38 CASE OP GREAT BKITAIN. 



jects of the right to enjoy certain national property in common with 

 the subjects of the state carries with it by implication an entire sur- 

 render, in so far as the property in question is concerned, of one of 

 the highest rights of sovereignty, viz., the right of legislation. That 

 the American Government should have put forward the claim is 

 scarcely intelligible. There can be no question that no more could 

 be demanded than that American citizens should not be subjected to 

 laws or regulations, either affecting them alone, or enacted for the 

 purpose of putting them at a disadvantage." a 



The transactions between Great Britain, and the United States are 

 wholly inconsistent with the contention that liberties granted to 

 aliens of themselves confer exemption from municipal laws. 



ANALOGIES TREATY OF 1783. 



The treaty of 1783. In the treaty of 1783 (between the United 

 Kingdom and the United States) there is the following section ( App., 

 p. 13) :- 



It is agreed that the Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the 

 Legislatures of the respective States, to provide for the restitution of 

 all estates, rights, and properties which have been confiscated belong- 

 ing to real British Subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and prop- 

 erties of persons resident in districts in the possession of His 

 Majesty's arms, and who have not borne arms against the said United 

 States: and that Persons of any other description shall have free 

 liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States, 

 and therein to remain twelve months, unmolested, in their endeavours 

 to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties 

 as may have been confiscated ; 



No one imagined that these British subjects were to be exempted 

 from United States law, or that they were not to be "molested " if 

 they did not conform to it. No one ever did pretend that the United 

 States would require British concurrence before enacting laws appli- 

 cable to such people. It might, indeed, have been urged that, if 

 British subjects were to be " unmolested " they must be free from all 

 regulations. But the sufficient reply would have been that the treaty 

 gave them no other freedom than that enjoyed by United States citi- 

 zens, when engaged in similar employment. 



43 TREATY OF 1794. 



Jay's treaty of 1794. Prior to the treaty of 1783 (at the end of 

 the revolutionary war) the territory lying south of the great lakes in 

 America, and between the Ohio and the Mississippi, was a part of the 

 British Empire. It was within the boundaries of Canada (forming 

 part of the Province of Quebec) ; and at the end of the revolutionary 

 war was very largely (by virtue of military occupation of various 



W. E. Hall, " International Law," 5th ed., pp. 339-340. 



