antecedent words, "acts, records, and proceedings;" so as to read, "and to prescribe the effect of such acts, records, and proceedings."[1] Those, who were of opinion, that the preceding section of the clause made judgments in one state conclusive in all others, naturally adopted the former opinion; for otherwise the power to declare the effect would be wholly senseless; or congress could possess the power to repeal, or vary the full faith and credit given by that section. Those, who were of opinion, that such judgments were not conclusive, but only prima facie evidence, as naturally embraced the other opinion; and supposed, that until congress should, by law, declare what the effect of such judgment should be, they remained only prima facie evidence.
§ 1307. The former seems now to be considered the sounder interpretation. But it is not, practically speaking, of much importance, which interpretation prevails; since each admits the competency of congress to declare the effect of judgments, when duly authenticated; so always, that full faith and credit are given to them; and congress by their legislation have already carried into operation the objects of the clause. The act of 26th of May, 1790, (ch. 11,) after providing for the mode of authenticating the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the states, has declared, "and the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States, as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state,- ↑ See Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. R. 462, 467; Hitchcock v. Aicken, 1 Caine's R. 460; Green v. Sarmiento, 1 Peters's Circt. R. 74; Field v. Gibbs, id. 155; Commonwealth v. Green, 17 Mass. R. 515, 544, 545.
