of the inferior court; if it did, it would be error in law. The whole doctrine of allowing, in the appellate court, the assignment of error in fact, grows out of the circumstance that such matter does not appear on the record of the inferior court... 10. The titles to lands under the acts of the legislature of the state of Pennsylvania, providing for the sale of the landed estate of John Nicholson, in satisfaction of the liens the estate held on those lands, and the proceedings under the same, are valid. Livingston v. Moore..... *469 11. These acts, and the proceedings under them, do not contravene the provisions of the constitution of the United States, in any manner whatsoever.... ...Id. 12. The words used in the constitution of Pennsylvania, in declaring the extent of the powers of its legislature, are sufficiently comprehensive to embrace the powers exercised over the estate of John Nicholson...........Id. 18. Juan Madrazzo, a subject of the king of Spain, filed a libel, praying admiralty process against the state of Georgia, alleging that the state was in possession of a certain sum of money, the proceeds of the sale of certain slaves, which had been seized as illegally brought into the state of Georgia; and which seizure had been, subsequently, under admiralty proceedings, adjudged to have been illegal, and the right of Madrazzo to the slaves, and the money arising from the sale thereof, established by the decision of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Georgia; the counsel for the petitioner claimed that the supreme court had jurisdiction of the case, alleging that the eleventh amendment of the constitution of the United States, which declares that the judicial power of the United States shall not extend to any suits in law or equity, did not take away the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, in suits in the admiralty against a state: Held, that this is not a case where property is in custody of a court of admiralty, or brought within its jurisdiction, and in the possession of any private person; it is a mere personal suit against a state, to recover proceeds in its possession, and such a suit cannot be commenced in this court against a state. Ex parte Madrazzo....*627 CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. 1. Construction of the act of congress, passed the 5th of May 1830, entitled "an act for the further extending the powers of the judges of the superior court of the territory of Ar7 PET.--27 ..... kansas, under the act of the 26th May 1824, and for other purposes." Sampeyreac v. United States..... *222 2. Under the provisions of an act of congress, passed on the 26th May 1824, proceedings were instituted in the superior court of the territory of Arkansas, by which a confirmation was claimed of a grant of land alleged to have been made to the petitioner, Sampeyreac, by the Spanish government, prior to the cession of Louisiana to the United States, by the treaty of April 3d, 1803; this claim was opposed by the district-attorney of the United States; and the court, after hearing evidence, decreed, that the petitioner recover the land from the United States; afterwards, the district-attorney of the United States, proceeding on the authority of the act of 8th May 1830, filed a bill of review, founded on the allegation that the original decree was obtained by fraud and surprise, that the documents produced in support of the claim of Sampeyreac were forged, and that the witnesses who had been examined to sustain the same were perjured. At a subsequent term, Stewart was allowed to become a defendant to the bill of review, and filed an answer, in which the fraud and forgery are denied, and in which he asserted, that if the same were committed, he was ignorant thereof, and asserted that he was a bona fide purchaser of the land, for a valuable consideration, from one John J. Bowie, who conveyed to him the claim of Sampeyreac, by deed, dated about the 22d October 1828; on a final hearing, the court being satisfied of the forgery, perjury and fraud, reversed the original decree: Held, that these proceedings were legal, and were authorized by the act of the 5th of May 1830..... ...... ...Id. 3. Almost every law providing a new remedy, affects and operates upon causes of action existing at the time the law is passed. The law of 1830 is in no respect the exercise of judicial powers; it only organizes a tribunal with the powers to entertain judicial proceedings; the act, in terms, applies to bills filed, or to be filed; such retrospective effect is no unusual course, in laws providing new remedies...... ......Id. 4. The act of 1830 does not require that all the technical rules in the ordinary course of chancery proceedings on a bill of review shall be pursued, in proceedings instituted under the law.... Id. 5. Construction of the acts of congress relative to drawback on refined sugar. Barlow v. United States..... *404 6. The legislature did not, in the enactments in reference to drawback, intend to supersede the common principle of the criminal as ..... 417 7. The act of the 27th of March 1804, by which the president of the United States was authorized to attach to the navy-yard at Washington, a captain of the navy, for the performance of certain duties, was correctly construed by the head of the navy department, until 1829, allowing to the defendant commissions on the sums paid by him, as the special agent of the navy department in making the disbursements. United States v. Macdaniel..... *1 8. A seizure of sugars was made, under an allegation, that they were of a different quality from that mentioned in the entry. The statute under which these sugars were seized and condemned, is a highly penal law, and should, in conformity with the rule on the subject, be construed strictly; if, either through accident or mistake, the sugars were entered by a different denomination from what their quality required, a forfeiture is not incurred. United States v. Eighty-four Boxes of Sugar.... #453 1. Construction of the insolvent laws of Louisiana. Breedlove v. Nicol..............*413 2. The titles to lands under the acts of the legislature of the state of Pennsylvania, providing for the sale of the landed estate of John Nicholson, in satisfaction of the liens the state held on those lands, and the proceedings under the same, are valid. Livingston v. Moore... *469 3. These acts, and the proceedings under them, do not contravene the provisions of the constitution of the United States, in any manner whatsoever...... ..Id. 4. The words used in the constitution of Pennsylvania in declaring the extent of the powers of its legislature, are sufficiently comprehensive to embrace the powers exercised over the estate of John Nicholson ...... Id. 5. The common law of England, and all the statutes of parliament made in aid of the common law, prior to the fourth year of the reign of James I., which are of a general nature, and not local to the kingdom, were pressly adopted by the Virginia statute of 1776; and the subsequent revisions of its code have confirmed the general doctrine on this particular subject. Scott v. Lunt's Administrator.... *596 ..... ex CONSULS. 1. The record of the proceedings in this case, brought up with the writ of error to the court for the correction of errors of the state of New York, showed, that the suit was com. menced in the supreme court of the state of New York, and that the plaintiff in error, who was consul-general of the king of Saxony, did not plead or set up his exemption from such suit, in the supreme court; but, on the cause being carried up to the court for the correction of errors, this matter was assigned for error in fact; notwithstanding which, the court of errors gave judgment against the plaintiff in error. The court of errors of New York having decided, that the character of consul did not exempt the plaintiff in error from being sued in the state court, the judg ment of the court of errors was reversed. Davis v. Packard.... *276 2. As an abstract question, it is difficult to understand, on what ground, a state court can claim jurisdiction of civil suits against foreign consuls. By the constitution, the judicial power of the United States extends to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; and the judiciary act of 1789 gives to the district courts of the United States, exclusively of the courts of the several states, jurisdiction of all suits against consuls and vice-consuls, except for certain offences enumerated in the act.......... Id. 3. If a consul, being sued in a state court, omit to plead his privilege of exemption from the suit, and afterwards, on removing the judg ment of the inferior court to a higher court, by writ of error, claims the privilege, such an omission is not a waiver of the privilege. If this was to be viewed merely as a personal privilege, there might be grounds for such a conclusion, but it cannot be so considered; it is the privilege of the country or government which the consul represents; this is the light in which foreign ministers are considered by the law of nations; and our constitution and laws seem to put consuls on the same footing in this respect... ......Id. 4. If this privilege or exemption was merely personal, it can hardly be supposed, that it would have been thought sufficiently important to require a special provision in the constitution and laws of the United States; higher considerations of public policy, doubtless, led to the provision; it was deemed fit and proper, that the courts of the government, with which rested the regulation of foreign intercourse, should have cognisance of suits against the representatives of such foreign govern..Id. 5. The action in the supreme court of New York ments... against the defendant, was on a recognisance of bail, and it was contended, that this was not an original proceeding, but the continuance of a suit rightfully brought against one who was answerable to the jurisdiction of the court in which it was instituted, and in which the plaintiff in error became special bail for the defendant; and therefore, the act of congress did not apply to the case: Held, that the act of congress being general in its terms, extending to all suits against consuls, it applied to this suit ..Id. COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 1. The question before the court was, whether the charge to the jury in the circuit court contained any erroneous statement of the law. In examining it, for the purpose of ascertaining its correctness, the whole scope and bearing of it must be taken together; it is wholly inadmissible, to take up single and detached passages, and to decide upon them, without attending to the context, or without incorporating such qualifications and explanations as naturally flow from the language of other parts of the charge; the whole is to be construed as it must have been understood, both by the court and the jury, at the time it was delivered. Magniac v. Thompson CRIMES. See FORGERY: ROBBING THe Mail. DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS. *348 1. The rule of law being once established by the highest tribunal of a state, courts which propose to administer the law as they find it, are ordinarily bound, in limine, to presume, that, whether it appears from the reports or not, all the reasons which might have been urged, pro or con, upon the point under consideration, had been examined and disposed of judicially. Livingston v. Moore.......*469 DEPOSITIONS. See Morris v. Lessee of Harmer's Heirs. *554 DUTIES. 1. Construction of the acts of congress relative to drawback on refined sugar. Barlow v. United States. *404 2. The legislature did not, in the enactments in reference to drawback, intend to supersede the common principle of the criminal as well 1. The court refused to quash a writ of error, on the ground, that the record was not filed with the clerk of the court, until the month of June 1832, the writ having been returnable to January term 1832; the defendant in error might have availed himself of the benefits of the 29th rule of the court, which gave him the right to docket and dismiss the cause. Pickett's Heirs v. Legerwood... . . . . . . . * 144 2. The appropriate use of a writ of error coram vobis, is, to enable a court to correct its own errors-those errors which precede the rendition of the judgment. In practice, the same end is now generally attained by motion, sustained, if the case require it, by affidavits ; and the latter mode has superseded the former in the British practice.. .Id. 3. In the circuit court for the district of Kentucky, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, in an ejectment, was entered to 1798, and no proceedings on the same until 1830, when, the period of the demise having expired, the court on motion, and notice to one of the defendants, made an order inserting a demise of fifty years; it having been afterwards shown to the court, that the parties really interested in the land, when the motion to amend was made, had not been notified of the proceeding the court issued a writ of error coram vobis, and gave a judgment sustaining the same, and that the order extending the demise should be set aside; from this judgment, a writ of error was prosecuted to this court, and it was held, that the judgment on the writ of error coram vobis, was not such a judgment as could be brought up by a writ of error for decision to this court. .....Id. EVIDENCE. 1. Papers translated from a foreign language, respecting the transactions of foreign officers, with whose powers and authorities the court are not well acquainted, containing uncertain and incomplete references to things well understood by the parties, but not understood by the court, should be carefully examined, before it pronounces that an officer holding a high place of trust and confidence, has exceeded his authority. United States v. Percheman.... .*51 2. On general principles of law, a copy of a paper, given by a public officer, whose duty it is to keep the originals, ought to be receiv ed in evidence. ...Id. 3. What will be deemed sufficient evidence of diligent and sufficient scarch for a lost or mislaid original paper, to permit a copy to be read as secondary evidence. Minor v. Til lotson..... *99 4. The rules of evidence are adopted for practical purposes in the administration of justice; and although it is laid down in the books as a general rule, that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit of, must be given; yet it is not understood, that this rule requires the strongest possible assurance of the matter in question. The extent to which the rule is to be pushed, is governed, in some measure, by circumstances; if any suspicion hangs over the instrument, or that it is designedly withheld, a more rigid inquiry should be made into the reasons for its non-production; but where there is no such suspicion, all that ought to be required, is reasonable diligence to obtain the original.... .....Id. 5. No evidence can be looked into in this court, which exercises an appellate jurisdiction, that was not before the circuit court; and the evidence certified with the record must be considered here as the only evidence before the court below. If, in certifying a record, a part of the evidence in the case had been omitted, it might be certified in obedience to a certiorari; but, in such a case, it must appear from the record that the evidence was used or offered to the circuit. Holmes v. Trout..... *171 6. Agreements had been made, under which depositions taken in other cases where the same questions of title were involved, should be read in evidence, and on the hearing in the circuit court, these depositions were read; afterwards, on an appeal to this court, the decree of the circuit court was reversed, and by the decree of reversal, the parties were permitted to proceed de novo. When the case was again heard in the circuit court, the defendant objected to the reading of the depositions, asserting that the decree of reversal anulled the written certificate of the parties for the admission of testimony. The consent to the depositions was not limited to the first hearing, but was co-extensive with the cause; the words in the decree of reversal, that the parties may proceed de novo, are not equivalent to a dismissal of the bill, without prejudice; nor could the court have understood them as affecting the testimony in the cause, or setting aside the solemn agreement of the parties. The testimony is still admissible, to the extent of the agreement. Vattier v. Hinde... #252 7. A question as to the admission of evidence of the declaration of a deceased person, as to boundary. Morris v. Harmer.... .......*554 8. Historical facts of general and public notoriety may be proved by reputation, and that reputation may be established by historical works, of known character and accuracy; but evidence of this sort is confined, in a great measure, to ancient facts which do not presuppose better evidence in existence; and where, from the nature of the transaction, or the remoteness of the period, or the public and general reception of the facts, a just foundation is laid for general confidence. Id. 9. The work of a living author, who is within the reach of the process of the court, can hardly be deemed of this nature; he may be called as a witness; he may be examined as to the sources and accuracy of his information; and especially, if the facts which he relates are of a recent date, and may by fairly presumed to be within the knowledge of many living persons, from whom he has derived his materials, there would seem to be cogent reasons to say, that his book was not, under such circumstances, the best evidence within the reach of the parties......... Id. 10. Special circumstances, which were considered as exempting the evidence contained in a book, called the "Picture of Cincinnati," of the date of the survey of the city, and lay. ing out lots in part of the same, from the common rule, which justified its admission..... 11. The plat of the lots in the city of Cincin nati, which had been recorded, and on which the streets and alleys in the same were designated, and which had beer generally recognised and used in the surveys of the lots laid down in the same, was properly admitted in evidence.... ..Id. 12. The depositions of several witnesses, clerks in the counting-house of the plaintiffs, were admitted on the trial of the cause, in which the witnesses stated, that they knew that a letter of credit was considered by the plain tiff as covering any balance due by C. H. to them, for advances from time to time, to the amount of $8000; that advances were made, and moneys paid by them on account of C. H., from the time of receiving the said letter, predicated on the letter, always protecting the plaintiffs to the amount of $8000; and that it was considered in the counting-house, as a continuing letter of credit, and so acted upon by the plaintiffs: Held, that this evidence was rightly admitted, to establish that credit had been given to C. H. on the faith of it, from time to time, and that it was treated by the plaintiffs as a continuing guarantee; so that if, in point of law, it was entitled to that character, the plaintiff's claim might not be open to the suggestion, that no such advances, or acceptances, or indorsements had been made upon the credit of it. The evidence was not open to the objection, that it was an attempt by parol evidence to explain a written contract. Douglass v. Reynolds, *113 FLORIDA TREATY. 1. Even in cases of conquest, it is very unusual, for the conqueror to do more than displace the sovereign and assume dominion over the country; the modern usage of nations, which has become law, would be violated; that sense of justice and of right, which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilized world, would be outraged; if private property should be generally confiscated, and private rights annulled, on a change in the sovereignty of the country, by the Florida treaty. The people change their allegiance, their relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved; but their relations to each other, and their rights of property remain undisturbed. Had Florida changed its sovereign, by an act containing no stipulation respecting the property of individuals, the right of property in all those who became subjects or citizens of the new government would have been unaffected by the change; it would have remained the same, as under the ancient sovereign. United States v. Percheman, *51 2. The language of the second article of the treaty between the United States and Spain, of 22d February 1819, by which Florida was ceded to the United States, conforms to this general principle... ...ld. 3. The eighth article of the treaty must be intended to stipulate expressly for the security to private property, which the laws and usages of nations would, without express stipulation, have conferred; no construction which would impair that security, further than its positive words require, would seem to be admissible; without it, the titles of individuals would remain as valid under the new government as they were under the old. And those titles, so far at least as they were consummated, might be asserted in the courts of the United States, independently of this article..... Id. 4. The treaty was drawn up in the Spanish as well as in the English language; both are original, and were unquestionably intended by the parties to be indentical; the Spanish has been translated; and it is now understood, that the article expressed in that language is, that "the grants shall remain ratified and confirmed to the persons in possession of them, to the same extent," &c., thus conforming exactly to the universally received law of nations.... ...Id. 5. If the English and Spanish parts can, without violence, be made to agree, that construction which establishes this conformity ought to prevail...... ...... Id. 6. No violence is done to the language of the treaty, by a construction which conforms the English and Spanish to each other; although the words "shall be ratified and confirmed," are properly words of contract, stipulating for some future legislation, they are not necessarily so; they may import," they shall be ratified and confirmed," by force of the instrument itself. When it is observed, in the counterpart of the same treaty, executed at the same time, by the same parties, they are used in this sense, the construction is proper, if not unavoidable ......Id. 7. In the case of Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, this court considered those words importing a contract; the Spanish part of the treaty was not then brought into view, and it was then supposed, there was no variance between them. It was not supposed, that there was even a formal difference of expression in the same instrument, drawn up in the language of each party; had this circumstance been made known, it is believed, it would have produced the construction which is now given to the article.... Id. See FLORIDA LAND-CLAIMS. FLORIDA LAND-CLAIMS. 1. Juan Percheman claimed 2000 acres of land lying in the territory of Florida, by virtue of a grant from the Spanish governor, made in 1815; his title consisted of a petition presented by himself to the governor of East Florida, praying for a grant of 2000 acres, at a designated place, in pursuance of the royal order of the 29th of March 1815, granting lands to the military who were in St. Augustine during the invasion of 1812 and 1813; a decree by the governor, rade 12th |