Before the answer of the Judges had been received,
Washington's efforts to maintain neutrality had re-
ceived a further blow by the outcome of another case
involving the neutrality of the country. While the
question of the extent of the power of the Federal Ad-
miralty Courts over French prizes was still unsettled,
the problem of the effective enforcement of our neu-
trality in criminal cases in the Federal Courts had
given the Grovemment even more concern. Prior to
1794, there were no Federal criminal statutes on the
subject, and the important questions were presented :
Could a person who violated the law of nations or the
provisions of a treaty be punishable criminally in the
Federal Courts? Did the common law afford a basis
for a criminal indictment in these Courts ? These ques-
tions had been answered aflSrmatively by Chief Justice
Jay, as early as May 22, 1793, in a charge to the Grand
Jury in the Federal Circuit Court at Richmond, and
by Judge Wilson, July 22, in a charge to the Grand
Jury in the Federal Circuit Court at Philadelphia.[1] On July 27, an indictment was found in Philadelphia, against one Gideon Henfield, charging him with acting as prizemaster on the Citizen Genet, a French privateer fitted up and commissioned in the United States and attacking and seizing ships of a nation with which the United States was at peace, in violation of the laws of nations and of the treaties and laws of the United States. The case aroused great excitement, for it was
- ↑ American Daily Advertiser, July 25, 26, 1793; General Advertiser, July 26, 1793; for account of the case of United States v. Ravara in which the power of the United States Courts to try a person indicted for a common law crime was again upheld, ibid., July 27, 1798. Even as early as the first Circuit Court held in Massachusetts in 1790, Jay had stated to the Grand July that "the objects of your inquiry are all offences committed against the laws of the United States", and "you will recollect that the laws of nations make part of the laws of the Nation." Independent Chronicle, May 27, 1790.
E. Baldwin, 32-38; The Supreme Court, by George P. Costigan, Yale Law Journ. (1907), XVI. See alao Dewhurst v. Coulthard, 3 Dallas, 409.