United States · Attorney General opinions
A compilation of early federal executive opinions, including Bradford’s 1794 discussions of consuls and diplomatic libel and Lee’s 1797 opinion on Cobbett.
Requested text available. Collection target: 1852 compilation, Volume I
Volume 1 · 1852
Digitized by Google; public-domain copy made available by Internet Archive. The complete repository file was checked for page sequence, with sampled image review. The title and copyright pages identify Benjamin F. Hall’s compilation, Volume I, published by Robert Farnham in Washington in 1852. Finzer cites the reporter volume and opinion dates but does not identify this particular printing. The three cited opinions are William Bradford’s Respect due to Consuls (February 20, 1794), William Bradford’s Libellous Publications (September 17, 1794), and Charles Lee’s Libellous Publications (July 27, 1797). Finzer prints the third citation as 1 Op. Att’y Gen. 73 (1794). The opinion actually begins at page 71, is dated July 27, 1797, and is signed by Charles Lee at page 74. The library preserves that discrepancy instead of repeating 1794 as the source’s date. Bradford addresses federal prosecution and preserves an avenue to judicial determination through a grand jury; he does not say that a consul has no protection from state law. His separate libel opinion expressly reserves the prudence of prosecution. The repository’s searchable PDF preserves Google’s source attribution and prefatory notice. Finzer was affirmed in part and reversed in part by Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 329–34 (1988): the display clause was held unconstitutional, and the congregation clause survived as narrowly construed. Recording these historical citations does not endorse the reversed holding.
Open reader → Download this PDF
Robert H. Bork · Opinion for the court
Finzer v. Barry, 798 F.2d 1450, 1456 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Bork cites Bradford’s February 20, 1794 discussion of a riot and insults outside the British consul’s house. Bradford distinguishes consuls from public ministers under the 1790 act and discusses federal judicial jurisdiction.
Robert H. Bork · Opinion for the court
Finzer v. Barry, 798 F.2d 1450, 1456 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Bork quotes Bradford’s September 17, 1794 opinion that the law of nations reinforces a foreign minister’s protection against libel and insult. Bradford considered specific newspaper paragraphs prima facie libellous, assuming they referred to the British minister.
Robert H. Bork · Opinion for the court
Finzer v. Barry, 798 F.2d 1450, 1456 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Bork cites an opinion on diplomatic insults as further evidence of early executive understanding. The cited passage is Charles Lee’s July 27, 1797 advice concerning William Cobbett’s publications about the Spanish king and minister.
The title and copyright pages identify Benjamin F. Hall’s compilation, Volume I, published by Robert Farnham in Washington in 1852. Finzer cites the reporter volume and opinion dates but does not identify this particular printing.
The three cited opinions are William Bradford’s Respect due to Consuls (February 20, 1794), William Bradford’s Libellous Publications (September 17, 1794), and Charles Lee’s Libellous Publications (July 27, 1797).
Finzer prints the third citation as 1 Op. Att’y Gen. 73 (1794). The opinion actually begins at page 71, is dated July 27, 1797, and is signed by Charles Lee at page 74. The library preserves that discrepancy instead of repeating 1794 as the source’s date.
Bradford addresses federal prosecution and preserves an avenue to judicial determination through a grand jury; he does not say that a consul has no protection from state law. His separate libel opinion expressly reserves the prudence of prosecution.
The repository’s searchable PDF preserves Google’s source attribution and prefatory notice.
Finzer was affirmed in part and reversed in part by Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 329–34 (1988): the display clause was held unconstitutional, and the congregation clause survived as narrowly construed. Recording these historical citations does not endorse the reversed holding.