United States · Congressional records
The 1779 and 1781 proceedings on the law of nations and diplomatic protection, reproduced in the official 1909 and 1912 documentary editions.
Requested text available. Collection target: Volumes 14 (1909) and 21 (1912), reproducing the cited 1779 and 1781 proceedings.
Volume 14 · 1909
Law Library of Congress. The complete repository file was checked for page sequence, with sampled image review. The title page identifies Worthington Chauncey Ford as editor and 1909 as the publication year. 1779 is the year of the proceedings, not the year of this printed compilation. Finzer does not identify a particular printing; the cited volume and passage are verified here. The same adopted letter says Congress cannot suspend or interrupt the ordinary course of justice consistently with the powers entrusted to it and the rights of states and individuals. The footnote anchor follows that sentence. The editor identifies the three subsequent paragraphs, beginning with The Control by appeal and continuing onto page 636, as not adopted. Finzer quotes a shortened formulation; the source says Congress will cause the law of nations to be most strictly observed. The source’s concrete setting is neutral shipping, not an embassy demonstration. 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 Congress’s assurance that it would observe the law of nations. The underlying May 22, 1779 letter concerns Spanish neutral vessels captured by American armed ships and promises lawful adjudication and reparation where warranted.
The title page identifies Worthington Chauncey Ford as editor and 1909 as the publication year. 1779 is the year of the proceedings, not the year of this printed compilation. Finzer does not identify a particular printing; the cited volume and passage are verified here.
The same adopted letter says Congress cannot suspend or interrupt the ordinary course of justice consistently with the powers entrusted to it and the rights of states and individuals. The footnote anchor follows that sentence. The editor identifies the three subsequent paragraphs, beginning with The Control by appeal and continuing onto page 636, as not adopted.
Finzer quotes a shortened formulation; the source says Congress will cause the law of nations to be most strictly observed. The source’s concrete setting is neutral shipping, not an embassy demonstration.
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.
Volume 21 · 1912
Law Library of Congress. The complete repository file was checked for page sequence, with sampled image review. The title page identifies Gaillard Hunt as editor and 1912 as the publication year. 1781 is the year of the proceedings, not the year of this printed compilation. Finzer does not identify a particular printing; the cited volume and passage are verified here. The resolution recommends state legislation and tribunals; it does not itself establish a federal cause of action. Its diplomatic provisions address violence to persons and property, interference with religious exercise, and coercive judicial process. The editor identifies Randolph’s manuscript report and explains that part of the journal text was entered by George Bond. The broader committee report and editorial notes are preserved. 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 the November 23, 1781 recommendation that states punish violations of diplomatic immunities. The resolution also addresses safe conducts, hostile acts, and treaties, and recommends damages suits by injured parties and compensation to the United States.
The title page identifies Gaillard Hunt as editor and 1912 as the publication year. 1781 is the year of the proceedings, not the year of this printed compilation. Finzer does not identify a particular printing; the cited volume and passage are verified here.
The resolution recommends state legislation and tribunals; it does not itself establish a federal cause of action. Its diplomatic provisions address violence to persons and property, interference with religious exercise, and coercive judicial process.
The editor identifies Randolph’s manuscript report and explains that part of the journal text was entered by George Bond. The broader committee report and editorial notes are preserved.
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.