M

^ttpreme Court 01
C A S E NO. 1120465

^Uabmnu

FILED
AUG I 5 2013

H U G H McINNISH, et al.. Appellants,

V.

SUPflEME f^^'P^*^^"

^^^^

B E T H C H A P M A N , in her capacity as Secretary of State, Appellee.

O N A P P E A L F R O M THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, A L A B A M A C V 2012-1053

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE In support of the Plaintiffs/Appellants, the Constitution of Alabama, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Rule of Law, the Citizens and Residents of the State of Alabama, the American People, and Priceless LIBERTY. By Scott Rille, Amicus curiae Natural-bom American Citizen August 4, 2013

C O V E R SHEET

in

^ttpremt Court
C A S E NO. 1120465

llOaliama

H U G H McINNISH, et al.. Appellants,

V.

B E T H C H A P M A N , in her capacity as Secretary of State, Appellee.

O N A P P E A L F R O M THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, A L A B A M A C V 2012-1053

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE In support of the Plaintiffs/Appellants, the Constitution of Alabama, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Rule of Law, the Citizens and Residents of the State of Alabama, the American People, and Priceless LIBERTY. By Scott Rille, Amicus curiae Natural-bom American Citizen August 4, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS L IL T A B L E OF AUTHORITffiS CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE IDENTITY OF THE A M I C U S CUIUAE A N D ITS INTEREST IN THE C A S E III. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION OF L A W PRESENTED m. TWO POSSIBLE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION IV. W H Y A M I C U S CURIAE'S QUESTION S H O U L D B E A N S W E R E D VI. CONCLUSION VII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE VIII. EXHIBITS 1 - 9 A T T A C H E D HERETO 2 5 5 6 6 12 13

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES I. United States Constitution. Article L Section 8, Clause "Offenses against the Law of Nations": "The Congress shall have Power . . . To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations." 1775 Edition. Le Droit Des Gens. Livre I. Chapitre X I X , Page 115: . 212. "Des citoyens & naturels: Les citoyens sont les members de la societe civile: lies a cette societe par certains devoirs, & soumis a son autorite, ils participant avec egalite a ses avantages. Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens."

IL

III. United States Constitution. Article IL Section!. Clause 5: "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." IV. Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure NOTE: Amicus curiae believes a Constitutional Amendment, pursuant to United States Constitution. Article V , would be required to redefine, amend or repeal the 2

original wording or meaning of Clause 5 above, that no such Amendment has been lawfully added to the Constitution, and that Clause 5 continues to be controlling law in the United States of America, including the State of Alabama. [NOTE: The 1775 Edition of Le Droit Des Gens portrayed in Exhibit 2 is the very volume Dr. Benjamin Franklin deposited in 1775 at The Library Company of Philadelphia, which he and some other businessmen founded in 1731, and the edition used extensively by the Founders and Framers. (Please see Exhibit 2 attached hereto.)] [Eng. Tr. of above French clause: Translated as Founding Father John Jay may have translated it before writing his famous letter, dated July 25, 1787, to George Washington, Presiding President of the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia [1787] (Please see Exhibit 1 attached hereto.): The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, & subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natural bom citizens (naturels, natural, naturally, bora, inborn, begotten), or natives (indigenes, indigenous, naturally, inborn), are those bom in the country, of parents who are citizens. (Please see Exhibit 4 attached hereto.) Please take note of the fact that the marginal entry, ".212. Des citoyens & naturels" and the text "Des citoyens" and "de parens citoyens" clearly indicate the subject of this section is CITIZENS. John Jay was fluent in the French language and thoroughly qualified to interpret

and translate French and EngUsh. (Please see Exhibit 3 attached hereto.) Would it be unreasonable to conclude that anyone fluent in French reading .212 could easily and logically combine the three terms "Les naturels'" [natural, natural-bom], "nes" [bora], and "citoyens" [citizens] into the phrase "natural bora citizens"? Amicus curiae believes it would be illogical to believe John Jay could read ''Les naturels'' in Le Droit Des Gens and not contextually translate these words into anything but "natural bora Citizens", as he wrote in his letter to His Excellency General Washington on 25 July 1787 (Please see Exhibit lattached hereto). John Jay was a delegate to the First & Second Continental Congresses and was elected President of the 6^ Continental Congress. Benjamin Franklin wrote: Monsignor Charles F. W. Dumas Chez E. van Harrevelt Amsterdam Dear Sir, Philadelphia, 9 December, 1775. 1 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 1 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 attached hereto.) 4

Amicus curiae believes that it would be unreasonable to assume during all the years John Jay participated and served in the Continental Congresses and being fluent in French, that he did not thoroughly familiarize himself with Vattel's Le Droit Des Gens "continually in the hands of the members of our Congress", and discuss Vattel's "PRINCIPES D E L A LOI N A T U R E L L E " [Principles of the Natural Law] with his fellow delegates in intimate detail (Please see Exhibit 5). In addition, John Jay owned his own personal copy of The Law of Nations. CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE IDENTITY OF THE AMICUS CURIAE AND ITS INTEREST IN THE CASE Amicus curiae's name is Scott Rille, he lives in Tulare, C A , is a 73-year-old Vietnam-era Veteran, Narural-bom American Citizen and A M E R I C A N PATRIOT. Amicus curiae's interest in the case is his intense love of the priceless LIBERTY he inherited at birth, and love of his Constitution of the United States of America and his Constitutional Republic. Amicus curiae sincerely believes that lack of a Constitutionally defensible and authoritative definition of "natural born Citizen" is a clear and present danger to his L I B E R T Y and the L I B E R T Y of every Alabamian and American, and is foundational to this Court arriving at a just decision in this matter. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION OF LAW PRESENTED Amicus curiae respectfully requests this Honorable Court courageously and with 5

Constitutional authority, clearly and unambiguously answer the following Constitutional question of law: Where does the Constitution of the United States specifically require the President of the United States must be bom in the United States of America? TWO POSSIBLE ANSWERS TO T H E QUESTION Answer No. 1: The Constitution of the United States does not specifically require the President of the United States must be bom in the United States of America. NOTE: Amicus curiae believes that most intelligent, knowledgeable, logical and rational citizens would reject Answer No. 1 as legally unacceptable, illogical, irrational and ludicrous. Answer No. 2: The Constitution of the United States, by Constitutional extension and authority, does specifically require the President of the United States must be bom in the United States of America. Amicus curiae sincerely believes the Constitution does so through a unique, 2-step Constitutional process. WHY AMICUS CURIAE'S QUESTION SHOULD BE ANSWERED The Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Alabama are the Rule of Law for Alabama citizens, residents, businesses, governments, courts, and other lawful entities. Preamble to the Constitution of the State of Alabama: "We the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama." 6

By requiring that the President of the United States must be a "natural born Citizen" [United States Constitution. Article IL Section 1. Clause 5]. Amicus curiae believes our Founding Fathers and Constitutional Framers created a new and unique class of "Person" and "Citizen", and that only "Persons" and "Citizens" belonging to this unique class (which includes most Americans bom on U.S. soil) are eligible to hold the Office of President of the United States and Commander-inChief of the Armed Forces of the United States. It is a well-established fact that our Founding Fathers and Constitutional Framers relied heavily on Emmerich de Vattel's Le Droit Des Gens [The Law of Nations], First French Edition 1758, Second French Edition 1775, while involved in the weighty matter of creating our Constitution and Constitutional Republic (Please see Exhibits land 2 attached hereto). Founding Father and future first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, on July 25, 1787, sent a letter to George Washington, Presiding President of the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia [1787]. 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 expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen " Amicus curiae believes that John Jay may have been fully aware of the root meanings of "Les naturels, ou indigenes'' (Please see Exhibit 4 attached hereto), 7

that strong feelings and intent to create a new and unique Constitutional Republic, free of the beliefs, actions, and laws that governed the nations of Europe, and governed by new, distinctly American laws were prevalent among the Founders and Framers, and that John Jay may have chosen to knowledgably interpret Vattel's "Les naturels'' as "natural bom citizens". Amicus curiae believes that John Jay was intellectually capable and possessed his inahenable right to do so. Many of the Framers were fluent in French, including Jay, the delegates unanimously accepted the clause "natural born Citizen" written in the letter Jay sent to Washington as valid without debate or opposition, and wisely included this extremely important to the safety of our Nation clause at United States Constitution. Article n . Section U Clause 5. Amicus curiae believes that many people in the United States falsely believe and claim that the Constitution of the United States fails to define the "natural born Citizen" clause found at United States Constitution. Article IL Section I. Clause 5. Amicus curiae believes, and respectfully submits, that said belief and claim are patently false, that the Framers of the Constitution of the United States did not fail to Constitutionally define "natural born Citizen", and that the Framers wisely and purposely did so through a unique, 2-step Constitutional process: STEP I: United States Constitution. Article L Section 8. Clause "Offenses against the Law of Nations": "The Congress shall have Power . . . To define and punish 8

Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations." STEP 2: The Law of Nations. Book L Chapter X I X . 212. 'The citizens are the members of the civil society: bomid to this society by certain duties, & subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natural bom citizens (naturels), or natives (indigenes), are those bom in the country, of parents who are citizens." (Parenthesis supplied.) By granting the Congress "Power . . . To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations", Amicus curiae sincerely believes our Founding Fathers and Constitutional Framers extended Constitutional authority to The Law of Nations. The Law of Nations, First French Edition 1758, Second French Edition 1775, clearly and unambiguously defines "natural bom citizens". Natural bom citizenship contains two (2), not one (1), eligibility requirements. To qualify as "natural bora citizens" persons must be 1. "bom in the country," and 2. "of parents who are citizens." No exceptions. Amicus curiae believes that to be eligible to hold the Office of President of the United States, that "Person" must be a "natural born Citizen", meaning he or she must be bora in the United States of America [including United States Territories] 9

and both parents of said "Person" must have been citizens of the United States at the time of said Person's birth, and also meet the other eligibility requirements found at United States Constitution. Article IL Section L Clause 5. Amicus curiae sincerely believes that electing and inaugurating an ineligible person as president in violation of the Constitution would be tantamount to rendering the Constitution null and void, and to tossing it, the Constitutional Republic it undergirds, and the priceless LIBERTY it guarantees onto the garbage heap of history! On 4 June and 18 June, 1940, Sir Winston Churchill spoke these immortal words of wisdom and courage to the Parliament and beleaguered people of Great Britain: "We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans^ we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender,..." "But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States^ including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister^ and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth lastfor a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour!'" Amicus curiae sincerely believes that Your Honor's courage to review and to Justly rule on this weighty matter herein presented could be your "finest hour!** May God bless the citizens and residents of the great State of Alabama and the United States of America. 10

Amicus curiae believes that this matter of justly answering his Constitutional question of law, and thereby establishing the authoritative. Constitutional definition of the "natural bom Citizen" clause, is the most important matter, relevant to the survival of our priceless LIBERTY, State of Alabama and Constitutional Republic of the United States of America, and the Rule of Law adjudicated in the history of this Court. Honorable Justices, you are hereby afforded the weighty opportunity to responsibly and courageously honor your solemn Oaths: "I, ..., solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfiilly and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God." SECTION 279 [Alabama Constitution], and to become Alabama's and America's "CHAMPIONS for LIBERTY"! Since 1775, millions of Patriots have sacrificed then" lives and sustained horrific injuries in defense of our Constitutions, Constitutional Republic, and priceless LIBERTY. As a genuine American Patriot, Amicus curiae proudly and courageously stands shoulder-to-shoulder with our Founding Fathers, who mutually pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes, and their sacred Honor, and with our courageous men and women in uniform in defense of LIBERTY, and

11

with their families. Amicus curiae respectfiilly invites this Honorable Court to review and take Judicial notice of the Exhibits attached hereto. Quotation from Abraham Lincoln's address, "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions", before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1838: "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 of justice. In short, let reverence for the law become the political rehgion of the nation. . . Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! - A l l 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 by suicide." CONCLUSION Amicus curiae sincerely believes and respectfully submits that confusion concerning the definition of "natural born Citizen" threatens the L I B E R T Y , safety and well-being of every Alabama citizen, resident, and American, threatens the survival of the Rule of Law, threatens the survival of the State of Alabama and Constitutional Republic of the United States of America, that this Honorable Court should have a compelling interest in settling this weighty matter for all time, that a clear, unambiguous and Constitutionally defensible and authoritative definition of 12

"natural born Citizen" urgently needs to be identified, and respectfully requests this Honorable Court, with Constitutional authority, in the interest of preserving the personal LIBERTY, safety and well-being of all Alabamians and Americans, in the interest of preserving the Rule of Law, and in the interest of Justice answer the above Constitutional question of law and issue its findings and ruling. Respectfully submitted this 4^ day of August, 2013.

Scott Rille, Amicus curiae Natural-bom American Citizen A M E R I C A N PATRIOT Vietnam-era Veteran

139 East Tulare Avenue, 325 Tulare, C A 93274 559-688-0357 American.Patriots@sbcglobal.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I H E R E B Y CERTIFY that a tme copy of the following document, BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE has been fumished by U.S. Mail this 8^ day of August, 2013 to the following parties: H U G H McINNISH, et al. through their attomey: Larry Klayman, Esq. Klayman Law Firm 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, N W Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20006 Counsel for Appellants B E T H C H A P M A N , Alabama Secretary of State through her attomeys: Honorable Attomey General of Alabama Luther Strange and the 13

Honorable Assistant Attomey General Margaret L. Fleming Office of the Attomey General of Alabama 501 Washington Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Counsel for Appellee Dated: August 8, 2013 /s/ Scott Rille

14

EXHIBITS 1-9 A T T A C H E D TO BRIEF OF A M I C U S C U R I A E m THE SUPREME COURT OF A L A B A M A STATE OF A L A B A M A C A S E NO. 1120465

SUPREME
CQIIRT O F

AUG I 5 2013
ALABAMA

O N A P P E A L F R O M THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, A L A B A M A C V 2012-1053 by SCOTT R I L L E , Amicus curiae A U G U S T 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 circiunstances 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 ovm 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 P L E A S E SEE EXHIBIT 2 (COLOR PHOTOS AND TEXT IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.) Page 1 of 4

\ \ \ 1 \1 Uited and with jn Iniroduciion by

The Law ofNations tI tt >f \ \1 1 1 1

Kapouy and Rkhatd Whaimmv

The appearance m )c Vaiut. as J nufor autbority on natural juritpnMknce. and hb book qukldy b e o n w the moH important work on internaiionat taw in the t^^wccnth century. A philoMpher. iurm. and difiloinaL Vattd (i7<4-'7*7> > 1>P humanm heritage of the pcalittct of a mndern cconotny.

Smnu potiua

t M A P T K R XIX (}f our iWiutr Country: atifiieirriil Tftin^s tintt rt-Lttf to it

Lt O B O E T

The Law of Nations. Ch. XIX. Emer de Vattel (1714-1767), First French Edition 1758, First English Edition 1760, Knud Haakonssen, General Editor, LffiERTY FUND, INC., 8335 Allison Pointe Trail, Suite 300, Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-1684 2008.

Natural born citizen of the United States

Fronn Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural born citizen of the United States

There is no record of a debate on the ''natural bom Crtizen" 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 letter from John Jav to George Washington. presiding officer of the Convention. Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seas

strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Gov that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to r>or devolve o

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 Jav

"Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother, let it be taught in s seminaries, and in colleges. Let it be written in primers, [in] spelling books and in alma preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in the courts ofj short, let reverence for the law become the political religion of the nation... Shall we ex transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! - A Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted militaty chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is t danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It c from abroad, if destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author andfinisher. As freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide". - Abraham Lincoln, The Perpet Our Political Institutions -2of4-

JOHN JAY'S LETTER TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON, NEW YORK 25 JULY 1787 ON THIS DATE GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS PRESIDING PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AT PHILADELPffiA 1787

r<t

-^*<4/*7>-t*

- 3 of 4-

TRANSCRIPTION OF JOHN JAY'S LETTER TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON NEW YORK 25 JULY 1787

f HfHi tKfri tnOi*nmjf honoreti K'ttKyOtu" CtuccUetxcyi ptu-Or o/ tKc^ Jii Xtut: 6 isnmcduUcfy dcUAOtxd' the^ Lciie4' U mc(oK<i to Conunodcfc^Jona.

Pcfn4C m-1& KcnT, wKt^' it wotilii nor

}C>-9ii^

Wu^

s^cixmu^le- tt> pfOvtAJU^ 4 * ^

cAcdt to

<ul*n44ii<rv of pai^tM^ne*'}

the^ iuUnMU^ti%Uiotv of oiw ruUiotXiU^

oiiny iKoit not be-jfiA-cn^ ftr, it-ti4<Hvt<m, tm^ biif *t/mttluaci5<n>vCi/V5*v . . .

Deo*- iu-

-4of4-

EXHIBIT 2
As evidenced below, there can be no doubt whatsoever our Founding Fathers and Constitutional Framersreliedheavily on The Law of Nations as they stru^ed with the weighty matter of creating our Constitution and Constitutional Republic.

Lftlcrs of dclegalcs Ui Congress. 1774-1 784. Volume 2. Sopicmhcr 1 7?5-I)ci;fnibcr 1775 Dtlr%atts to (ttnf^rr%%. I.eltrm of drk^le to Confim. l-lccironic lc\t Center. riiivcr>.iiy of \'irj;ini;t I ihr;ir\
Tabic of ContcBH for Ihia woHt All O B - l i B e datahatw t tttxt Center llomcpw Dtcembcr 1775

Pai:c I of 4

I774-I789, \'otuinc 2, Septcmbrr 1775-

Benjamin Franklia to To: Charles V\ illiam Frederic Dumas Dear Sir. I'liilAdclphia, * J DcctmK-r. I rcedu'd > o u r so^eral favors, ot M J > 18ih. June .^'Hh. and Jul\ Sih. by Mcisr*; N'ailiant and IVxhard, Jj ''ti^^tii if! could scrvtf upon vour tcuimmendaium, ii wuuUl m c j;rcrat pleasiwv. Ihcir total v ^ a n t oi l.n^U'ih is at prciiT an obstruction lo iheir ycuinii any employment a m i > n ^ us, hut 1 hope t h c > v^iW swii obtain > o m e kni* Icd^e ot ii. lliis is a jjiKKi t:ountr\ tiir anitlceri or taimcrs; but gcntlcnx'n ol' mere science m les hclles ktires eannoi w ^ . easily xuhsisi here, there being linle demand tor their assistance amon^ an industrious p>ple. uho. as > et, ha\e nit muth leisure lor vtudici if that kind Ia m much obliged b > the kind present \ou ha\e m a d e us or'>our edition of \'diici. It e a m e to us in ^ ( H d seawm. v ^ h e n the cireumsianecs oCa nsinj; stiiie make it neccssar> t'requenll> to consult the law of nations AeeordingN that topy, whith I kept, (after depi'-^iting txie in tuir own public library here, and sendine the olJier lo tbeColletie i > f Massachusetts Ha>, a ^> o u directed.) has been conltnuaII> m the hands of the membcri. of our Congress. ni>\\ silting. \^ho arc much pleased v^ith \our iKitesand preface, and ha\e entertained a high and just esteem for their author >'our m^uscnpt 'idee sur tc Uouvemcmeilt et la Royautc" is also well a'lished. and m a % . in lime, have tts ctTect I thank >ou. likevxise. for the other smalWr pieces, which accompanied Vattel "Ic coun Ixpose decc qui scst passe entrc laCour Hritanntqiic et les Colonics." hi-, bciny a very ioncisc and clear statement of facts, vv'ill be repnnted here for ihc use of our n e w friends m Canada. Ihe translaimns of the prtvccdings of our Con^res:* arc \er\ acceptable, I s e n d vou hcrcv^ith vshat ut'iiwm has been farthcT published here, together 'Ailh a t'e\s n e w i ^papers, containing acciHinls of some of the successes Providence has favored u% v\iih We are threatened from l-nylar^ with a very powertul force, to come next vear against us.jjj *c are makm^ all ihe provision in our pt^er here to o p p t M w that force, and we hope v\c shall be able to defend ourselv es But. as the e ve m s ol war are a j ^ v a v s uncertain, possibly,

aftcr arutihcr campaign. v\c m a yfindit neccs^ar. to ask the aid of s ^ m e lt>reiyn ptiuer. It ^ivos us ^rcat pleasure lo loam from vou, that louie Tfurope nou^i souhailc le plus heureux succes pt)ur le maintien de nos liberies. Hut wish to knov^. v^hcther an\ one ot them, from prirwiples of hunwiits, is disptvscd macnaninunisK lo sitp m for ihe icticl oi an oppressed people, or VihcthcT. jf. a > It sLx-ms likely lo happen, vvc shcmid bcoblij;ed lo break off all connexion with Britain, and declare ourselves an independent people, there ]s an; slate or p^mer in I un*pc, vvho would be willmg to enter into an aUiatvcc with us for the benellt ol our commerce, which amounted, before the war. to near seven millions sterling per annum, and must cominualK increase, as our pcjple increase m*"sl rapidlv. Contldin^*. m v dear fnend. in )Our ^ood \MI! IO US and to our cause, and in your sagacilv and abilities tor business, the tommiiiee of Congress. app<iinted for the purpose c d establishing and conduclint; a hup: ctext.lib.vir^jinia.edu ctcbJn tixcer-ncw^ 'id~lK-(\'ol(l2,xml&irt\aiics imajics tni.xle... 1 1? < iZ O t1 Page 1 of 6

PHOTO IMAGES OF "A NUMERICAL CATALOGUE" AND "LE DROIT DES GENS" 1775 EDITION USED BY PERMISSION FROM THE LIBRARY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA 1314 Locust St, Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 546-8229

i 'rfmrrfcn/

(//////p^^7/r

QUARIO

PHOTO IMAGE OF TITLE PAGE OF "A NUMERICAL CATALOGUE" THE LOG BOOK FOR INCOMING BOOKS INTO THE LIBRARY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA
PHOTO USED BY PERMISSION FROM THE LIBRARY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA

(PLEASE REFERENCE PAGE 1 OF EXHIBIT 2.) -2 of 6 -

PAGE SHOWING ENTRY OF "LE DROIT DES GENS for VATTEL" INTO "A NUMERICAL CATALOGUE" SHORTLY AFTER BENJAMIN FRANKLIN DEPOSITED TT AT THE LIBRARY IN 1775.

PHOTO USED BY PERMISSION FROM THE LIBRARY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA

-3of 6 -

DE V A T T E L DROIT DES GENS

l l u i mate* II ftif MwafiJi purp-nct i d b .

L E 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

- 5 of 6 -

Le Droit Des Gens [1775], LIV. I. C H A P . X I X . 115 The Law of Nations [1775], B O O K I. C H A P T E R X I X . 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, & somnis 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 J A Y ' S C O M M A N D OF THE F R E N C H L A N G U A G E

L I F E
or

J O H N
VITR

J A Y :

hKl.eCTWSi8 P R O MH I SC O R R E S r O N D K N C f i

(f nil

>D,

W I L L I A M

J A Y .

> t . TWO V O L U M E S
VOU I.

NEW.YORK:

n U S T T K Ui S .L r U B U S H DB V i. J. lUirKK,

Courtesy of WESTCHESTER C O U N T Y HISTORICAL SOCIETY Elmsford, New York

Page 1 of?

ly

un or *Mit tA\: MM*;farB d d U e paicata WA > lorcd tad nrnenrad w d ^ w m ^ l M . Both tklhtr ad n w U b C T iro act* tied t^flJaoerawdfcrvMl piety: bodi had warn bnrli and cfaawM tmpcn; and both poaKvatd, awter wind aadwnnliidt.artmarktbledegiwof'f^iiuiinii^^^ But iftdAerKipecttlfceirdiAred widely. UepMeaacdiiniqK Mtaciilbn noM. t s a tWevd <ibaeTTttc ad aJminble pigtattam; smatme, jfenemiwf. and p i v ^ ; an adec* lioaMa fuber, a Und maftcr, btil fpiveniiiig all mit$ hu Qottn) wttk mild boi afavtluie may. HIK bnd a tulnvatM Mind and fine imMfprnU-im; mild and tSixticmic ia Jwr IwifKr and mamert, tbn took deli^ in llw dtXW aa wc8 UtiiapleaauinHofdomcMklife; whd a cbccriiil reaignatioa lo the wil of Providence during many yt-ara of n^kBMi and idfefiB)^ borv wttnna lu Dm Inni^ < d ber religinai Mk. H * > happily dfd tbaw rariow dirftfMiiimi karmoaiie Wgther, that thu mitjaet >4 d u menMiir oflm dadued, that be I w H nnvor, in a nn^' uulauce. beard cilbr f hU pan-.iu \m toward* tbe other an aiiffry or wkiad word. NofwiilMtBdinK tbn cam uf a bt^irfrmjly.tbe modwr iavotod jmicb of her tiine lo dt/t imlnKtinn nf the two blind ebddren and of the liule JohiL To the fvinter nd the bM aollun; lo tbe bllar die laitKfat ihn mjiairnu iif Bngli^ and the \Atoa xranunar. When bctwcca >ji asd m a yara old. hia father, writi^ about him 10 O M of tbe ftaily, reouulKd, "Johnny ia of a \<My fpare dt^utitjon, udldrntokwaiaKuoeedii^ywetL lie will lowibe fit to fo le a giumiar^ilMnL" Whaa eigbiymnoidbe wu MU to 9nunnarii0o) ha^ by ibe Rev. Mr. Stoope^ ptMOroftbePnmdidMrcbttNcV'Rodie^ Hucbaractor^owa at tUa culy ajce aeaina M tuive bam nftdeat}y a i M to cidie thnfavoonldQantieipatioM f Ui diacera&lber, wlw, in afetterto Mr, IVloquta of BrMtoJ, abiemd. * 1 n&nol feitau- taking diefteedonof hintii^ M you tfw i d n a j f t m S M a weiy pfcaaoff proapeo.

hi wi*. Mr. PpkMfiin. ot BiiAjL SOOB tikn I141 TCUITD, in I7S, Jay inmied Miry tkr. iinghirr oT Jambui VanCnrtiamtt. H <T (nikTwn tliniliiut^ef o d " KrKterick PhilipffS wlivic iataJy, r^:iwil|y BOIKHUB , had bcra cwijwlkd by jtrtpi* prrwirtKift w lalwrefiifjflin HiJlaiid, fniA whciit-v be luJ ciu^nuil lu N C W - Y O H L T I M S ka4 the ftiltjcol oif ntir mi*inotr ihu hinwur t < i lie (kvoended in diTM iiutaaOn Iruni ancnton WIM ebon: to alMnilaii ihrir OMitttry nijwr tfMi) ihnir roljjtiitjii.

p l M Mcfa ihm dirtnrW IIK cotoayi he spfdiod hinuN>lf aaidiKKulf la bit buiine&s BI A mrniaiit. Harinjg tmrtti (bnunn wbich, iJded m ibe prof<efly ke had ac<^iaiorf by infarritanim aori autmi^', h tlvM^Jit n^nienu be ic^rJ, whm little ni<m ibui forty yean oM. to retuc into (b couMry, and (or dnt purpoM {MrclMind 1 {trm si Rye, Ol the i^Mifn 1^ I^a^ Itlsiid Sound. > few nSei dJitant hum Now-Rochrle. itd about tivc-aiK)-twrfi|y frn ibe rily of Now-York. To ibtt nieimre bn v u alat protnpttd by donmtir calamity. Two >flm chiUna, ana nnd a iki^tter, wnc aUacluKl in {ia:'u iflfucy by muDpoK, utd were lieprivel oTnf^ht by tli fi^iitdftl>ledtMu, the rijlil tnailincm of Mhtch wa then luiknovn or WH pracitMd, II w tbuofrfat that llr Iwn IJltk lufkntn couU ba braiijfat up RHirc niiy ami a<lvttlaf[<KMaly ia Ibo country ifaaB the aly. I'fer Jay had diildrra; J M N wai liii eif^ cjiilii, aiKl a t IxH^ ill CJK city XeW'Yofk the tSth Ucecmbrr, 1745. Mc wfti u i n ) oftcr ibo llonoumU A Join f iMmbiTH, 'me i r f * ibe JiM^'f i.4 tbe Ruprvnte (Vmn of ibe provioee, wbn had mtrnisi ipothnrV M < 1 < T . itn ^ n^movii) of tU- Guilty Ut Kvr, bo wu caftted there ia bia Dunc'ii ttrnit. l^fhnracler nf tlw gan-ntfl, bu BOW dctolrd thenj' R K O tv Jbo ediKalK* uf ikir cbiUrca, dcacrvci t& b* atioed. ItwaiaiheinconiriBebtlwirfendaligbtcdtocoA-

to 90 to a gxftmmar-tchool/

Wben eight y o a n oEd ho w a i

m t to ft gmmraar-Kfaool kept by the

lity.

JMr. Stoope, H U chanc-

p u l o r of the Ff^nch church mt New-Rochello,

"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."

-2of7-

13

Lire i^r tomn JAV.

un or m m

n\.

He Mni to IK^ mckiutal mili a very good rapacity, U Tcrr rrKrviyl, aixl (juite of hit Itrodii:!' Jun^t'i du|Kaili<ii for boo**." Tbr ^nlk-mau to U))MC diat^c he wu now coraniiltnl w u a native of Kwii^Hntrf, iind nf o < f i ( tnliH*. Ixttorant of IIK WOTM . n^irilictt of mxiJtpy, aitd icniarkalilc abKWe it milMl, hi; <firvi>ti^l irvi-ry luuiiicul iif jtii kinuru to his studio's, aixl paiiimlaHy lo die iall> niabr^i; and Ir the >s)idif>ub-d j^ivrrMUKi;! uf tuii^wlf iid hia iMoadnld to Ilia wife, whh aaai ^nuriomaalio ra careleaa. H K parNaf|cand ever)- thin^alx^it il won M K ^ T C I I<>ikcar. and thn ht^M wrm (ivalrd Aith liltio food and liiixh ae^ildi i ^ lilUc u Iv WBi, J < d u > iiHilritcil Ut jirrTml ^.iv M O W fnmi drifiidK upun hi bnl, l<y CIOHII); itie brukra pa am of ^laai with ^mxoi tf wtijj. Thi? coiitni*! UrtM'een laidi lodgings and tarJi irvaiiivtK aiai ibat to which b'.- wai accuMo<i at bonMi ww i i t > t jiinistiif;, lait pnihaiJy not withoHl it! UK*. The ^a'm and idni\Jk- dirt to whirh he wascnnfranl tnH tn tluil iialJeielKetn tlie i^ntity of hii&Nil Icir which ihroi^h li^ be wax mii-irkaUy dtflinguisht'd, w ^ ^o^ cmiRUtiiliiin ma doubt deriv<^l additioint i>tmif(th and yigfmt from the budibijw In which hr wan His health wu ntbuM; aiid iu nftur-Iiii: hu atcd to incatiun the pleajwa he at this time enjoyrd in rtHuiiiiy l h n > i j i ) t ' > woods ind irathrritif; nutu, wbiiiti In esrriol Iwue m b i (tociinfiit wliich he tthjifwd off &er the purjMw-. The inbabUAiitK/tlw villa^-. w<in- liuetly dauetKiauli td'Frcnch fffajlietj, and FVeifch wa upokvn liytfvtn,at wr|| ai in tJr (Arauni)^; aitd tut' iluu ao^uiKd, MMJI iuilt- trouble, a butguage for whit^K he hut afifnt'art! au murb lur. lie rtiitauMxt at tliB iHuRil Uirec ><-ar, wbt;u lu*fctlturiook. bint home and fHizx^ hiin avkt tb' iiidna-tMi of a |>riTaic IMor, who L't)iii|iJrt(^ hii ^'inrati'm lor Cijlk-,{f!. King's (nuw Coliuiibia} C'olk-gc wai thru in i:i infaneT, and bad but few rttidenti. The nuinlmr of Ibnii ) HI aevi^r bees large, but ibcnt arc few ooUcgci in our countgr which

hare pmiaeed mare good achobita in ppopwi,< to the number tbaii thn. To tUi coikge Mr. Jay wai cnt in IMO, beii^ a hlllc mora tbaafaurtoMyear* old. The ev*llent Dr. Siiiioel Jofaaion wai (hen finwleot The yoanf frcahaian waa a w wddrfdy introAioM to a wotae entiwly new lo him, and waa tlHwn ^moug car^ of Tariowa itiipoMtiona and hubitii, withoot aiiy g#Mr gwda or mowttu- llan hja w f^rod mm and nrtue. Hi* ialwootiraL' with nihtv* made U i i iKniilik of bn own deficicwi*^*, and lie commmtnii the w..rk cor* Tscling (linn with a rewJoUoH and ii:vcniwa; w > l frfl.u avinred in H y yi^lli. Hi* arlicaUlioti af il.titt. and hia nwde of pfwwwicing tin; k-tlcr I* eipo-d bim in ridirate. lie |*naixl a wrillru hy Sh*-ridaa. (Ji<^ ha}Ay hia I.etwui oa FJocnrion, and. ^tliug hanwlf daily io hi< room, atudiw] it iiU otijwi W M iiccoiiii*hud. He had lalrt of mdia^ f> raiudly * to undCT>aood with diflieuliy. F I T thr |<up<.; i^cnrmtii^ tbis6iiilt,l iwl aloud t.>liiiwlf; inakit^ ii lull ri"(iaftertwry uwd. Blil he had aoiiiiird a complete wmlroi of tii v..K.e; and bn tliaa becanw an eiceikiit r > mUtr. Wilb the *anicnmrfty ba pnrwed a l Ui^rtodjtisawi si-.-ally allm<l.l uj Ei^Klh coiiipOMlion. So tafcjil was Im wi ibal whrn idxurt t* vrtte an Englisli f.^ft-JH-. Ie rlw'-d a yvn- of juper and a pencil by bii led*i<le, thnt if. wbJr UK^itatin^- un hU wkjeet in IIK nigfat. a katualdt.- idn oucunvil to biiti, he make uiuc note of it, cwn in (he dark, thai inij^ht ncaN it in ths nmiag. W* apfdtcatan aud correct di^rtniMd acquired fnr lint erteem nnd fiieudibip of tite pmudt^wl. Thin wortiy nun raaigaed bia oCc after Mr. Jay Itad been thrc yvra iaCOtt^gQiand retired toCanacCtind, fiuin whrnm lio wrote a land letter to hia Ulc pupil, inviting Mm to viiii him. and aMH^g him of hti pnytn that he nogjU *'eonliiiue to act a good pait" Or. Johtiaon wai aucceoied m the ^rti-

stocking*, which he stripped off fur the puri>ost'. Tlie inhabiuiiu of (htj vilttigc w t i m tJik'riy de ijiKiauts of French rcfugws, n n d French w a s p o k e n hy t h . m , wtJI tut iu tliu f)ritvtfft; a i u l l*e t!uw acquired, wiiJi httlu i r o u b l e , a gtwge for wlik-hhe h.td R f t r r u a n l i dufcch i w c . U re. ntaiiM<l at tliMficluKt]thrw- year*, w l t v i i lut^ iatlter took h i m home Atvl plated h i m uivk-t instnu^liirti of a private lultir, wJio t."i>tiipl<r|r'rf hifi ji-fpiintj(ni lor c*j)li'Ke. "The inhabitants of the village were chiefly descendants of French refugees, and French was spoken by them, as well as in the parsonage; and he thus acquired, with little trouble, a language
IIH;

P 12

-3 of 7 -

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.

,4jrt*UnttaA ;

4*tm*.^

nmyyi,

j/

^fr^jw^f}

A^fWy' ./Mb

-4of7 -

t
v w , *>MfK A V jr. '.fci^ .wafcjc*.nuw 'x^yr^ w ^ *y< - -

^r ^ r

ny^ttA *w^aC,fcy^^.tt,/U^ wuy!^ ^*

kwA,^ - I tir ri

if^

^ X M f K t n ^ ' *A A A O

t ^sA.

uWic

tr^M*

&

*y<y

V
JOHN J A Y ' S T R A N S L A T I O N OF THE A B O V E F R E N C H D O C U M E N T INTO ENGLISH "Trans, in JJ's hand". TRANSCRIPTION OF T H E ORIGINAL F R E N C H A N D TRANSCRIPTION OF J A Y ' S T R A N S L A T I O N B E L O W .
Courtes>' 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 Y o r k M a n u m i s s i o n Society [Paris, 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 , operer I ' a b o l i t i o n de

a I ' i n s t a r de

celle

d'Angleterre des Negres;

et d'Amerique,

pour

l a T r a i t e e t de

I'Esclavage

a l a S o c i e t e e t a b l i e a New-Yorck, p o u r I ' 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 , engage a v o u s i n f o r m e r que a present, et un e n t r e l e s v u e s de M.

des

Esclaves:

n o t r e S o c i e t e , e s l e s v o t r e s , nous de W a r v i l l e , qui a ete, jusqu*

Jeau P i e r r e B r i s s o t ses

notre S e c r e t a i r e , et q u i , par

sentimens d'humanite, ses

lumieres et aux

zele infatiguable,

a principalement contribue a 1'etablissement

progres que

de n o t r e S o c i e t e , a e n t r e p r i s un v o y a g e d a n s I ' A m e r i q u e S e p t e n t r i o n a l e ; de ce v o y a g e , i l se p r o p o s e se r e c u e i l l i r toutes les lumieres

dans l e c o u r s e

possibles,

s u r l e s o r t des

N e g r e s , d a n s c e t t e p a r t i e du monde; s u r l e s m e s u r e s s o i t pour mettre f i n a leur importation, sur l e s terres, qu'au

p r i s e s s o i t pour l e s a f f r a n c h i r , r e s u l t a t s a c t u e l s de

c e s m e s u r e s , t o u s p a r r a p p o r t a l a c u l t u r e des

c a r a c t e r e m o r a l des N e g r e s , e t en g e n e r a l s u r t o u t ce q u i c o n c e r n e c e t t e m a l h e u r e u s e , m a i s i n t e r e s s a n t e p o r t i o n de determiner en s a f a v e u r I ' e s p e c e humaine, e t pour s e r v i r a des

l e s G o u v e r n e m e n s e t l e s I n d i v i d u s : e t comme l e s u c c e s

p o u r 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 C o r r e s p o n d a n c e m u t u e l l e : a q u o i nous e s p e r o n s que

r e l a t i o n de

fraternite, de

et

de

v o u s ne r e f u s e r e z p a s

c o n c o u r r i r e t nous v o u s 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 dit S i e u r de W a r v i l l e v o u s e x p o s e r a , En Societe, f o i de q u o i nous a v o n s f a i t e t l a s i g n a t u r e de a Paris, a c e s u j e t de notre part. l e sceau de notre

la

apposer a c e t t e L e t t r e ,

notre President. 1788. E. Claviere, President

Fait,

l e 29. A v r i l .

-6of7-

[Paris,

29 Ap.

1788]

The

Society

established

at P a r i s , l i k e

t h o s e o f E n g l a n d and A m e r i c a , of Negroes Slaves

to

promote t h e a b o l i t i o n o f t h e Treatment' and S l a v e r y To t h e S o c i e t y The Established a t New

York f o r the L i b e r a t i o n of of our S o c i e t y

C o n f o r m i t y which e x i s t s between the Views you t h a t a n d who

& of yours, has been, and

i n d u c e s us t o i n f o r m u n t i l now,

J o h n P i e r r e B r i s s o t de W a r v i l l e , who by h i s S e n t i m e n t s o f Humanity, contributed

our S e c r e t a r y ;

h i s Talents

his 2 C Q 1unremitted Zeal, Progress of our S o c i e t y ,

has p r i n c i p a l l y

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

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 t h e a l lthe Information possible,

C o u r s e o f t h i s V o y a g e he p r o p o s e s t o a c q u i r e

C r e d i t t o whatever S u b j e c t on o u r

t h e S a i d M".

de W a r v i l l e

shall

c o m m u n i c a t e t o y o u on

this

Part^ we have caused t h e S e a l of our o f our S o c i e t y President t o be a f f i x e d t o

In Witness whereof this Letter,

and a l s o t h e S i g n a t u r e 1788

Done a t P a r i s 29 Ap.

( s i g n e d ) E. C l a v i e r e , L S , NNC ( E J : 7287). T r a n s , i n J J ' s hand (EJ: 7288). Endorsed:

President of in

"Translation 1788,

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 F r e n c h and t r a n s ,

1788". E n c l o s u r e ,

d a t e d 22 A p r . de l a S o c i e t y 7289).

i n J J ' s hand: " E x t r a i t des R e g i s t r e s

etablie a

P a r i s , p o u r d ' a b o l i t i o n de l a T r a i t e d e s N e g r e s , " 1. T r a i t e des N e g r e s r e f e r s to the slave

{EJ: 7286,

trade. "John

2. F o r B r i s s o t de W a r v i l l e ' s v i s i t Jay, Anti-Slavery, and t h e New

t o A m e r i c a , see t h e e d i t o r i a l note Society," above [5 Feb.

York Manumission

1785].

-7of7-

EXfflBIT 4
F R E N C H T O ENGLISH T R A N S L A T I O N A N D D I C T I O N A R Y E X C E R P T S R E V E A L N A T U R A L & N A T I V E " B O R N " R O O T M E A N I N G S .

GOOGLE TRANSLATE: FRENCH: naturels indigenes ENGLISH: natural indigenous, natives

1758 First French Edition of Le Droit Des Gens:

. 212 Les Citoyens sont les membres de ia Societe Civile: Lies a cette Societe par

Des ctioyens certains devoirs, & soumis 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

Of the citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantagcs. 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 . fir i "
Cmmtrjt

XIX.

W tie

fivtnl

mMgt tUi

rtimtt

U,

ty :W t

f ^ H E w4wk of a conon? foMoA bf iuiioa mi A UbfoQ. to io IBWS. itnm, M ve hiw Astif Cat, iuttniiana; aad N blhccomano eowttiy <if all the iodivUnbof tdetauM. We been oMigwl to awidpaic the (kfioitioB of Ac torn wr emtMtf 112.) beoufie oar uk^eOt led I K to ucat f lofC of am vamatrj, a tiftae extremely eacdknt mi uaxtuj in a ftc SuppofiaS then. tUi ddbhioa ikaif \aemn, k rcaaios ifcat we flioald hete cspbia fcvent t*img Ast hate a reljboa to tt, od aafvcr *e qudliote due have been iDade oa A fubicft Tbe dtncM aic Ox attmben of the cnfl fixietj: booad ID ihk SoaOf bf cataia dBbe^ and fibjeQtoii> *mWiMitjf ihcy equaD| paitk ^MC i itt adtant^ct. Tbe Mivrt, or itiCigtan, m dwfe bom in the eoMrr^ of pamHs who are dtizens. Societf not betn| able to fubM . aad perpetuate iticif* but by the cbiMrea of tbe diofe diiMiai natsnUy tottmr the oonditkm iheir hthat, ami fttccee<l n all their rights. The 'oeieijr ktvffctoi toddiietfaisi ia --^lequence of what owes to its ova preferratioa i and it is picfumcd that, each oKzen, on cmetii^ imo fiieiojr, .dtxm to his childrea ibe ri^ of dicif becQoiii^ taeoifaert. Tbe oott^try of Ifae

Page 1 of 6

1775 Edition, Le Droit des Gens, Livre I, Chapitre X I X [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 dioyens & naturels.

A French teacher, of French ancestry and heritage, provided Amicus curiae herein with the following insight: Dear Mr Rille, 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/

[OE. natunl F. naturd, ft L. nmtralc, fr, mzura. S Xatwel 1828 DefiiiidoB NATURAL* a. (to be bom or produced] 1. Peitaittfflf to sitwe; produced or effected by nature, or by the of gro^tlb, fomatiofi or motioo txi4>ressed on bodies or beings by dhine power. Tlnn we speak of tbe natxxnl growth of animals 01 plants; the natural motion of a graWutmg bod>; natural strength or disposition; the natwd heat of the body; latml color, natural beauty. In ttis sense, oatur^ is opposed to artiiktal or acqtmd. 11. Okfstioiate; bm out of wnflock; is a oatml son.
- 2 of 6 -

F.
natural

to be bom

bom out of wedlock

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

" Merriam-Webster Dictionary

natural-born adj

Oefimtton of NATURALBORN : hiving a 5pcifid status or characttr by birth <a <she's a nMtvnf'bom

f)^<mturwl-

bom d e s c r i b r with a memory for dotails ~ Ernostine Evans> nurse Winston Churchill>; p : shall be eligible to the office of compare
\.sjr',-^-i^^\

having the tgat status of citizan or subjsct <no person except a naTuf9{'tcm citizen president U S Browse ' Next word in the Dictionary: natural bridge * Previous Word in the Dictionary: natural bark All Words Near; natural-born
CofiStttvTion>

nat-U'ral

adj

na-chs-r,!, nach-fal,

Definition of NATURAL 1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <nan>ra/ }ustice> 2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature

b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature 3 a ( 1 ) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; distinguished from adoption <narura/ parents> b : r^GH^MATE <a 4
natural also :

begotten

^GrnMCkTE ( 2 ) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as ILLEGITIMATE (born out of wedlock)

child>

: having an essential relation with someone or something : followmg from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a
natural

deduction from the evidence>

: implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn <a natural talent for art> Inborn

- 3 of 6 -

Ortgin of NATURAL Middle English,

horn

Anglo-French

natural,
nature

from Latin

Anglo-French naturel

fiMturalis

of nature, from

navura

First Known Use: I4th century ReUted to NATURAL Synonyms: born, congenital Antonyms: nonnatural >: more Synonym Discussion of NATURAL \4Tu;Li :\3E \uDys, N C S , u \ S 0 J - : s n c i T D , i:tT ^S5 mean free from pretension or calculation. N&Tu!^>i_ implies lacking artificiality and self-consciousness and having a spontaneousness suggesting the natural rather than the man -made world <her unaffected, intentions <the born, congenital

natural manner>.

:\ G \L' D L! S

implies inability to disguise or conceal one's feelings or

ing^ucus

enthusiasm of children>. \Ar;

suggests lack of worldly wisdom often connoting credulousness and unchecked innocence <politically rra'Ve>.

c o n g e n i t a l

^'9

adjective

\k9n-je-na-t't, kan-\

Definition of CONGENITAL 1

BLike

a : existing at or dating from birth <congenttaf deafness>

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

- 4 of 6 -

i n - d i g e n e

<

noun

.nc^j^n

Defindiofi of INDIGENE
NATIVE

Variants of INDIGENE

in^j-^cn* 4

also

in-di-gn < (

Examples of INDIGENE <thfi! indtg^n^ had not mrfilv adapted to the harsh climate, but had in fact prospered in it> Oiigm of INDIGENE Latin

>ndig*ns

Latin indigena

First <nov<f\ Use. 1598

i n - d i g - e - n o u s

ac/>

m-d.-ja-nss

Definition of INDIGENOUS 1

f]

: produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment <tndfgenous plants> <the indigenous culture>

naturally

INBORN

^native

4^) adjective \na-tiv\

Definition of NATIVE 1 2
: I N B O R N , INNATE

Duke

<native talents>

INBORN by birth

: belonging to a particular place by birth

3 archaic : closely related 4

5

: belonging to or associated with one by birth

: NATURAL, NORMAL

by birth NATURAL

6 a : grown, produced, or originating in a particular place or in the vicinity : L O C A L b : living or growing naturally in a particular region :
INDIGENOUS

INDIGENOUS

- 5 of 6 -

Related to NATIVE
S y n o n y m s : aboriginal a u t o c h t h o n o u s , born, domestic, endemic, indigenous born indigenous

Synonym Discussion of NATIVE

NATIVE, INDIGENOUS, ENDEMIC, A B O R I G I N A L

mean belonging t o

INDIGENOUS

a locality, customs>.

NATIVE

implies birth or origin in a p l a c e or region applies t o s p e c i e s or r a c e s and a d d s

ENDEMIC

^j^h

and may s u g g e s t compatibility with it <native tribal

INDIGENOUS

to NATIVE t h e implication o f n o t having b e e n i n t r o d u c e d from elsewhere <maize is indigenous t o America>. implies

JOHN J A Y A N D THE PHILADELPHIA C O N V E N T I O N [May 1787], from Volume 4 of the Selected Papers of John Jay, Columbia University (unpublished 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.

-6of6-

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 Founding 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. Tn 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 buih 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 I l d e f o n s o 28 Sep. 1781

D " ^ . Morris My last t o y o u was o f t h e 24"^. you l a t e r than Ult. Triplicates Franks have been s e n t I have

rec*^. none f r o m March never

10 J u l y b y Maj^.

Y o u r s o f t h e 2'^. Jan^". & 4

reached

me^ Tell

t h e r e i s R e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t ^ ^ t h e m i n i a tor- PRIME MINISTER HERE HAS T H E M me what y o u t h i n k o f MY L ETTER, TO t h e P r c g i d c n t ^CONGRESS^ OF THE [

I

- i n o t o n t ^OF THIS MoNTH'^

FRANCE DO NOT DRAW ODIOUS TO A

wuG P e a c e d o e s n o t a p p e a r v e r y n i g h . T HIS COURT AND THAT OF

E XCEPT A JEW,

perfectly w e l l

I CAN HEAR OF n o t h i n g so p e r f e c t l y
MONEY, LESS WISDOM, NO

S p a n i a r d AS A FRENCHMAN. T HIS GOVERNMENT HAS l i t t l e [illegible]

C REDIT, NOR ANY

^ RIGHT^ TO I T THEY HAVE PRIDE WITHOUT D IGNITY /

CutiHiHo WITHOUT

P OLICY, AND N OBILITY WITHOUT H ONOR '^MIGHT^ DO IS UNCERTAIN

I speake w i t h c e r t a i n t y

w h a t WHAT NEW MEN may

YOUR BILLS HAVE DONE MUCH M I S C H I E F

I

THE KING MEANS WELL BUT KNOWS IN

n o t h i n g V A T T E L S L A W O F N ATIONS^"^ W H I C H from
CONGRESS IS PROHIBITED HERE I

FOUND

QUOTED

a L e t t e r

rec^

c o n f i d e i n your

Prudence & Secrecy.

I hear

s o Seldom from

& so l i t t l e

o f my F a t h e r s

Family, that you w i l l

o b l i g e me

g r e a t l y by mentioning The

f r o m t i m e t o T i m e w h a t y o u may know o r h e a r The o n l y one I have a s y e t r e c ^

ab" t h e m I hope, a yours

C y p h e r I u s e i s N . 1.

Duplicate o fi t w i l l

n o t b e s e n t u n l e s s b y a v e r y s a f e opp^.

I am v e r y much

JJ remember u s t o o u r F r i e n d s a t P h ^ . y o u 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 to bar

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 "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 instructions from Congress to be conveyed to " h i s Charles III, King of Spain [1759-1788]. From t h e P r e s i d e n t o f C o n g r e s s (Samuel

C a t h o l i c Majesty"

Huntington)^

Jay's I n s t r u c t i o n s P h i l a d e l p h i a O c t . 17. Sir, Congress having adhere s t r i c t l y i n their I n s t r u c t i o n s o f t h e 4"". I n s t . ^ d i r e c t e d you t o of the 1780.

to their

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 boundaries

United States, t oi n s i s t

on the N a v i g a t i o n o f the M i s s i s s i p p i

f o r the Citizens o f

t h e 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 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 Merchant S h i p s , which these limit

o f h i s C a t h o l i c Majesty, a s a l s o o n o fW e s t F l o r i d a and a c c e s s i b l e t o

f o r t h e Use o f t h e f o r m e r a n d b e i n g on t h e P a r t o f t h e U n i t e d

sensible o fthe Influence Negotiations

Claims

S t a t e s may h a v e o n y o u r

with the Court Principles Court

o f Madrid,

have t h o u g h t 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 to satisfy that

o n w h i c h t h e same a r e f o u n d e d , t h a t y o u may b e e n a b l e d

ofthe Eguity & Justice of t h e i r Intentions.

"An innocent

Passage

( s a i d V a t t e l ) i s due t o a l l N a t i o n s

with whom a S t a t e Individuals" i f

i s a t Peace, and t h i s Duty comprehends t r o o p s e q u a l l y with

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 to a l l Nations. ^

These o b s e r v a t i o n s you w i l l all

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 relate.

Events and as they here s t a n d i n Support o f t h e C l a i m s t o which t h e y

They a r e i n t e n d e d f o r y o u r p r i v a t e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d u s e a n d a r e t o b e u r g e d s o f a r and i n s u c h f o r m o n l y as w i l l b e s t S u i t t h e temper & Sentiments o f t h eCourt a t

which you r e s i d e and b e s t f u l f i l l

theobject of them. By O r d e r o f C o n g r e s s ( S i g n e d ) Sam. H u n t i n g t o n P r e s i d e n t ^ ^

1. I n a l e t t e r t o BF o f 28 O c t . , James L o v e l l , foreign affairs, {James M a d i s o n , t h a t would the explained that,

chairman o f t h e committee had s e l e c t e d a

for

o n O c t . 6, C o n g r e s s

committee

J o h n S u l l i v a n a n d James Duane) t o w r i t e a l e t t e r

t o J J a n d BF accepted

" 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. draft, i n t h e h a n d o f James M a d i s o n ,

(above). Congress

committee's

p r e s e n t e d t o i t o n 16 O c t . 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 t h e f o r e i g n a f f a i r s a n d t h a t he h a d no s e c r e t a r y .

then a t t e n d i n g Congress JJ

He a s k e d BF t o t r a n s m i t t o S e e JCC, 1 8 : 908, 935-47;

a l l t h e p a p e r s 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 . 3 3 : 471-72.

PBF,

P r i o r t o submitting t h e d r a f t t o Congress, Madison

h a d d i s c u s s e d most o f t h e Madison's

m a j o r 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. on C o n g r e s s

F o r 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 a n d F r a n c i s c o Rendon e x e r t e d to retract 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

PJM, 2: 114-17, 1 2 7 - 3 6 ; a n d LDC, 1 6 : 1 5 4 - 5 9 . 2. S e e a b o v e , a n d "Congress A p p o i n t s John J a y M i n i s t e r t o S p a i n " n o t e ) , v o l . 1, p. < (editorial

>, a n d n o t e s t o P r e s i d e n t o f C o n g r e s s t o J J , 16 O c t . 1 7 7 9 .

9. See Emmerich de V a t t e l , Law o f N a t i o n s , Book 3: No. 123, and Book 2:

No. 119.

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.

FOUNDING F A T H E R T H O M A S JEFFERSON O W N E D HIS O W N P E R S O N A L C O P Y OF E M M E R I C H de V A T T E L ' S " L E DROIT DES GENS" [1775]

Thomtat Jt/fcr^on'

Chapirr a at library: A Cmtaiog -ifh t/ir finirift in iti% (hrn OrJrr

.ti ll.m- <<<

JfarmJ. 2 Zaw o/ Mature

StAicje aad Jfatioax

40. V a t t e l . D r o i t des Gens. E d . de 1775. 4^*".

http://catdir.loc.eov/catdir/toc/becities/main/jefferson/88607928_chl6.html - 5-

EXHIBIT 6 Law of Nations

Emmerich de Vattel Law of IVations; 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 Vattel's 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://w\vu' lonangconVexlibris/vattei/indexhtml Vattel's The Law of Nations, was the most influential book on the law of nations for 125 years following its publication. The first English 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 fiiture 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 frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, "The Idea of M . de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, 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 1 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 sifting...." 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 fiandamental rights of the people, with repeated requests for redress of grievances, which were refiised. 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 fiall powers of a sovereign govenmient, "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. Jefferson 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 Vnion^ 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 o f laws, customs, and institutions, which can be changed by the Parliament. The only place o f 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 o f freedom and lawfulness 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.comyfocus/f-chat/2148074/posts

EXHIBIT 7

Forgotten Influences of the Founders

Our own Founding 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 Founders drew from several 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 by rights should be entrusted with the power of self-determination; and there was the faculty of renown continental thinkers and jurists who propounded 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 in 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 NationSj 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-bom Vattel learned to love God from his father, a pastor in the Reformed 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, "It is ... the constitution of a state which determines 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 successfril then it must begin as it means to continue, built upon an unshakeable fr)undation of natural law and separated power. As with many of the ancient historians and our own Founding Fathers, Vattel recognized the insidious hann done to constitutions by those who weaken it from the inside over time. James Madison's warning in this regard is oft quoted: ''I 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 our Founders learned from the wise men discussed in this article are just as valuable for us, their political and philosophical heirs. We

must V i g i l a n t l y 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-influences

* 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 bv/beniamin+franklin

Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT 8 Vattel's Influence o n the t e r m a N a t u r a l B o r n 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, 'Wo person except a natural bom 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 Law of Nations." written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758 In book one chapter 19, 212, O f the citizens and

mXwes.

"The citizens are ihe members of ihe civil society: hound to this society by certain duties, CUKI subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. 7'he natives, or natural-horn citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the 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, t may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be the country, it is necessary that a person be born 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 fact when Vattel defines "natural bom 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 lull context of sentence 2 of section 212 to flilly 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 ' born citizens, those born 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, "77?^ common /ovt' of England is nol 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 bora 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 Bora 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 analogv 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 confiising on this issue. Blackstone also writes, "7b encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. Ill st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas hy 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, whose fathers were natural-bom subjects, are now natural-bom subjects themselves, to all intents an purposes, without any exception; unless their saidfathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high 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. (Journal 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. (Journal of the Senate of the United States of America. Febmary 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 "Per/n/7 me to hint whether it would not he 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. What further discredits 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 VattePs assertion that citizenship is derived from the 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 addfijrtherproof 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 bom 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 mle, 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 Bom Citizen, then the only remaining source is from Vattel. Many of these detraaors say we are reaching to extremes to use Vattel, as the source of a Natural Bom 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 mies 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 tmly influenced by Vattel, or not. The answer to this lies with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who penned Virginia's Citizenship statue in 1779, ''Be 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 offidelityto 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 Harreveh 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 VatteFs editor, C . G . F , Dumas, "/am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, H'hen 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 J 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, "TTie 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 govermnent 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 (jenet 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 bringforward 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 born 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 all 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 forther 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 Companv 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 Harreveh in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklinfi"omthe 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 VatteFs 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 Vattel's editor, C.G.F. Dumas,

' 7 am much obliged by the kind present you have made us ofyour edition of Vattel. It ca to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary freque consult the Law of Nations, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, t/iat copy which I kept has been continually in the 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-forfiotten-influences

-5-

EXHIBIT 9
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/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 UNfTED STATES

88 U.S. 1 6 2

Minor v. Happersett
Argued: February 9, 1875 Decided: March 29.1875

The CHIEF JUSTICE detivered the opinion of the court.

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

8 8 U.S. 1 6 2

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
Paap 1 rtf 11

right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide 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 dedsion, 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 dtizen 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 v/ithout 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 government. 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 v^nth Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth,-^ and 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 citizen -- 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 naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides-^ that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen 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 born 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 vdthin the jurisdiction v^thout reference to the dtizenship of their [pi68] 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

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 dtizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling v^thin the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered dtizens 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 dtizens.-^ 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 earty 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 dtizen. 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 v^ll 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 judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between dtizens of different States. Under this it has been unifonnly 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 VA U be found. Thus, in the pre-emption l a w s , - ^ a v/idow, "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 S t a t e . E a c h 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 S e n a t o r s . I t is not necessary to inquire whether this power of supervision thus given to Congress is suffident to authorize any interference v/ith the State lav 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 fumished 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 v^th force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights vi^ich belonged to dtizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every dtizen must be protected, [pi 72] 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 v/ith 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 v/ithin 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 v/ithin that time paid a State or county tax which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election;" in [pi73] 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 v/ithln 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 wnthln 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 sterling towards the support of the govemment;" 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 dtizens 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. [pi 74] 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 dtizens 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 absolute rights of 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 clearly excluded, why inflict the penalty for the exclusion of males alone? Clearly, no such form of words would have been [p175] 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 foUovire: '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 v/hlch 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 fonm 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 . - ^ All these several provisions of the Constitution must be construed in connection vrith the other parts of the instrument, and in the light of the surrounding drcumstances. The guaranty is of a republican fonm 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. All the States had governments when the Constitution was adopted. In all the people participated to some extent, through their representatives elected in the manner spedally provided, [pi 76] These govemments the Constitution did not change. They were accepted precisely 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 citizens 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 circumstances 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, certainly 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 v/lthout due process of law, adopted as it was as early 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 sufficiently 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 citizens 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 v/ithdrawn from women as earty as 1807 in the State of New Jersey, v\nthout any attempt to obtain the interference of the United States to prevent it. Since then the govemments 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, dtizenship 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 dtizens 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 nearly 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 [pi 78] uniform practice long continued can settle the construction of so Important an instmment 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 lav of the several States which commit that Important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. - See otlier sections, infra, p. 174.
10

10 Stat, at Large, 604.

^ Article 2, S 18. ^ Preamble, 1 Stat, at Large, 10. - Declaration of Independence, lb. 1, -Articles of Confederation, S 3, 1 Stat. ^Article2, 1 . ^Article 1,S8. ^1 Stat, at Large, 103. ^ 10 Id. 604. ^ 2 Id, 293.

^5 Stat, at Large, 455,110. 12 Id. 392. Constitution, Article 1, S 2. ^ lb. Article 1, S 3.at Large, 4. ^ lb. Article 2, 2. ^Ib. Article 1,S 4. Constitution, Article 4, S 4. ^ lb. Article 1,S 10. lb. Annendment 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 , 4 Mar. 1781 have been found. See 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 m a n u s c r i p t . Congress, 20 Sept. 1781, above.
Emmerich de V a t t e l ' s was c i t e d Madison, "innocent to 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 bar

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