Charles Julian De Longchamps, commonly called the Chevalier De
Longchamps, was indicted, that 'he on the 17th of May, 1784, in the
dwelling-house of his Excellency the French Minister
Plenipotentiary, in the presence of Francis Barbe Marbois,
unlawfully and insolently did threaten and menace bodily harm and
violence to the person of the said Francis Barbe Marbois, he being
Consul General of France to the United States, Consul for the State
of Pennsylvania, Secretary of the French Legation &c. resident
in the house aforesaid, and under the protection of the law of
nations and this Commonwealth.' And that 'afterwards, to wit on the
19th of May in the public street &c. he the said Charles Julian
de Longchamps unlawfully, premeditatedly and violently, in and upon
the person of the said Francis Barbe Marbois under the protection
of the laws of nations, and in the peace of this Commonwealth, then
and there being, an assault did make, and him the said Francis
Barbe Marbois unlawfully and violently did strike and otherwise
&c. in violation of the laws of nations, against the peace and
dignity of the United States and of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.' To these charges the defendant pleaded not
guilty.
The evidence, in support of the first Court, was, that on the
17th of May, De Longchamps went to the house of the Minister of
France, and after some conversation with Monsieur Marbois, was
heard to exclaim in a loud and menacing tone, 'Je vous
deshonnerera, Policon, Coquin', addressing himself to that
gentleman. That the noise being heard by the Minister, he repaired
to the room from which it issued, and that in his presence the
defendant repeated the insult offered to Monsieur Marbois in nearly
the same terms.
In support of the second Court, it appeared, that De Longchamps
and Monsieur Marbois, having met in Market Street, near the Coffee
House, entered into a long conversation, in the course of which,
the latter said that he would complain to the civil authority, and
the former replied, 'you are a Blackguard.' The witnesses generally
deposed that De Longchamps struck the cane of Monsieur Marbois,
Page 1 U.S.
111, 112
before that gentleman used any violent gestures, or even
appeared incensed; but that as soon as the stroke was given,
Monsieur Marbois employed his stick with great severity, til the
spectators interfered and separated the parties. One of the
witnesses, indeed, said, that previously to engaging with their
canes, he observed the two gentlemen, at the same instant, lay
their hands on each others shoulders, in a manner so gentle, that
he, who had heard it was customary among the French to part with
mutual falutations, imagined a ceremony of that kind was about to
take place, and was surprized to see De Longchamps step back, and
strike the cane of Monsieur Marbois.
On the part of the defendant, evidence was produced of his
having served with honour in the French armies, and his commission
of Sub- Brigadier in the dragoons of Noailles, was read. It
appeared that the occasion of his calling on Monsieur Marbois, was
to obtain authentications of these, and some other papers relative
to his family, his rank in France, and his military promotions, in
order to refute several publications, which had been made in the
newspapers, injurious to his character and pretensions. The refusal
of Monsieur Marbois to grant the authentications required, was the
ground of De Longchamps' resentment, and the immediate cause of his
menaces at the Minister's house.
With respect to the assault, one witness (a Frenchman) swore
that he saw Monsieur Marbois give the first blow, and his
Excellencey the President of the State, testified, that Monsieur
Marbois, having complained to him of the insult received in the
Minister's house, he sent a message to De Longchamps, requesting to
see him; that the defendant readily attended, when his Excellency
explained his reasons for apprehending, that he meditated some
personal violence upon Monsieur Marbois, and requested him to
pledge his parol of honour, that he would prosecute the matter no
farther. This he declined in polite, but positive terms; when his
Excellency proposed to Monsieur Marbois that the Chevalier should
be bound over for his good behaviour; but that gentleman would not
accede to the proposal.
Sergeant and Vannost, for the defendant, contended, that the
expressions laid in the first part of the indictment, were too
equivocal to be construed into menaces of corporal harm. 'I will
dishonour you', is a sentence that conveys more than one
signification; and the threat would have been fully accomplished,
had the Chevalier descended to any of those very libellous
publications, with which his own character had been asperfed. The
established maxim, that words ought to be taken in their mildest
sense, operates, therefore, in favour of the defendant; and, at all
events, that they do not amount to an assault, and are not the
subject of an Indictment, are principles incontrovertibly
established. 3 Bl. Com. 20. Finch L. 202. 4 Inst. 108. They
insisted, that the President offered Monsieur Marbois the only
security which the law will allow on such occasions, and which
would effectually have restrained any future violence intended
Page 1 U.S.
111, 113
to be committed upon his person. That therefore his having
suffered a second insult, must be imputed to his refusal to accept
that security. It is pretended, that by the menances at the house
of the Minister, the law of nations was violated; yet, it must be
remembered, that the reparation sought, and the remedy offered, are
confined to the municipal law of Pennsylvania, where the offence
was committed; and, in all cases of menaces, the law of
Pennsylvania yield to further relief, than the imposition of a
legal restraint on the execution of those menaces. The degree of
outrage is, likewise, to be computed by the quality of the person
offended; and as the application of the defendant was to procure a
certificate from the Consul of France, if Monsieur Marbois has been
at all insulted, it is only in that character, which is not
protected by the law of nations. Vat, lib. 4. S. 75. and
consequently there is no redress, but what the law of the State
provides. On the second Count, of the Indictment, they argued, that
it was not sufficiently proved, that De Longchamps was the
aggressor. One witness has sworn positively, that the first blow
was given by Monsieur Marbois, and another describes the parties to
have laid their hands on each other, at the same instant. Though
other witnesses did not see these circumstances, yet they are
grounded upon affirmative testimony, which cannot be destroyed by
that which is merely negative.Gilb. L. E. 157. If, therefore, the
evidence for the defendant was entitled to credit, it appeared,
that Monsieur Marbois was the author of the outrage; and, it is so
well established that no elevation, rank, or immunity of character,
can abrogate the right of self defence, that if a Sovereign
Minister offend a Citizen, the latter may oppose him, without
departing from the respect due to his station, and give him a
lesson that shall both efface the stain and expose the author of
the outrage Vatt. lib. 4. S. 80. The Attorney General, assisted by
Wilson, supported the prosecution. The necessity of sustaining the
law of nations, of protecting and securing the persons and
privileges of Ambassadors; the connection between the law of
nations and the municipal law; and the effect which decision of
this case must have upon the honor of Pennsylvania, and the safety
of her Citizens abroad, were stated at length from 3 Burr. 1480. 1
Bl. Com. 253. 4 Bl. Com. 70. Vatt. pref. 6. page 203. Vat. lib 1.
S. 6 lib. 4. S. 84. S. 80. Ayliss's Pandect. lib. 2. 132. On the
first part of the Indictment, they observed, that the meaning of
the menace used in the Minister's house, was to be fought for in
the opinion of the French nation. With them, the prase extended
farther than colloquial dishonor (that Monsieur Marbois had already
suffered) in implied personal violence. This was the idea,
likewise, of his Excellency, the President of the State, and the
event confirms it beyond a doubt. If, therefore, the menace had
been attended with its natural effect, impressing Monsieur Marbois
with an apprehension for his own safety, the Consul General of
France,
Page 1 U.S.
111, 114
and the Secretary of the French Legation to the United States,
must have been prevented from paying a proper attention to his
appointments, which is certainly a violation of the law of nations.
Vatt. lib 2. S. 218. Upon the same principle that the infringement
of a Statute, is an indictable offence, though the mode of
punishment is not pointed out in the Act itself, an offence against
the laws of Nations, while they compose a part of the law of the
Land, must necessarily be indictable. With respect to the assault,
they contended, that the weight of the testimony proved De
Longchamps to be the aggressor; and the respective characters of
the parties tend to confirm it: Monsieur Margois preserved during
the whole transaction, his constitutional temperament cool,
deliberate, and self possessed; while De Longchamps, naturally
captious and impetuous, became incensed at the imaginary injuries
he had received, and, by his own declarations, was determined to be
revenged. The Chief Justice, after minutely recapitulating the
evidence. and applying it to the charges in the indictment,
expressed the following sentiments.
M'Kean, Chief Justice. This is a case of the first impression in
the United States. It must be determined on the principles of the
laws of nations, which form a part of the municipal law of
Pennsylvania; and, if the offences charged in the indictment have
been committed, there can be no doubt, that those laws have been
violated. The words used in the Minister's house, (which is to be
considered as a Foreign Domicil, where the Minister resides in full
representation of his sovereign, and where the laws of the State do
not extend) may be compared to the same words applied to the
Judges, in a Court of Justice, where they fit in representation of
the majesty of the People, of Pennsylvania. In that case, the
offender would be immediately committed to jail, without the
preliminary process of an indictment by a Grand Jury; and, in the
case before us, if the offender is convicted, he may certainly be
punished by fine and imprisonment. In actions of Slander, words
were formerly construed in the mildest sense they would admit; but
reason has superceded such forced interpretations, and words are
now to be taken according to their ordinary import and meaning.
Those expressed by the defendant, are evidently of a tendency so
opprobrious and violent, that they cannot fail to aggrevate the
outrage which has been committed. As to the assault, this is,
perhaps, one of that kind, in which the insult is more to be
considered, than the actual damage; for, though no great bodily
pain is suffered by a blow on the palm of the hand, or the skirt of
the coat, yet these are clearly within the legal difinition of
Assault and Battery, and among gentlemen, too often induce
duelling, and terminate in murder. As, therefore, anything attached
to the person, partakes of its inviolability; De Longchamps'
striking Monsieur Marbois' cane, is a sufficient justification of
that gentleman's subsequent conduct.
Page 1 U.S.
111, 115
Bryan, Justice.
The distinction, between a Consul and a member of the Legation,
is not warranted in this case; for, Monsieur Marbois never ceased
to be the latter. As Secretary to the Legation, his authority
descends from a high source, his commission being made out in the
same form as the Minister's, and signed in the same manner, by the
King his master.
The Jury, at first, found the defendant guilty of the Assault
only; but, the Court desiring them to re-consider the matter, they
returned with a virdict against him on both Counts.
The sentence of the Court was suspended, in consequence of a
case ated by his Excellency, the President, and the Honorable
Supreme Executive Council, for the opinion of the Judges. It was
argued in open Court, on the 10th and 12th of July, by five
Council, two for the affirmative, and three for the negative; and
on the 7th of October, the prisoner being brought before the Court,
the Chief Justice stated the case, repeated the answers of the
Judges, and, finally, pronounced the judgment of the Court, in the
following manner.
M'Kean, Chief Justice.
Charles Julian De Longchamps: You have been indicted for
unlawfully and violently threatening and menacing bodily harm and
violence to the person of the honorable Francis Barbe De Marbois,
Secretary to the Legation from France, and Consul General of France
to the United States of America, in the mansion-house of the
Minister Plenipotentiary of France; and for an Assault and Battery
committed upon the said Secretary and Consul, in a public street in
the City of Philadelphia. To this Indictment you have pleaded, that
you were not guilty, and for trial put yourself upon the country;
an unbiased Jury, upon a fair trial, and clear evidence, have found
you guilty. [115-Continued.]
These offences having been thus legally ascertained and fixed
upon you, his Excellency, the President, and the Honorable Supreme
Executive Council, attentive to the honor and interest of the
State, were pleased to inform the Judges of this Court, as they had
frequently done before, that the Minister of France had earnestly
repeated a demand, that you, having appeared in his house in the
uniform of a French Regiment, and having called yourself an officer
in the troops of his Majesty, should be delivered up to him for
these outrages, as a Frenchman to be sent to France; and wished us
in this stage of your prosecution, to take into mature
consideration, and in the most solemn manner to determine:
1st. Whether you could be legally delivered up by Council,
according to the claim made by the late Minister of France?
2ndly. If you could not be thus legally delivered up, whether
your offences in violation of the law of nations, being now
ascertained and verified according to the laws of this
Commonwealth, you ought not to be imprisoned, until his most
Christan Majesty shall declare, that the reparation is
satisfactory?
And 3rdly. If you can be thus imprisoned, whether any legal act
can be done by Council, for causing you to be imprisoned?
Page 1 U.S.
111, 116
To these questions we have given the following answers in
writing: 'In compliance with the request of his Excellency, the
President, and the Honorable the Supreme Executive Council, we
postponed passing sentence upon Charles Julian De Longchamps, until
we had maturely considered the three questions above proposed for
our determination. On the 10th and 12th days of July the several
questions were argued before the Court by five Counsel, two on the
affirmative and three on the negative side. We have kept the matter
under advisement until this day, and now deliver our opinion
thereupon.' 1. 'And as to the first question, we answer, That it is
our opinion, that, in this case, Charles Julian De Longchamps
cannot be legally delivered up by Council, according to the claim
made by the Minister of France. Though, we think, cases may occur,
where Council could, pro bono publicq, and to prevent attrocious
offenders evading punishment, deliver them up to the Justice of the
Country to which they belong, or where the offences were
committed.' 2. 'Punishments must be inflicted in the same County
where the Criminals were tried and convicted, unless the record of
the attainder be removed into the Supreme Court, which may award
execution in the County were it fits; they must be such as the laws
expressly prescribe; or where no stated or fixed judgement is
directed, according to the legal discretion of the Court; but
judgments must be certain and definite in all respects. Therefore,
we conclude, that the Defendant cannot be imprisoned, until his
most Christian Majesty shall declare, that the reparation is
satisfactory.' 3. 'The answer to the last question is rendered
unnecessary by the above answer to the second question.' The
foregoing answers having been given, it only remains for the Court
to pronounce sentence upon you. This sentence must be governed by a
due consideration of the enormity and dangerous tendency of the
offences you have committed, of the wilfulness, deliberation, and
malice, wherewith they were done, of the quality and degree of the
offended and offender, the proyocation given, and all other
circumstances which may any way aggravate or extenuate the guilt.
The first crime in the indictment is an infraction of the law of
Nations. This law, in its full extent, is part of the law of this
State, and is to be collected from the practice of different
Nations, and the authority of writers. The person of a public
minister is sacred and inviolable. Whoever offers any violence to
him, not only affronts the Sovereign he represents, but also hurts
the common safety and well being of nations; he is guilty of a
crime against the whole world.
Page 1 U.S.
111, 117
All the reasons, which establish the independency and
inviolability of the person of a Minister, apply likewise to secure
the immunities of his house: It is to be defended from all outrage;
it is under a peculiar protection of the laws; to invade it's
freedom is a crime against the State and all other nations. The
Comites of a Minister, or those of his train, partake also of his
inviolability. The independency of a Minister extends to all his
houshold; these are so connected with him, that they enjoy his
privileges and follow his fate. The Secretary to the Embassy has
his commission from the Sovereign himself; he is the most
distinguished character in the suite of a public Minister, and is
in some instances considered as a kind of public Minister himself.
Is it not then an extraordinary insult to use threats of bodily
harm to his person in the domicil of the Minister Plenipotentiary?
If this is tolerated, his freedom of conduct is taken away, the
business of his Sovereign cannot be transacted, and his dignity and
grandeur will be tarnished. You then have been guilty of an
attrocious violation of the law of nations; you have grossly
insulted gentlemen, the peculiar objects of this law (gentlemen of
amiable characters, and highly esteemed by the government of this
State) in a most wanton and unprovoked manner: And it is now the
interest as well as duty of the government, to animadvert upon your
conduct with a becoming severity, such a severity as may tend to
reform yourself, to deter others from the commission of the like
crime, preserve the honor of the State, and maintain peace with our
great and good Ally, and the whole world. A wrong opinion has been
entertained concerning the conduct of Lord Chief Justice Holt and
the Court of King's Bench in England, in the noted case of the
Ruffian Ambassador. They detained the offenders, after conviction,
in prison, from term to term, until the Czar Peter was satisfied,
without ever proceeding to judgment; and from this it has been
inferred, that the Court doubted, whether they could inflict any
punishment for an infraction of the law of nations. But this was
not the reason. The Court never doubted, that the law of nations
formed a part of the law of England, and that a violation of this
general law could be punished by them; but no punishment less than
death would have been thought by the Czar an adequate reparation
for the arrest of his Ambassador; This punishment they could not
inflict, and such a sentence as they could have given, He might
have thought a freth insult. Another expedient was therefore fallen
upon. However, the Princes of the world, at this day, are more
enlightened, and do not require impracticable nor unreasonable
reparations for injuries of this kind. The second offence charged
in the indictment, namely the Assault and Battery, needs no
observations. Upon the whole The Court, after a most attentive
consideration of every circumstance in this case, do award, and
direct me to pronounce the following sentence:
Page 1 U.S.
111, 118
That you pay a fine of one hundred French Crowns to the
Commonwealth; that you be imprisoned until the 4th day of July
1786, which will make a little more than two years imprisonment in
the whole; that you then give good security to keep the peace, and
be of good behaviour to all public Ministers, Secretaries to
Embassies, and Consuls, as well as to all the liege people of
Pennsylvania, for the space of seven years, by entering into a
recognizance, yourself in a thousand pounds, and two securities in
five hundred pounds each: that you pay the costs of this
prosecution, and remain committed until this sentence be complied
with.
Comments
Be the first to comment
Leave a Comment