1. Vattel, b. 3. c. 16, sec. 233-238. Grotius, b. 3. c. 21.
2. Rutherforth, b. 2 c. 9. Vattel, b, 3. c. 16. Sec. 261. Grotius, b 3, o. 22. sec. 4.
3. Vattel, b. 3. c. 15. sec. 239. 244.
4. Vattel b. 3. c. 16. sec. 247, 243.
5. Ibid. sec. 250.
6. Ibid. b. 3. c. 16. sec. 260.
7. Grotius, b. 3. c. 21. sec. 4. Vattel b. 3. c. 16, sec. 244.
8. Vattel, b. 3. c. 17.
9. Valid, b. 3. c. 17 sec. 273, 274.
10. Vattel, b. 3. c. 17. sec. 276.
11.The Cosmopolite, 4 Rob. 8.
12. 15 East. 52. 3 Campb. N. P. 93.
13. 1 Edw. 95.
14.The Jonge Johannes, 4 Rob. 263. See the law as to licenses Collected in 1 Holt's N. P. Rep. 129. note.
15. Vattel, b. 4. c. 2. sec. 10.
16. Vattel, b. 1. c. 21. sec. 262, b. 4. c. 2, sec. 11, 12.
17. 1 Cranch. 103.
18. 3 Dallas, 199.
19. B. 3. c. 20. sec, 7.
20. Vattel, b. 4. 2. sec. 14.
21. Ibid. b. 4. c. 2. sec. 16.
22. Vattel, b. 4. c. 2. sec. 19.
23. 1 Dodson's Adm. Rep. 396.
24. Vattel, b. 4. c. 2. sec. 19.
25. Ibid. b. 4. c. 2. sec. 19, 20.
26. 1 Dodson. 452. Vattel, b. 4. c. 2. sec. 21. Grotius, lib, 3. c. 6. sec. 4, 5. Mably's Droit del' Europe, tom. 1. c. 2. p. 144.
27. Grotius, b. 3. c. 20. sec. 16, 18.
28. Vattel, b. 4. c. 2. sec. 22.
29. Ibid. b. 4. c. 3. sec. 24, 25. 2 Dallas, 40. Azuni, vol. 2. 227.
30. B. 3. c. 21. sec. 5.
31. 1 Rob. 151.
32. Valin, Trate des Prises, ch. 4. sec. 4 and 5. Emerigon, Treite des Ass. c. 12. sec. 19. Azuni on Maritime Law, edit. N.Y. vol. 2. p 231.
33. This point was very extensively discussed in the French prize courts, in the case of the capture of the British ship Swincherd, by the French privateer Bellona; and what was sufficient knowledge of the fact of the peace, to annul the capture. was the great question, It appeared that the Bellona sailed from the Isle of France the 27th of November, 1801, before news had arrived at the island of the signing of the preliminaries of peace between France and England, and which had been signed on the 1st of October preceding. The capture was made on the 24th of February, 1802, within the period of five months from the date of the treaty; and, by the 11th article of the treaty, it was provided that captures made in any part of the world, after five months from the ratification of the treaty; should be null and void. The capture was made in a place where a shorter period than five months did riot apply. The proclamation of the King of Great Britain of the 12th of October, 1801, announced the fact of the signatures of the preliminary articles of peace I and it stated the substance of the 11th article, and ordered all hostilities to cease in the different places, from and after the respective periods mentioned in that article; and this proclamation was published in the Calcutta Gazette, and made known, by the production of that paper, to the French cruiser, at several times, by distinct vessels, some days previous to the capture. This evidence of the peace was also Communicated to the captain of the French vessel as soon as the capture took place, And yet, not withstanding this notice, the English ship was taken posses sign of, and carried into the Isle of France, and libeled, and condemned, as lawful prize of war. The sentence of condemnation was affirmed in 1603, on appeal to the Council of Prizes at Paris, and M. Merlin has reported at large the elaborate argument and opinion of M. Collet Descotils, the Imperial Advocate General in the Council of Prizes, in favor of the captors. The ground he took, and upon which the Council of Prizes proceeded, was, that the king's proclamation, unaccompanied by any French attestation, was not that sufficient and indubitable evidence to the French cruiser, of the fact of the peace, upon which he ought to have acted, and that the period of the five months had not elapsed, within which it was lawful, in the Indian seas, to continue hostilities. The learned and venerable author of that immense work, the Repertory of Jurisprudence.
says, on introducing the case, that be shall be silent on the question, and contents himself with giving the discussions, and particularly the opinion of the Advocate General, and the reasons of the Council of Prizes. See Repertoire universel et raisonne de Jurisprudence, par M. le Comte Merlin, tom. 9. tit. Prise Maritime, sec. 5.
34. Case of the Legal Tender, Halifax, April, 1815, cited Wheaton's Dig. 302.
35. 6 Rob. 138.
36. Vattel b 4. c. 3. sec. 31. 34.
37. Ibid. b. 4. c. 3. sec. 32.
38. Ibid. b. 2. c. 17. Eyre, Ch. J in I Bos. 8. Pull. 438. 439. Opinion of Sir James Marriot, cited in 1 Chitty on Commercial Law, 44.
39. Grotius, b. 2. c. 15. sec. 15. b. 3. c. 20 sec. 35-38. Burlamaqui, p. 355 part 4. C. 14, sec. 8. Vattel b. 4 c. 4. sec. 54.
40. Grotius, b. 3. c. 20. sec. 27, 28. Vatte1, b. 4. c. 4. sec. 42.
41. Grotius, b. 9. c. 10. sec. 14. Vattel, b. 4. c. 4. sec. 47, 48. b. 2.c. 13. sec. 202.
42. Act of July 7th, 1793.
43. Vattel, b. 3. c. 10. sec. 174. Grotius, b. 3. c. 25.
44. 8 Wheaton, 494.
45. Puff. par Barbeyrac, liv. 4. c. 9. sec. 8. n. 2.
46. 5 Rob. 106.
