490 INTERNATIONAL LAW 



Barbuit's Case, Cas. t. Tal. 281; Triquet v. Bath, 3 Burr. 1478, 

 and Heathfield t?. Chilton, 4 Burr. 2016, are cases in which the 

 courts of law have recognized and have given effect to the privilege 

 of ambassadors as established by international law. But the ex- 

 pressions used by Lord Mansfield when dealing with the particular 

 and recognized rule of international law on this subject, that the 

 law of nations forms part of the law of England, ought not to be 

 construed so as to include as part of the law of England opinions 

 of text-writers upon a question as to which there is no evidence 

 that Great Britain has ever assented, and a fortiori if they are 

 contrary to the principles of her laws as declared by her courts. 

 The cases of Wolff v. Oxholm, 6 M. & S. 92; 18 R. R. 313, and 

 Rex v. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 63, are only illustrations of the same rule, 

 namely, that questions of international law may arise, and may 

 have to be considered in connection with the administration of 

 municipal law." 



If we now consider the status of international law in the United 

 States, we shall find the American in strict accord with the English 

 doctrine. The first craft that carried an English settler to the 

 New World was freighted with the common law, of which, as we 

 have seen, the law of nations was and is an integral part. Revo- 

 lution might and did repudiate British sovereignty, but the com- 

 mon law as the measure of individual rights and liabilities with- 

 stood the storm and stress of agitation. The nation was born into 

 the family of nations and promptly professed obedience to the law 

 of nations " according to the general usages of Europe." (Ordi- 

 nance of 1781, Journals of Congress, vn, 185; 1 Kent's Commen- 

 taries, p. 1.) Upon the permanent organization of the govern- 

 ment, international law was recognized in the Constitution as in 

 the Ordinance of the Revolutionary Congress. In Article I, Sec- 

 tion 8, Congress is specifically empowered to " define and punish 

 piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses 

 against the law of nations; to declare war, grant letters of marque 

 and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." 



Now technical words and expressions used in the Constitution, 

 and borrowed from the English system of jurisprudence, such as 

 the common law, equity, admiralty, the law of nations, are to be 

 understood and interpreted as in the system from which they are 

 borrowed, for which no authority need be cited. Were not this so, 

 the time-honored system of trial by jury would not be our heritage 

 as it is that of our ancestors across the water. For as Mr. Jus- 

 tice Harlan well says: " It must consequently be taken that the 

 word ' jury ' and the words ' trial by jury ' were placed in the 

 Constitution of the United States with reference to the meaning 

 affixed to them in the law as it was in this country and in England 



