tion, also, suffers from the apparent reluctance to taxes, and the ease with which we incur debts without providing for their payment. The complaints of the army-the jealousies respecting congress-the circumstances which induced their leaving Philadelphia—and the too little appearance of national spirit pervading, uniting, and invigo rating the confederacy, are considered as omens which portend the diminution of our respectability, power, and felicity. I hope that as the wheel turns round, other and better indications will soon appear. I am persuaded that America possesses too much wisdom and virtue to permit her brilliant prospects to fade away for want of either.

"The tories are almost as much pitied in these countries as they are execrated in ours; an undue degree of severity towards them would, therefore, be impolitic, as it would be unjustifiable. They who incline to involve that whole class of men in indiscriminate punishment and ruin, certainly carry the matter too far, It would be an instance of unnecessary rigour and unmanly revenge, without a parallel, except in the annals of religious rage in times of bigotry and blindness. What does it signify where nine-tenths of these people are buried? Victory and peace should in my opinion be followed by clemency, moderation, and benevolence, and we should be careful not to sully the glory of the revolution by licentiousness. and cruelty. These are my sentiments, and however unpopular they may be, I have not the least desire to conceal or disguise them. Believe me to be, with great regard and esteem."

Notwithstanding urgent solicitations, Hamilton adhered to his purpose of retiring wholly from public life, and was soon engaged in the labours of his profession; in which, without the advantages of much previous study, by the energies of a mind peculiarly adapted to the analysis of first

principles, he rose to an unequalled, unapproached distinction.

His letter to McHenry was written to obtain an exemplification of the treaty. The state of New-York was ruled at this time by cruel counsels. Taking advantage of the doubt as to the period of its execution, it passed laws in direct violation of this treaty, and, in despite of the most earnest intercessions, refused to stay the prosecutions commenced against proscribed persons. Shocked at these proceedings, Hamilton took up the cause of these persecuted individuals with all the zeal of his fervent nature.

The definitive treaty having arrived, he addressed a memorial to congress asking a record of it; in which, to prompt its immediate ratification, he stated that there appeared to be no probability that the legislature will interpose its authority to stay the prosecutions until it is announced; a measure that would "conduce to the security of a great number of individuals who derive their hopes of safety from the national faith."

Hamilton now commenced his professional career; and it is one of the most interesting incidents of that career, that the first exertion of his talents as an advocate, was in the cause of clemency and good faith. It was in the inmost privacy of his quiet hours, reflecting on such exertions, that he exclaimed, "The Almighty has given me a good head, and thank God, he has also given me a good heart."

This was a suit in the mayor's court of the city of NewYork, to recover the rents of property held by the defendant under an order of Sir Henry Clinton, and was founded on a recent enactment called "The Trespass Act." This act authorized an action of trespass in favour of persons who had left their abodes in consequence of the invasion of the enemy, against those who had been in pos

session of them during the war, and expressly precluded a justification of this occupancy by virtue of a military order. It was contended that the case was not within the statute; that the laws of nations controlled it and barred the suit, and that the treaty included an amnesty, which extinguished the statute right.

No precedent, it is believed, exists for such an act of legislation; an act providing that after a war solemnly terminated by a treaty duly executed, suits could be commenced by the subjects of one belligerent against those of another for injuries committed during the war by military order.

No case could have arisen of greater interest, higher moment, or larger considerations. It was a question of national faith and national character-it was a question. between the subjects of two independent nations, relating to transactions in a war between those nations.

It involved a determination of the powers of the confederacy, and of its constitutional supremacy over a law of a member of that confederacy. It was of the most grave and weighty magnitude, for it would decide whether a state tribunal would recognise the laws of nations and of the confederation as the rule of its decisions when in conflict with a local statute. It might determine the con duct of Great Britain as to the execution of the treaty, the surrender of the posts, and the peace of the union.

It involved property of a great amount, and numerous cases depending on the same principle. It was the decision of a controversy between a wealthy merchant—a British subject, an adherent of the enemy-and a fugitive, an exile, a poor American widow, impoverished by the war. It was tried while the strife of the fierce contest was recent, in the midst of a dilapidated and yet disordered city, when all around were beheld the ravages of the invader, in a hall of justice desecrated and marred by

the excesses of its late occupants, a licentious soldiery. On one side was the attorney-general of the state, armed with all its authority to sustain its laws, representing the passions of an inflamed community, pleading for the widowed exile. On the other stood Hamilton, resting on

the justice of this mighty cause.

The plaintiff's task was obvious. It was to insist upon the statute. The statute was explicit. Both the parties were within its provisions. It was obligatory, and no court of that state, no court especially of limited jurisdiction, could look beyond it. Look where? To the laws of nations,-laws having no settled foundation, undergoing constant change, affording no certain rule, and which ought to have no influence on the government of this state or upon the people. The war was unjust, admitted by the enemy to be unjust. By an unjust war, the unjust party acquires no rights, for no rights can be derived from an injury. It was not a solemn war, and therefore conferred no rights upon the captor. Nor was that court to be controlled by the treaty. New-York was a sovereign, independent state. Congress had no right to bind the state in this matter; it was interfering with its internal police. Can they by treaty give away the rights of its citizens? A case like this had never before been heard of. It was without a precedent, and stood upon the sta

tute.

Hamilton felt the advantageous position of his opponent. He passed by the immediate parties to the suit, and spoke to the question. In a brilliant exordium,* he dilated on its importance in all its various aspects; declared that the decision might affect all the relations of two great empires, might be discussed in Europe, and might produce,

The outline of this speech is framed from an extended brief, giving all the points of the argument and the authorities.

according to the issue, a good or bad impression of our country. It would establish precedents that might give a complexion to future decisions, would remain a record of the spirit of our courts, and would be handed down to posterity as indicating the character of our jurisprudence. It was a question of a most comprehensive nature; its merits include all the principles which govern the intercourse between nations. Heretofore our courts have seemed to consider themselves in an inferior light; their decisions must hereafter form precedents.

Having thus appealed to the pride of the court, he proceeded:"We are told there is no precedent. Then, indeed, it is a new case, and a new case must be determined by the law of nature and the public good. Where the law is silent, the judge speaks; and the most ancient authority states that in England cases were adjudged according to equity, before the customs of the realm were written and made certain. This question must be decided by the laws of nations. But what, it is asked, are the laws of nations? Where are they to be found?-They are the deductions of reason, to be collected from the principles laid down by writers on the subject and established by the authorized practice of nations, and are a part of the law of the land. The laws of nations and the laws of war are part of the common law."

He then stated the two great divisions of the laws of nations. The natural, necessary, or internal, universally binding on the conscience of nations; but in its external obligations, controlled by the positive or voluntary law for the good of mankind, which is equally obligatory, and is enjoined by the natural law.

By the necessary law, the party making an unjust war acquires no rights, and is bound to make reparation for all damages. By the voluntary law-which may be defined, that system of rules which grow out of the independence