§ 1655. It has been made a question, whether this clause, extending jurisdiction to all cases affecting ambassadors, ministers, and consuls, includes cases of indictments found against persons for offering violence to them, contrary to the statute of the United States, punishing such offence. And it has been held, that it does not. Such indictments are mere public prosecutions, to which the United States and the offender only are parties; and which are conducted by the United States, for the purpose of vindicating their own laws, and the law of nations. They are strictly, therefore, cases affecting the United States; and the minister himself, who has been injured by the offence, has no concern in the event of the prosecution, or the costs attending it.[1] Indeed, it seems difficult to conceive, how there can be a case affecting an ambassador, in the sense of the constitution, unless he is a party to the suit on record, or is directly affected, and bound by the judgment.[2]
§ 1656. The language of the constitution is perhaps broad enough to cover cases, where he is not a party; but may yet be affected in interest. This peculiarity in the language has been taken notice of, in a recent case, by the Supreme Court.[3] "If a suit- ↑ United States v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. R. 467. See also Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. R. 854, 855.
- ↑ Id.
- ↑ Id.
1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 2, p. 44, (2d edition, p. 45); id. Lect. 15, p. 294, 295, (2d edition, p. 314, 315); Commonwealth v. Kosloff, 5 Serg. & Rawle, 545; Hall v. Young, 3 Pick. R. 80; United Slates v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. R. 407, and Mr. Wheaton's note, id. 409 to 475; Manhardt v. Soderstrom, 1 Binn. R. 138; United States v. Ravara, 2 Dall. R. 297; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. R. 396, 397; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. R. 820, 821; Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. R. 431, per Iredell, J.
