(seq. 1)

Cambridge 11 April 1784

{Reverend} Sir,

If I have from one reading rightly apprehended
the case of Capt. H. the Vessell was legally condemned by
a French Court. Is it not then cruel & unjust to deprive
a person of his property for conforming to the laws of
the Country where he happens to be. It will be said, who
is to indemnify the first owners for their loss of the right
of redemption. The answer is clear -- Nobody. It will
stand in equity upon the same footing in consequence of
the French condemnation, as if it had been condemned
here upon the same principles. I think the same prin-
ciple is adopted in the last ordinance of Congress on this
subject. -- Suppose another case. Suppose a man
to go from this State to Connecticut & to leave his wife
behind him; that according to the law of this State it is
necessary for the husband to be seven years abroad in order
to dissolve the marriage; but that after residing one year
in Connecticut & summoning his wife, to come & live with
him, he shall upon her refusal or neglect obtain a
divorce; suppose further that the man marries a second wife
in Connecticut after his divorce; such marriage will un-
doubtedly be legal in Connecticut. Would it not in this
case be cruel as well as unjust to punish the man on
his return to this State for having two wives. The trick was
very common before the war. The principle on which it
was justified defended was that what was legally done in one place was
justifiable by the decree of that Judicature every where else
the same principle it appears to me will apply in this
case. If the Vessell was disposed of according to a legal