ant himself must admit it. The second alone be strange indeed to attempt any distinction, as opens a door to argument. The question lies applicable to the case under consideration. The out of the ordinary track of legal discussion. spirits extracted by the doubler are understood To understand it, we must have recourse to to be generally about proof. For various purbooks of art. It is these which will best fix poses it is necessary to increase their strength. the true meaning of the terms distillation and This is effected by a third or fourth distillation rectification. We shall then be enabled to de- generally, though not necessarily, in the same termine, if there be any, the difference between stills. By this process, not only is the strength them. Doctor Black, in his elements of chem- raised, but the purity is increased. Now, in istry, after speaking of fermentation, says: what, may it be asked, does this operation differ "The spirit is separated more or less perfectly from the second process in the doubler? Spirfrom these substances by distillation, it being its of an inferior strength are the materials of more volatile than most of them, especially the distillation in the one case and in the other. The acid, mucilaginous and coloring matter. The last, and any similar subsequent operations, water is but imperfectly separated at first, on may be called rectifications. But they are disaccount of the small difference of volatility tillations, too. They impart to the spirits more between it and the spirit. To reduce the spirit strength as well as more purity. It is just so to a state of purity, we must perform several with the second process in the doubler. It may, other operations, such as distilling it again once perhaps, be said, that these subsequent proor twice with a gentle heat, which is called cesses are all carried on by the rectifier, on spirrectifying. By this we separate the greater its previously distilled. That it is done merely part of the water which had come over in the to fit them for combination with other materials first distillation." Fourcroy, in his elements, of which mixtures are made by persons not defines rectification to be “a second distillation, distillers, and that in such process extraneous in which substances are purified, by their most matter is often introduced with a view to greatvolatile parts being raised by heat carefully er purity. To this it may be answered, first, 254*] managed. The *Attorney-General next that these processes in nowise destroy the referred to Hall's distiller (which, he said, was *character of distillation, as they do not [*256 agreed to be a very accurate work upon this sub- necessarily prevent an augmentation in the ject), and to the Encyclopedia, where the defi- strength of spirits; and, secondly, that the intronitions were substantially the same as in Black duction of extraneous matter is not confined to and Fourcroy. Even the common dictionaries the higher process of distillation, as water, charof the language, he said, defined rectification coal, and other ingredients, are not unfrequentto be the act of "improving by repeated distilla- ly used in the process by which low wines are tions." The point appearing to stand thus upon converted into proof spirits. Suppose a patent the score of authority, it was next to be inquir to be taken out for carrying on the original proed how it stood upon that of reason. The duty, cess as well as rectification in the same still, as the law so plainly makes known, is laid, in the how can the duty be made to attach even in the broadest manner, upon all stills used for distill-case of the doubler, except on the hypothesis ing spirituous liquors. It is neither graduated assumed for the United States? It would be by the strength of the spirits produced nor by difficult, if not impracticable, to fall upon any the simplicity or complexity of the manufac- other mode. Again, the duty on stills is propture. The first process in distillation is under-erly considered as a commutation for that which stood to be that in which the wash is put into might have been laid upon the liquor. Is it not, the still. From this low wines are drawn, or therefore, as just that the duty should be paid spirits of an inferior quality. From a case in upon the still when used to produce rectified Anstruther, 558, it would seem that in Eng- spirits as when it is used to produce any other land the first duty attaches on the wash before kind of spirits? The English statutes in pari distillation. For a still employed in the first materia will be found to countenance the doctrine process, it was on all hands admitted that a li- contended for on the part of the United States; cense must be taken out. The inferior spirits so particularly that of 2 Geo. III., ch. 5, from the drawn do not constitute marketable spirits. A twelfth section of which it appears that the second process is then used. This consists, for rectifier who distills spirits and the common disthe most part, in putting them into a smaller tiller are considered the same. Several of the still called a doubler. From the doubler they other sections would also show that rectification come out, having the quality of common mar- and distillation, when an increase of strength was ketable spirits. A license ought surely to be the object, were used as equivalent terms. The taken out for a still so employed, call it a doub-system, in England, contemplated the laying of ler or by any other name. But the original a duty first on the low wines, and then on the matter, or material, is here clearly out of view, spirits distilled from them. So Congress, with for it went into the first still. Nothing but the like equity, may have intended to impose spirits extracted from it were carried over a duty first upon the still when used [*257 255*1*to the doubler. Does not this, then, in the original manufacture of spirits, and establish the point that inferior spirits may again on its use in the manufacture of spirits of become domestic materials under the act? It a higher proof. So far is such a principle from cannot, with any show of reason, be pretended being at all repugnant to the general theory of that they have lost the properties of matter American taxation, that it is sanctioned by the merely by being separated from substances with whole analogy of our impost revenue. Thus, which they were primarily combined. Between under the present tariff, iron in bars, iron in the derivatives of matter and materials it would sheets, and iron in bolts, is each charged with a different duty. Leather in different forms, as in boots, saddles, caps, slippers, pays differently. The duty levied upon imported spirits

1.-Black's Chemistry, vol. 3, p. 24. 2.-Vol. 1, p. 176.

But, as

this cause is improperly brought before this court by writ of error, having been first carried from the District to the Circuit Court by the same process, it is dismissed.*

Writ of error dismissed.

Aff'g-Pet. C. C. 180.

Cited 12 Pet. 144; 14 Pet. 621.

is graduated according to the degree of proof. | same question may frequently occur.
Brown sugars, white sugars, lump sugars, pow-
dered sugars, are all subject to different rates.
Tobacco, under its different forms of manu-
facture, is chargeable with different duties,
and the list might easily, if it were necessary,
be extended. Other nations have refined some-
what more upon the principle. Mr. Brougham,
in his Colonial Policy, mentions that there was
once a particular sauce for fish used in Holland
which was made to pay no less than thirty dif-
ferent duties of excise; a provident decree
against the luxury of the palate, among a peo-
ple as renowned for frugality as riches. Yet it
may be that this sauce was a less noxious super-
fluity than the liquor of the still. Revenue
laws are to be construed and applied with great
exactness. They are framed for the security of
great national interests, and the effect of such
laws, founded on considerations of public poli-
cy, is not to be weakened by a minute tender-
ness to hardships, real or supposed, in particu-
258*] lar instances. It is also a good rule,
where doubts exist in a revenue case, to lean in
favor of the revenue.1

The court, in considering this question, must be governed by the language of the act of Congress of the 24th July, 1813. By this act a specific duty is laid on licenses to stills employed in distilling spirituous liquors from domestic or foreign materials, and a penalty is inflicted for distilling without a license.

The distillation of spirituous liquors is performed by a double process: by the application of heat to a still containing the material. The product of the first process, after running through the still, is commonly called low wines, or singlings; the low wines undergo a second process of distillation, by which spirits are produced; they are to be proof of the first, second, third, or fourth degree, as defined and required by law. These are marketable, and here the process ends. The material from which the spirits are extracted appears to be the object of the law. The rectification or purification of spirits, after their distillation has been complete, in order to fit them for certain purposes of combination with other materials, is no part of the process of distillation, and is not a breach of the provisions of the act of Congress. The distillation of spirits, and the rectification of them after they are distilled, appear to be distinct and separate acts. No duty is specifi259*] cally laid by law on the rectification of spirits, nor does it appear that any was contemplated; and, if the process is confined to the rectification of spirits already distilled, no penalty is incurred, although a license is not previously obtained. It was evidently the intention of the legislature to exact one duty only on the distillation of spirits.

It is the opinion of this court that there is no error in the judgment of the Circuit Court.

This opinion is given on the request of the Attorney-General, it being probable that the

1.-The Betty Cathcart, 1 Rob. 220; 1 Bl. Com. 324, (Christian's edit,)

J. C. F. CHIRAC

v.

THE LESSEE OF A. F. CHIRAC ET AL. United States in 1793, and became domiciled in J. B. C., a native of France, migrated into the Maryland. On the 224 September, 1795, he took the oaths of citizenship according to an act of Assembly of Maryland, passed in 1779, and the next day restate. On the 6th July, 1798, he was naturalized ceived a conveyance *in fee of lands in that [*260 under the laws of the United States; and, in July, 1799, died intestate, leaving no legitimate relations, other than the plaintiffs in ejectment, who were natives and residents of France. Upon the supposition that the lands were escheatable, the state of Maryland conveyed them to his natural son, J. C. F. ing by devise or descent from the intestate; under C., with a saving of the rights of all persons claimwhich grant J. C. F. C. took possession of the lands, and remained in possession until the ejectment was the heirs at law of J. B. C., French subjects, brought brought. In March, 1809, the defendants in error, an action of ejectment for the lands in question; and, in May, 1815, obtained a verdict in their favor, and a judgment thereon, which was affirmed. exclusively in Congress, but that the treaty of

It was held that the power of naturalization is amity and commerce between the United States and France, of 1778, art. 11, enabled the subjects of

France to purchase and hold lands in the United
States.

Quere. What was the effect of this treaty under the confederation?

J. B. C. having died, seized in fee of the lands in question, his heirs being French subjects, the treaty of 1778 having been abrogated and the act of Maryland of 1789, permitting the lands of a French subject, who had become a citizen of Maryland, dying intestate, to descend on the next of kin being non-naturalized Frenchmen, with a proviso vesting the land in the state, if the French heirs should not, within ten years, become resident citizens of the state, or convey the lands to a citizen: it was determined, that the time for the performance of this condition having expired before the action was brought, the estate was terminated, unless supported in some other manner than by the act of Maryland.

But the convention of 1800, between the United States and France, enabling the people of one country holding lands in the other to dispose of the same by testament, or otherwise, and to inherit lands in the respective countries without being obliged to obtain letters of naturalization, it was held that it rendered the performance of this condition a useless formality, and that the conventional rule applied equally to the case of those who took by descent, under the act, as to those who acquired by purchase, without its aid.

The further stipulation in the convention “that in case the laws of either of the two states should restrain strangers from the exercise of the rights of property with respect to real estate, such real estate may be sold, or otherwise disposed of, to citizens or inhabitants of the country where it [*261 may be," was held not to affect the rights of a tion, so as to deprive him of the power of selling to French subject who takes, or holds, by the conven

2.-Vide 7 Cranch, 108, The United States v. Good

win; 1b. 287, The United States v. Gordon et al.,

in which cases it was determined that a writ of error does not lie to carry to the Supreme Court a civil cause which has been carried from the District Court by writ of error.

༤༽ སྐ

cheatable.

citizens of this country; and was held to give to a French subject, who had acquired lands by descent, or devise (and, perhaps, in any other manner), the right, during life, to sell, or otherwise dispose thereof, if lying in a state where lands purchased by an alien, generally, would be immediately esAlthough the convention of 1800 has expired by its own limitation, it was determined that the instant the descent was cast on a French subject during its continuance his rights became complete under it, and could not be affected by its subsequent expiration.

RROR to the Circuit Court for the District

ERRO Maryland.

John Baptiste Chirac, a native of France, migrated into the United States in the year 1793, and settled in Maryland. On the 22d of September, 1795, he took the oaths of citizenship, according to the form prescribed by an act of Assembly of the state of Maryland, passed in the year 1779, and the next day received a conveyance in fee of land lying within that

state.

On the 6th of July, 1798, he was naturalized as prescribed by the laws of the United States; and, in July, 1799, he died intestate, leaving no legitimate relations other than the plaintiffs, who are natives and residents of France.

Supposing the lands of which he died seized to be escheatable, the state of Maryland conveyed them to John Charles Francis Chirac, his natural son, with a saving of the rights of all persons claiming by devise or descent from the intestate. Under this act, John Charles Francis Chirac took possession of the land of his father, and has remained in possession ever | since.

in fee of any real estate, his or her estate, "after the term of ten years be expired, shall vest in the state, unless the person seized of the same shall, within that time, either come and settle in, and become a citizen of this state, or enfeoff thereof, some citizen of this or some other of the United States of America."

Harper, for the plaintiff in error, and the de1. The act of fendant in the court below. Congress abrogating the French treaties, in consequence of the non-fulfillment of their stipulations by France, and the second article of the convention of 1800, stipulating for further negotiation respecting the claims of the United States for indemnities, and respecting the revival of the treaties, drew after them a virtual repeal of the act of Maryland of 1780, that act being founded on the reciprocity stipulated by the treaties. The intervention of the local legislatures was deemed necessary to carry into effect treaties made by the national government under the confederation. The legislature of Maryland understood it to have been so, for their act is not a literal transcript of the treaty of 1778; it limits and controls the reciprocity stipulated by the treaty. As nobody at that period could conceive the possibility that we should ever cease to maintain the relations of friendship and alliance with France, no time for the duration of the act was limited; but when the treaty was annulled the act fell with it. Consequently, the heirs of John Baptiste Chirac had no inheritable quality. 2. [*264 He acquired no capacity to hold by his naturalization under the local law, since, by the constitution, Congress alone has the power of prescribing uniform rules of naturalization; and the act of Maryland is a general naturalization law, not a special act authorizing aliens to hold lands, or conferring other particular privileges. If the states could make such a law, the constitution of the United States would be completely evaded; as the citizens of one state are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in every other state. 3. The heirs of John Baptiste Chirac have not conformed to The act of Assembly of the state of Maryland,the provisions of the act of Maryland by settling on the construction of which the cause mainly in the state and becoming citizens, nor by enturned, was passed in 1780, and is entitled "An feofling some person of the lands within act to declare and ascertain the privileges of the ten years from the time when they became subjects of France residing within this state." seized; and, consequently, their right was gone The 1st section gives to French subjects the ca- before the ejectment was brought. The term pacity of holding lands within the state, on cer- sizin in the act means, not a seizin in fact, a tain conditions. The 2d section gives to those pedis possessio, but a legal seizin; and the ten subjects who may be resident in the state all years' limitation begins to run after the seisin the rights of free citizens thereof. The 3d sec-in law. The technical word enfeoff, as here used, tion contains a proviso restricting and limiting the privileges granted by the act, and declaring that nothi therein contained shall be construed grant to those who shall continue subjects f His Most Christain Majesty, and not qualify themselves as citizens of this state, any right to purchase or hold lands, or real estate, but for their respective lives, or for years." The 4th section enacts, that if any French subject who shall become a citizen of Maryland shall die intestate, the natural kindred of such decedent, whether residing in France or elsewhere, shall inherit his or her real estate, in like manner as if such decedent and his kindred were the citizens of this state," with 263*] a proviso, that *whenever any French subject shall, by virtue of the act, become seized

262*] *In March, 1809, the defendants in error, who are the heirs at law of John Baptiste Chirac, and subjects of the King of France, brought their ejectment for the land of which their ancestor died seized; and in May, 1815, under the instruction of the court, to which exceptions were taken, obtained a verdict in their favor, on which a judgment was rendered; which judgment is now before the court on a writ of error.

merely refers to the alienation of the land, which may be by bargain and sale, or any other usual mode of conveyance known in the state; and it was not necessary that they should come into the state in order to execute any of these conveyances, or even to make a feoffment.

Winder and Mercer, contra. 1. The constitution of the United States, and the laws made under it, do not, ipso jure, repeal a state law relative to the same matter, but only annul such parts of the latter as are inconsistent with the former. The respective *states still [*265 preserve the right of making naturalization laws, giving certain civil rights to foreigners, without conferring universal political citizenship. 2. The act of Maryland was not founded on the treaty merely; the legislature had other

objects of policy in view than a mere compliance | adopted by sovereign states that the real propwith the stipulations of the treaty; the continu-erty within their dominions should not be ance of the act was wholly independent of the owned by aliens; not that this universal rule is treaty. It is a part of the code of Maryland, considered as a deprival of property, the sufferabstracted from the treaty, and would existing a penalty, or the incurring of a forfeiture, with or without the treaty. It consequently but as an absolute disability to acquire, to hold, remained in full force and vigor notwithstand and to enjoy the property, founded upon reaing the abrogation of the French treaties in sons of public policy. The act of Maryland 1798. The time of limitation contained in the merely dispenses with this rule to a certain exact, within which the party is obliged to come tent, and upon certain conditions; it does not and reside in a state, or to enfeoff a citizen, inflict any penalty or forfeiture on the kindred does not refer to a mere seizin in law. The of the decedent; nor create in them any disaterm "seized." if unconnected with other ex- bilities; nor deprive them of any property; pressions qualifying its import, might, indeed, nor infringe any of their rights whatsoever. imply a legal seizin only; but with the injunc- Consequently, they must show that they have tion to "enfeoff," it necessarily imports a seizin strictly complied with the terms on which this in fact, because such a seizin is necessary to en- boon has been granted. 2. The moment the able the party to make a feoffment. 4. But French subject, on whom the act confers a the convention of 1800, which was concluded capacity to hold, dies, his kindred inherit; and whilst the defendant in error held an estate in the moment the kindred inherit, they become fee-simple under the act of Maryland, deter- seized in fee; and the moment they become minable by their failure to comply with one of seized in fee, the time of limitation begins to the alternative conditions contained in that act, run, within *which they must either [*268 is conclusive of this cause. That convention come and settle in the state, &c., or enfeoff a enables the citizens of both countries to dispose citizen. The policy of the legislature in preby testament, donation, or otherwise, of their scribing this limitation was, that not more than property, whether real or personal, situate in ten years should elapse from the decease of the the territories of either, to whomsoever they French proprietor, before the lands should please; and to succeed as heirs ab intestato, again be held and owned by a citizen, whose 266*] *without being naturalized. The first interest it might be to cultivate and improve clause of the article gives a new power to dis- the same for the benefit of the community. It pose of property held by citizens of either was, therefore, perfectly immaterial by what country in the dominions of the other, viz., the technical mode of conveyance the property power to dispose by testament or in any other should be conveyed, and whether the seizin of manner. It, of course, repeals so much of the the heirs should be a seizin in fact, or a legal act of Maryland as restricts the power of dis- seizin. The conveyance might be by any suffiposing to the mode of feoffment only; and not cient deed; and even a feoffment might be made only does not prescribe any period of time with- by an attorney, without obtaining actual posin which it is to be done, but necessarily gives session. 3. The stipulation in the convention the life-time of the party, since it allows a dis- of 1800 does not, of itself, give to French citiposition by last will and testament, which can zens property which they had not before, nor only take effect after the death of the party. enlarge or alter their estates in the lands held The second clause places the citizens of both by them. They must have been legally entitled countries in the same predicament as to inherit- to property when the convention took place, or ances as if they were naturalized. The defend- must have legally acquired it afterwards. The ants in error were, by the laws of the state, ancestor of the defendants in error had in his heirs to John Baptiste Chirac, subject to a life-time a fee-simple, and died seized thereof; liability to have their estate defeated unless but of this estate he was seized, not as a French they became naturalized. This clause super- citizen, but as a citizen of Maryland; and upon seded the necessity of naturalization, or, rather, his death his heirs, being aliens, could have had naturalized them for this particular purpose. no legal claim to the property, and it would The further stipulation "that in case the laws have escheated to the state had it not been for of either of the two states should restrain the act of Maryland. Under that act they bestrangers from the exercise of the rights of came seized of an estate in fee-simple, but conproperty with respect to real estate, such real ditional and liable to be defeated, unless they estate may be sold, or otherwise disposed of, to complied with the terms of the act. Had they, citizens or inhabitants of the country where it within the ten years, become citizens of the may be," can only refer to the laws made by state, they would not have wanted the protecthe two contracting parties, i. e., France and tion *of the treaty, for their property [*269 the United States; not any particular state of would have been protected as that of citizens. our domestic confederacy; for the states of the Had they, within the same time, enfeoffed a Union, as separate and independent sovereignties citizen, the estate would have vested in him, 267*] are not included. *No act of theirs and the protection of the treaty would have could affect the convention. It is to them the been equally superfluous. As the heirs persupreme law; and no state law incompatible with formed neither the one nor the other of these it can be valid; therefore, that part of the act alternative conditions, their estate was defeated of Maryland which prescribes only one mode at the expiration of the term of ten years, and of disposing of real property belonging to became vested in the state. From that time the Frenchmen is void. The treaty secures the defendants in error have not been seized of any right to dispose of it in any mode. estate to be operated on by the convention; and,

Martin, in reply. 1. It is a general rule

1.-Art. 7th.

1.-1 Bac. Abr., Alien. Letter, c. 132, in Notis, Parker, 144; 5 Brown's Parl. Cas. 91; The AttorneyGeneral v. Duplessis.