The last observation opens the inquiry, what remedy ought the Supreme Court of the United States to have administered, even if the question had been fairly before them?  My opinion is, that the very merits are against Mr. Pagan.  In America, the construction of the armistice has been almost universally to compute the places, within which different times were to prevail, by latitude only.  Am I misinformed, that such an interpretation has been pressed by our ministers, and not denied by those of London?  A second mode has been adopted, by describing a circle, and thereby comprehending longitude as well as latitude:  now let either rule be adopted, and the position of the capture in this case will be adverse to Pagan’s pretensions.

But what can be exacted from our government, after repeated trials, before various jurisdictions, none of which can be charged with any symptom of impropriety, and upon a subject, which, to say no more, is at least equipoised?  Nothing; and I appeal to the British reasoning on the Silesia loan, as supporting this sentiment, in the following passage.  ’The law of nations, founded upon justice, equity, convenience, and the reason of the thing, and confirmed by long usage, does not allow of reprisals, except in case of violent injuries directed and supported by the State, and justice absolutely denied, in re minime dubid, by all the tribunals, and afterwards by the prince.’  Where the judges are left free, and give sentence according to their consciences, ’though it should be erroneous, that would be no ground for reprisals.  Upon doubtful questions, different men think and judge differently; and all a friend can desire is, that justice should be as impartially administered to him, as it is to the subjects of that prince, in whose courts the matter is tried.’  Under such circumstances, a citizen must acquiesce.  So therefore must Pagan; against whom even the court of Nova Scotia, within the dominions of his sovereign, has once decided.

There are many smaller points, arising from the controversy, which might be relied on.  But I pass them over, from a hope that the observations already made will induce you to think with me, that government is not bound to interpose farther in the behalf of Pagan.  I have the honor, Sir, to be, with respect and esteem, your most obedient servant,

Edmond Randolph.

LETTER CXLII.—­TO MR. PINCKNEY, April 20, 1793

TO MR. PINCKNEY.

Philadelphia, April 20, 1793.

Dear Sir,

In a postscript to my letter of the 12th, I acknowledged the receipt of yours of January the 3rd; since which, those of January the 30th and February the 5th have been received by the William Penn.