"between feudum ligeum, and feudum simplex, is also well explained by Blackstone, 1 Com. 357. We are for this reason strongly inclined to believe that the word lige takes its derivation from the Norman or Danish word lig, which signifies body, and thus, in the original language, as well as in the modern French, the true signification of fief liege, is a corporal fief or fief de corps as well on account of the personal services to be rendered, as of the corporal oath which the vassal was obliged to take." "THE doctrine of perpetual allegiance is repugnant to the principle of republican governments. We are told by Plato that the Athenian citizens might freely expatriate them-1 selves, whenever they became dissatisfied with their own country. Dialogue between Socrates and Crito. Sec. 8. And Cicero considered the right of expatriation as the firmest foundation of Roman liberty. Every scholar has read and admired the beautiful apostrophe into which he breaks out upon this subject, in his oration for Balbus. O, Jura præclara, atque divinitus a majoribus nostris comparata! ne quis invitus civitate mutetur, neve in civitate maneat invitus. Hæc sunt enim fundimenta firmissima nostra libertatis, sui quemque juris, et retinendi, et dimittendi esse dominum. The same principle formerly obtained in the republics of modern Europe; and particularly in Holland and Switzerland. Indeed the publicists contended for the right of emigration, even under monarchical governments; and, the learned Binkershack, has no hesitation in saying that it is lawful for the subject to emigrate wherever the country is not a prison. Quest. Jur. pub. lib. 1. c. 22. In the United States the right of expatriation, has been solemnly recognized, by a decision of the supreme judicial authority; with these restrictions, however, that it must be exercised at such time, in such manner, and under such circumstances, as not to endanger the peace or safety of the United States; and that the bona fide intention of the party to expatriate himself must be clearly proved, so that the act of emigrating be not made a mere cover to evade or violate the laws of our own country. Talbot v. Janson, 3 Dall. 133. So far the general principle has become a part of our mu nicipal law; but several important questions depending upon it, still remain to be determined. Among those the supreme court has reserved for future consideration, "whether a citizen of the United States can divest himself absolutely of that character, otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by our own laws; and whether his expatriation would be sufficient to rescue him from punishment for a crime committed against the United States." Murray v. the Charming Betsey, 2 Cranch, 64. Such are the sentiments of Mr. Duponceau, whom all will admit, I take it, possesses the greatest knowledge of general law of any, in the U. States, and may be said to be the greatest universal jurist. From the preceding notes we have seen what his idea is as to the law of France, on the subject of the ne exuere patriam, which is a phrase unknown to all law heretofore, and has been foisted into language, as he observes, in the place of the ne exuere ligeantiam, and transferred by the British from the feudalist to every other subject. But it is not the law of France. That must appear from the Napolean code, art. 17th. "The quality of a French subject shall be lost, 1. By naturalization acquired in a foreign country. 2. By the acceptance, not authorized by the emperor, of public functions conferred by a foreign government. 3. Finally, by every settlement made in a foreign country without the intention of returning." This is the point upon which it ought to be put, the animus residendi. If Clark had alleged this, or if it could have been made out against him, he might have been hung as a spy. But it not appearing that he had gone to Canada with a view of not returning, he might be considered a citi zen of the United States, and proceeded against by the civil authority as guilty of treason. Upon the whole it is not consistent at the present day with the practice of nations, or with even that of Great Britain, to bring up this isolated, or, I might rather say, insulated doctrine of feudal origin, and force it upon the world. In the modern state of national society, it cannot be endured, or carried into effect; it is an outrage upon the law of nature itself, the improvement of the species, and the happiness of man. It is the offspring of a Barbaric code, which had its foundation in the military establishments of feudal invaders, and may be said to be functus officio, and to have gone to rest. We know that cannibals existed in Great Britain as well as in the islands of the South sea; and had it been the law still to cut breasts from women, and eat human flesh, would that bind us from protecting individuals from amongst that people, who had made their escape and taken refuge on our shores? In a case short of life, and liberty only, I refer once more to the case of Somerset v. Stuart; the negro slave rescued from the claim of his master, and set free. Because the law could know of no claim over a human being, but would consider him as entitled to himself, and upon that principle would defend him as sui juris, the moment he had set his foot upon the island. These are the principal distinctions between aliens, denizens, and natives: distinctions which it hath been frequently endeavoured, since the commencement of this century to lay almost totally aside, by one general naturalization act, for all foreign protestants. 1 Bl. Com. 374. THE British government would seem to have no scruple about the right of impatriation. They take from whence they can get, without any restraint but considerations of policy, so far as respects themselves. And will they not prorect by land, or water, those whom they receive? I quote a sentence from a very able publication of that country, Cobbett's Weekly Register, Aug. 4, 1813. While in this country that editor of a paper here was no squeamish advocate of British claims; and no slight abuser of American character in general, and American characters. I had been sometimes disposed to apply to that writer, in my own mind, the language of king Henry V. in the case of Grey and Scroop. "If that same demon that hath gulled thee thus, A soul so easy as that English man's." But, as Don Quevedo, in his Vision of Hell, introduces the Devil preaching; (and it could not be denied, but that, though not a doctor of the Sorbonne, his doctrine, in that instance, was orthodox,) and was justifying himself against the charge of those that had come to that place, alleging that he had tempted them, whereas it was in a great degree their own evil passions that had impelled them; so I quote Cobbett, though not admitting him to be an authority in all cases; nor is what he says of much consequence, but as it is ad hominem, of the English practice in impatriation. "It should be considered," says he, " that our own laws make exceptions as to allegiance. An American may become a British subject by marrying an English woman. From the time he marries, the law gives him the claim to all the rights enjoyed by Englishmen; and the same law imposes upon him all the duties of an Englishman. This law, of which no gentleman can be ignorant, has been, not long ago, acted upon by our government, as I understand, in this way. An American was impressed in our fleet.-He was claimed by the agent of the American government, as an American; and his discharge demanded accordingly. The answer was, that he was a British subject having married an English woman; and the demand of his discharge was res fused accordingly." This venerable body of men, being separate and set apart from the rest of the people, in order to attend more closely to the service of Almighty God, have thereupon large privileges allowed them by our municipal laws. 1 Bl. Com. 376. MINISTERS of religion of every denomination, are exempted from militia duty by an act of assembly for the regulation of the militia, of the 9th April, 1807. And, by a decision of the supreme court of this state, July 12, 1813, nobis dissentientibus, "a clergyman who officiates as such is not bound to serve as a guardian of the poor, notwithstanding he so far attends to secular business, as to keep a store for the sale of merchandize." The majority of the court thought themselves warranted in considering it a part of the common law introduced from England; or a usage here, amounting to common law by the tacit consent of the people, to exempt the clergy from all secular duties. The decision being so, I am content. But will it not be difficult to say who are ministers, so as to be exempted? Herman Husbands preached to his wife; and affected like saint Paul, at Rome, "in his own house, to receive all that came in unto him." Boden Teugh's Church consisted of four persons; himself and wife; and his son and wife. His grace was ; "God bless me and my wife; My son John and his wife; We four, and no more; and let all the rest shift for themselves." There wanted but a denomination to exempt these ; and they might have taken that of Husbandists; or Teughites. Now, that by this decision of the supreme court, it has come to be a rule of law, to exempt from all secular duties, having no church establishment in this state, some criterion must be fixed upon to distinguish. I should take it, that it might be the living by the altar; or making the ministering in holy ordinances, the chief employment of their time. The court by this decision, would seem to have gone the whole length of the law of England. May it not then follow, that if the clergy are thus privileged, even from being a guardian of the poor, which is a duty connected with a cha |