1.Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass, Rep. 454.
2. 2 Cranch, 280. 4 Ibid. 209.
3. 1 Dallas, 53.
4. 20 Johns. Rep. 313.
5. 2 Mass. Rep. 236, 244,. note
6. 2 Pickering, 394, note.
7. 1 Hale's P. C. 68. Foster's Crown Law, 7. 59. 183.
8. Foster, ibid. 59.
9. 1 East's P. C. 81. 1 Hawk. P. C. b. i. ch. 22, sect. 3. On the 16th, of October, 1807, the king of England declared, by proclamation, that the kingdom was menaced, and endangered, and he recalled from foreign service all seamen and seafaring men, who were natural born subjects, and ordered them to withdraw themselves, and return home, on pain of being proceeded against for a contempt. It was further declared, that no foreign letters of naturalization could, in any manner, divest his natural born subjects of their allegiance, or alter their duty to their lawful sovereign.
10. Grotius, b. 2. c. 5 s. 24. Puf . Droit des Gens, liv. 8. ch. 11. s. 2. 3. Vattel, b. 1. ch. 19. s. 218. 223, 224, 225. 1 Wyckefort L'Embass. 117, 1119.
11. Ne quis invitus civitate mulctur, neve in civitate maneat invitus. Haec sunt enim fundamenta firmissima nostrae libertatis, sui quemque juris et retinendi et dimittendi esse dominum. Orat. pro. L. C. Balbo, ch. 13.
12. 8 Dallas, 133.
13. Paterson, J.
14. Iredell, J.
15. Cited in 2 Cranch, 82, note.
16. 2 Cranch, 64.
17.United States v. Gillies, 1 Peters' C. C. Rep. 159.
18. 9 Mass. Rep. 401.
19. 7 Wheaton, 283.
20. See vol. 1. p. 71.
21. Comyn's Rep. 677.
22. 8 Term Rep. 31. 1 Bos. & Pull. 430. S. C.
23.United States v. Gillies, 1 Peters' C. C. Rep, 159. Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsey, 2 Cranch, 64.
24. 1 Hale's P. C. 68.
25. Pothier's Traite du droit de Propriété, No. 94. Code Napoleon, No. 17. 2l. Toullier, Droit civil Francais, tom. 1. No.266.
26. 7 Co. Calvin's case, 18. a.
27.Hyde v. Hill, Cro. E. 3 Bro. tit. Descent, pl. 47. tit. Denizen, pl. 14.
28.Doe v. Jones, 4 Term Rep. 300.
29. 5 Binney, 371.
30.Calvin's case, 7 Co. 25. a. 1 Vent. 417. Jackson v. Lunn, 3 John. Cas. 109. Hunt v. Warnicke, Hardin's Rep. 61.
31.Collingwood v. Pace, 1 Sid. 193. 1 Lev. 59. S. C. Co. Litt. 2. b. Plowd. 229. b. 230. a. Jackson v. Lunn, supra. Fox v. Southack, 12 Mass. Rep. 143. 8 ib. 445. Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cranch, 603, 619, 620. Orr v. Hodgson, 4 Wheaton, 453. Governeur v. Robertson, 11 Wheaton, 332. In North Carolina, an alien may take by purchase, but he cannot take by devise, any more than he can inherit. 2 Haywood. 37. 104. 108.
32. Co. Litt. 8. a.
33. 1 Sid. 193. 1 Vent. 413.
34.McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheaton, 354.
35. 2 Mass Rep. 179. note.
36. 1 Vent. 427.
37. Co. Lit. 8. a. Com. Dig. tit. Alien, c. 1. Orr v. Hodgson, 4 Wheaton, 453. Jackson v. Jackson, 7 Johns. Rep 214.
38. 7 Co. 1. p. 27.
39.Apthorp v. Backus, Kirby's Rep. 413. Kinsey, Ch. J. in Den v. Brown, 2 Halstead, 337. Kelly v. Harrison, 2 Johns. Cas. 29. Jackson v. Lunn, 3 Johns. Cas. 109. Story, J., 9 Church, 59.
40.Reed v. Reed cited in 1 Munf. 225, and opinion of Roane, J. Appendix to that volume. Dawson v. Godfrey, 4 Cranch, 321. Jackson v. Burns, 3 Binney, 75. Blight v. Rochester, 7 Wheaton, 535.
41. 2 Halsted, 305.
42.Hunter v. Fairfax's Devisee, 1 Munf. 218, and 7 Cranch, 603. S. C.
43. Vol. i. 382.
44. 2 Barnewall & Cresswell, 779.
45.Jackson v. Wright, 4 Johns. Rep. 75.
46.Cummington v. Springfield, 2 Pickering, 394.
47.Hebron v. Colchester, 5 Day, 169.
48. 9 Mass. Rep. 460.
49. 2 Pickering, 394, note.
50. 4 Leon. 84. Sheppard's Touchstone, by Preston, 56. 232. 7 Wheaton, 545.
51. Griffith's Law Register, tit. Virginia.
52. Laws of N.Y. sess. 49. ch. 297. sec. 3.
53. Co. Litt. 2. b.
54. Harg. Co. Litt. n. 9. to b. 1.
55. Gilbert on Uses, by Sugden, 10. 367. 445. Preston on Conveyancing, vol. ii. p. 247.
56.Attorney General v. Sands, 3 Ch. Rep. 20. Com. Dig. tit. Alien, c. 3 . Gilbert on Uses, by Sugden, 86. 404.
57. 7 Co. 7. Dy. 2, b.
58. Year Book, 11 Edw. 111. cited in the marginal note to 1 Dy. 2. b.
59.Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheaton, 489.
60.Wells v. Williams, 1 Lord Raym. 282. Daubigny v. Davillon, 2 Anst. 462. Clark v. Morey, 10 Johns. Rep. 69. Russel v. Skipwith, 6 Binney, 241.
61. See vol. i. p. 53. to 62. 153.
62. Vattel, b. 2. c. S. s. 101, 102. 108.
63. Militia Act, Laws of N.Y. sess. 46, ch. 244, sec. 8.
64. Act of Congress, March 26th, 1804, ch. 47.
65. During the elevation and splendor of the Athenian power, the privilege of a citizen of Athens was deemed a very distinguished favor. It could only be obtained by the consent and decree of two successive assemblies of the people, and was granted to none but to men of the highest rank and reputation, or who had performed some signal service to the republic. 1 Potter's Greek Antiquities, 44, 45. 150. In the time of Demetrius Phalereus, there were resident in Attica, 10,000 freemen, being foreigners, or of foreign extraction, or freed slaves, who bad not the rights of Athenian citizens, 1 Mitf. Hist. 354, 355. And yet it is said, that foreigners could not dispose of their goods by will, but they were appropriated, at their death, for the public use. 2 Potter, 344. In Rome, foreigners could not make a will, and the effects of a foreigner, at his death, went to the public or to his patron, under the jus applicationis. Cic. de Orat. 139. Dig. 49. 15. 52. Ibid. lib. 35, ad legem falcidiam, Prae. Dict. du Dig. tit. Etrangers. The Romans were noted for their peculiar jealousy of the jus civitatis, or rights of a Roman citizen. It was, at first, limited to the Pomoeria of Rome, and then gradually extended to the bounds of Latium. In the time of Augustus, as we are informed by Suetonius, De Aug. sect. 40 the same anxiety was discovered to keep the Roman people pure and untainted of foreign blood; and he gave the freedom of the city with a sparing hand. But when Caracalla, for the purpose of a more extended taxation, levelled all distinctions, and communicated the freedom of the city to the whole Roman world, the national spirit was lost among the people, and the pride of their country was no longer felt, nor its honor observed. 1 Gibb. Hist. 268.
66. 1 Binney, 336. 3 Johns. Ch. Rep. 210. 1 Mason's Rep. 408.
67.Pipon v. Pipon, Amb. 25. Burn v. Cole, Amb. 415.
68.Hub. Proelec. tom. i. 278. tom. ii. 542. De conflictu legum, sect. 15 Vattel, b. 2. c. 8, sect. 110, 111.
69. 1 Domat, 26. sect. 11.
70. Ibid. 555. sect. 13.
71. Code Napoleon, No. 11. 726. 912.
72. M. Toullier, in his Droit Civil Francais, tom. 1. n. 265. cites for that rule a decree of the Court of Cassation in 1806; and he says, that this article in the Napoleon code was taken from one in the new Prussian code.
73. Repertoire de Juris. par Merlin, tit. Aubaine, and tit. Etranger, ch. 1. No. 6.
74. 1 Wheaton, 300. 4 Ibid. 463. 7 Ibid. 535. 9 Ibid. 496. 12 Mass. Rep. 143.
75. Laws of N.Y. sess. 48. ch. 307.
76. Griffith's Law Reg. passim. 1 Const. Rep. S. C. 412. Christy's Dig. tit. alien.
77. Art. 4. sect. 2.
78. It is a curious fact in ancient Grecian history, that the Greek states indulged such a narrow and excessive jealousy of each other, that intermarriage was forbidden, and none were allowed to possess lands within the territory of another state. When the Olynthian republic introduced a more liberal and beneficial policy in this respect, it was considered as a portentous innovation. Mitford's Hist. vol. v. p. 9.
79.Goodwell v. Jackson, 20 Johns. Rep. 693.
80. Art. 42.
81. Colony Laws, vol. i. p. 38. Livingston & Smith's ed.
82. Smith's History of N.Y. p. 111.
