty acres of land, or a town lot of which he hath been legally seized and possessed at least six months before such election, or (not having such freehold or town lot), hath been a resident within the election district In which he offers to give his vote six months before said election, and hath paid a tax the preceding year of three shillings sterting towards the support of the government;'* and in Georgia such "citizens and inhabitants of the State as shall have attained to the age of twenty-one years, and shall have paid tax for the year next preceding the election, and shall have resided six months within the county." In this condition of the law In respect to suffrage in the several States it cannot for a moment be doubted that if it had been Intended to make all citizens of the United States voters, the framers of the Constitution would not have left it to implication. So Important a change in the condition of dtizenship as it actually existed, if intended, would have been expressly declared. [p174] But if further proof is necessary to show that no such change was intended, it can easily be found both in and out of the Constitution. By Article 4, section 2, it is provided that "the dtizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of dtizens In the several States." If suffrage is necessarily a part of dtizenship, then the dtizens of each State must be entitled to vote In the several States predsely as their dtizens are. This is more than asserting that they may change their 7

residence and become dtizens of the State and thus be voters. It goes to the extent of insisting that while retaining their original dtizenship they may vote in any State. This, we think, has never been claimed. And again, by the very terms of the amendment we have been considering (the fourteenth), "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and VicePresident of the United States, representatives in Congress, the executive and judidal officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male Inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age and dtizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for partidpation in the rebellion, or other crimes, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male dtizens twenty-one years of age in such State." Why this. If it was not in the power of the legislature to deny the right of suffrage to some male inhabitants? And if suffrage was necessarily one of the absoluterightsof dtizenship, why confine the operation of the limitation to male Inhabitants? Women and children are, as we have seen, "persons." They are counted In the enumeration upon which the apportionment is to be made, but if they were necessarily voters because of their dtizenship unless clearty excluded, why inflict the penalty for the exclusion of males alone? Clearty, no such form of words would have been [pi 75] selected to express the idea here indicated if suffrage was the absolute right of all dtizens. And stIU again, after the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, it was deemed necessary to adopt a fifteenth, as follows: 'The right of dtizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The fourteenth amendment had already provided that no State should make or enforce any law which should abridge the privileges or immunities of dtizens of the United States. If suffrage was one of these privileges or immunities, why amend the Constitution to prevent its being denied on account of race, &c.? Nothing is more evident than that the greater must include the less, and if all were already protected why go through with the fonn of amending the Constitution to protect a part? It is true that the United States guarantees to every State a republican form of govemment.-^ It is also true that no State can pass a bill of attainder,-^ and that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of l a w . ^ ^ AU these several provisions of the Constitution must be construed in connection with the other parts of the instrument, and in the light of the surrounding drcumstances. The guaranty is of a republican form of government. No particular govemment is designated as republican, neither is the exact form to be guaranteed, in any manner espedally designated. Here, as In other parts 8

of the instrument, we are compelled to resort elsewhere to ascertain what was intended. The guaranty necessarily implies a duty on the part of the States themselves to provide such a govemment. AU the States had governments when the Constitution was adopted. In all the people partidpated to some extent, through their representatives elected in the manner spedally provided.[p176] These govemments the Constitution did not change. They were accepted predsely as they were, and it is, therefore, to be presumed that they were such as it was the duty of the States to provide. Thus we have unmistakable evidence of what was republican in form, within the meaning of that term as employed in the Constitution. As has been seen, all the dtizens of the States were not invested with the right of suffrage. In all, save perhaps New Jersey, this right was only bestowed upon men and not upon all of them. Under these drcumstances it is certainly now too late to contend that a govemment is not republican, within the meaning of this guaranty in the Constitution, because women are not made voters. The same may be said of the other provisions just quoted. Women were excluded from suffrage in nearty all the States by the express provision of their constitutions and laws. If that had been equivalent to a bill of attainder, certainty its abrogation would not have been left to implication. Nothing less than express language would have been employed to effect so radical a change. So also of the amendment which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, adopted as it was as eariy as 1791. If suffrage was intended to be included within its obligations, language better adapted to express that intent would most certainly have been employed. The right of suffrage, when granted, will be protected. He who has it can only be deprived of it by due process of law, but in order to claim protection he must first show that he has the right. But we have already suffidently considered the proof found upon the Inside of the Constitution. That upon the outside is equally effective. The Constitution was submitted to the States for adoption in 1787, and was ratified by nine States in 1788, and finally by the thirteen original States in 1790. Vermont was the first new State admitted to the Union, and it came in under a constitution which conferred the right of suffrage only upon men of the full age of twenty-one years, having resided [pi 77] in the State for the space of one whole year next before the election, and who were of quiet and peaceable behavior. This was in 1791. The next year, 1792, Kentucky followed with a constitution confining the right of suffrage to free male dtizens of the age of twenty-one years who had resided in the State two years or in the county in which they offered to vote one year next before the election. Then followed Tennessee, in 1796, with voters of freemen of the age of twenty-one years and 9

upwards, possessing a freehold in the county wherein they may vote, and being inhabitants of the State or freemen being Inhabitants of any one county in the State six months immediately preceding the day of election. But we need not particularize further. No new State has ever been admitted to the Union which has conferred the right of suffrage upon women, and this has never been considered a valid objection to her admission. On the contrary, as is claimed in the argument, the right of suffrage was withdrawn from women as early as 1807 in the State of New Jersey, without any attempt to obtain the interference of the United States to prevent it. Since then the governments of the Insurgent States have been reorganized under a requirement that before their representatives could be admitted to seats in Congress they must have adopted new constitutions, republican in form. In no one of these constitutions was suffrage conferred upon women, and yet the States have all been restored to their original position as States in the Union. Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain drcumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas. Certainly, if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. For nearty ninety years the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred dtizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage. If [pl78] uniform practice long continued can settle the construction of so important an instrument as the Constitution of the United States confessedly is, most certainly it has been done here. Our province is to dedde what the law is, not to declare what it should be. We have given this case the careful consideration its Importance demands. If the law is wrong. It ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be suffident to induce those having the power, to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to Influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman's need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a State to withhold. Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that Important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.
- See other sections, infra, p. 174. 10 — 10 Stat, at Large, 604.

^Article 2, § 18. - Preamble, 1 Stat, at Large, 10. - Declaration of Independence, lb. 1. - Articles of Confederation, § 3 , 1 Stat. ^Article 2, § 1 . ^Article 1,S 8. ^ 1 Stat, at Large, 103. ^10 Id. 604. ^ 2 Id. 293.

— 5 Stat, at Large, 455, § 10. ^ 1 2 Id- 392. — Constitution, Article 1, S 2. ^ lb. Article 1, § 3.at Large, 4. ^ lb. Article 2. S 2. ^Ib. Article 1,S 4. — Constitution, Article 4, % 4. ^Ib. Article 1,§ 10. — lb. Amendment 5.

^ N e i t h e r J J ' s l e t t e r t o Gouvemeur M o r r i s o f 24 Aug. n o r M o r r i s ' s t o J J , Mar. 1781 have been foundSee M o r r i s t o J J , 2 J a n . 1781, above.

" t h a t " was marked t o be encoded, w i t h c o d i n g c r o s s e d o u t . Space l e f t b l a n k i n manuscriptCongress, 20 Sept. 1781, above.
Emmerich de V a t t e l ' s was c i t e d Madison, "innocent t o deny the r i g h t by d e l e g a t e s i n Congress, n o t a b l y James t o ba

See J J ' s l e t t e r t o t h e P r e s i d e n t o f

o f a n a t i o n h o l d i n g the mouth o f a r i v e r

passage." Peacemakers, 239.

In h i s l e t t e r o f 10 Mar. 1782, Gouvemeur M o r r i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had not y e t r e c e i v e d t h e p r e s e n t letter. He acknowledged i t b r i e f l y i n h i s

l e t t e r t o J J o f 21 May 1782, ALS, NNC ( E J : 11388).

To the best of Amicus curiae's knowledge, this 1875 U.S. Supreme Court decision has never been revised, amended, or overturned, and believes was 'controlling law' in 1875, and continues to be 'controlling law' in 2013.

11

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.