What is the holding of Respublica v. De Longchamps?

The law of nations is part of state municipal law and violations are criminally indictable. Secretaries to diplomatic legations enjoy the same immunity as ambassadors. Courts must impose definite sentences and cannot imprison defendants indefinitely pending a foreign sovereign's approval.

Why does this case matter for the bar exam?

De Longchamps is the first American case incorporating international law into domestic law—a principle that remains foundational in federal common law. It's frequently tested in conflicts of law, international law, and constitutional law questions involving the relationship between U.S. law and the law of nations. The case also illustrates early American courts' approach to diplomatic immunity and separation of powers in foreign relations.

Does diplomatic immunity extend beyond ambassadors?

Yes. The court held that secretaries to a legation and members of a minister's household 'partake of his inviolability.' The secretary's commission comes from the sovereign in the same form as the minister's, making him 'in some instances, considered as a kind of public minister himself.' This broader protection ensures the minister can conduct diplomatic business without interference.

Could Pennsylvania extradite de Longchamps to France?

No. The court held that in this case de Longchamps could not be legally delivered to France, though it suggested that in some cases involving 'atrocious offenders evading punishment,' extradition might be permissible 'pro bono publico.' The court prioritized Pennsylvania's sovereign authority to prosecute crimes within its territory.

Why did the court reject indefinite imprisonment pending French approval?

The court held that 'judgments must be certain and definite in all respects' under Pennsylvania law. Delegating the duration of imprisonment to the French king would violate this principle of legal certainty and improperly cede judicial authority to a foreign sovereign. The court imposed a definite two-year sentence instead.

Contracts · MBE-tested

Respublica v. De Longchamps

1 U.S. 1111 Dall. 111·Philadelphia Court of Oyer and Terminer·1784·PA

The law of nations is enforceable as part of state law; diplomatic secretaries share ambassadorial immunity.

Summary

Charles Julian de Longchamps was convicted of threatening and assaulting Francis Barbé Marbois, the French consul-general and secretary to the French legation, in Philadelphia in 1784. The Pennsylvania Court of Oyer and Terminer held that the law of nations forms part of Pennsylvania's municipal law and that diplomatic officials and their households enjoy inviolability. The court sentenced de Longchamps to a fine, approximately two years' imprisonment, and a seven-year peace bond, rejecting France's demand for extradition and an indefinite sentence pending sovereign approval.

International LawDiplomatic ImmunityCriminal LawAssault and Battery

Parties

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (plaintiff) v. Charles Julian de Longchamps (defendant).

Procedural posture

De Longchamps was indicted in the Philadelphia Court of Oyer and Terminer for threatening Marbois at the French minister's residence and for assaulting him on a public street. A jury convicted him on both counts after initially returning a verdict only on the assault count. The court deferred sentencing to consider whether de Longchamps could be extradited to France or held indefinitely pending French approval of the sentence.

Facts

On May 17, 1784, de Longchamps went to the house of the French minister plenipotentiary seeking authentication of documents from Francis Barbé Marbois, who served as France's consul-general to the United States and secretary to the French legation. When Marbois refused, de Longchamps loudly threatened him in French ("Je vous deshonnerera, policon, coquin"), repeating the insult when the minister entered the room. On May 19, de Longchamps and Marbois met on Market Street near the coffee-house. During their conversation, de Longchamps called Marbois "a blackguard" and struck Marbois's cane before Marbois responded with his own stick. Witnesses disagreed on who initiated physical contact, but most testified de Longchamps struck first. De Longchamps, a former French military officer, claimed Marbois's refusal to authenticate his papers—needed to refute newspaper attacks on his character—provoked his anger. Pennsylvania's President had offered to bind de Longchamps over for good behavior after the first incident, but Marbois declined. France demanded de Longchamps be extradited or imprisoned indefinitely pending the French king's approval of any sentence.

Issue

1. Whether the law of nations forms part of Pennsylvania's municipal law and authorizes criminal prosecution for insults to diplomatic personnel? 2. Whether a secretary to a diplomatic legation enjoys the same immunity as an ambassador? 3. Whether de Longchamps could be extradited to France or sentenced to indefinite imprisonment pending French approval?

Holding

The law of nations is part of Pennsylvania's municipal law and violations thereof are indictable offenses. A secretary to a diplomatic legation partakes of the minister's inviolability and is protected by the law of nations. The court has authority to impose a definite sentence and cannot extradite the defendant or imprison him indefinitely pending approval of a foreign sovereign.

Rule

The law of nations is incorporated into state municipal law and violations are criminally indictable. Diplomatic secretaries to a legation share the inviolability of the minister and enjoy immunity from insult and violence. Courts must impose definite sentences and may not hold defendants indefinitely pending approval of a foreign sovereign.

Reasoning

Chief Justice McKean began by confirming this was a case of first impression in the United States. The court held that the law of nations forms part of Pennsylvania's municipal law and must be enforced by state courts. The person of a public minister is "sacred and inviolable," and violence against a minister "is a crime against the whole world." These immunities extend to the minister's household and residence. The minister's house is "to be considered as a foreign domicil" where state law does not reach, analogous to a courtroom where judges sit in representation of the people's majesty. Justice Bryan emphasized that Marbois never ceased being secretary to the legation—his commission came from the French king in the same form as the minister's. As secretary to the embassy, Marbois was "the most distinguished character in the suit of a public minister" and entitled to full diplomatic protection. The court rejected de Longchamps's argument that Marbois was acting only as consul (a position not protected by the law of nations under Vattel) because his status as secretary to the legation controlled. The court construed de Longchamps's French threats ("I will dishonor you") according to their ordinary meaning in French culture—as menacing bodily harm, not merely reputational injury. This interpretation was confirmed by the President of Pennsylvania's understanding and by subsequent events. The threatened violence would have prevented Marbois from properly attending to his diplomatic duties, thus violating the law of nations. On the assault count, the court found credible evidence that de Longchamps was the aggressor, striking Marbois's cane first. Because anything "attached to the person, partakes of its inviolability," striking the cane constituted assault and battery justifying Marbois's defensive response. Turning to France's extradition demand, the court answered three formal questions posed by Pennsylvania's Executive Council. First, de Longchamps could not be extradited, though the court suggested cases might exist where extradition would serve the public good. Second, the court rejected indefinite imprisonment pending French approval because "judgments must be certain and definite in all respects" under Pennsylvania law. The court distinguished the English precedent involving the Russian ambassador, explaining that the King's Bench delayed sentencing only because the Czar demanded death (which the court lacked authority to impose), not because it doubted authority to punish violations of the law of nations. Modern sovereigns, the court noted, "do not require impracticable nor unreasonable reparations." The court thus imposed a definite sentence calibrated to "the enormity and dangerous tendency of the offences," the willfulness and malice shown, the parties' respective positions, and the need to "preserve the honor of the state, and maintain peace with our great and good ally."

Judgment

Convicted on both counts. Sentenced to a fine of 100 French crowns, imprisonment until July 4, 1786 (approximately two years), a seven-year peace bond in the amount of £1,000 with two sureties of £500 each, costs of prosecution, and continued commitment until sentence complied with.

Why it matters

Respublica v. De Longchamps is the first American case recognizing that customary international law (the law of nations) is incorporated into domestic law and enforceable in state courts. It remains a foundational precedent for federal common law of foreign relations and the doctrine that international law is "part of our law." The case establishes that diplomatic immunity extends beyond ambassadors to include secretaries and members of a legation's household. It also affirms the principle that courts must impose determinate sentences and cannot delegate sentencing authority to foreign sovereigns. For bar exam purposes, the case illustrates the reception of international law into U.S. jurisprudence and provides an early example of how courts balance state sovereignty with obligations under the law of nations. Though decided by a state court, its reasoning influenced later federal court incorporation of international law principles.

Authorities cited

Russian Ambassador Case (King's Bench), Not formally cited; discussed as precedent involving detention of defendants who arrested Russian ambassador — distinguished
Vattel, Law of Nations, Vattel, Law of Nations, bk. 4, §§ 75, 80, 84; bk. 2, § 218; bk. 1, § 6 — cited approvingly as authority on diplomatic immunity and law of nations
Blackstone's Commentaries, 1 Bl. Com. 253; 3 Bl. Com. 20; 4 Bl. Com. 70 — cited approvingly for principles of assault and law of nations
Finch's Law, Finch L. 202 — cited by defense for proposition that words alone are not actionable
Coke's Institutes, 4 Inst. 108 — cited by defense regarding words as basis for indictment

Opinion

Respublica v. De Longchamps. International law. A secretary of legation is entitled to ail the immunities of a minister. The law of nations forms part of the municipal law of Pennsylvania. Punishments must be certain and definite. One who has assaulted a foreign minister cannot bo sentenced to imprisonment, until the foreign sovereign shall declare the reparation satisfactory. Charles Julian he Longchamps, commonly called the Chevalier de Longchamps, was indicted, that “he, on the 17th of May 1784, in the dwelling-house of his excellency the French minister plenipotentiary, in the presence of Francis Barbe Marbois, unlawfully and insolently did threaten and menace bodily harm and violence to the person-of the said Francis Barbe Marbois, he being consul-general of France to the United States, consul for the state of Pennsylvania, secretary of the French legation, &c., resident in the house aforesaid, and under the protection of the law of nations and this commonwealth.” And that, “ afterwards, to wit, on the 19th of May, in the public street, &c., he, the said Charles Julian de Long-champs, unlawfully, premeditatedly and violently, in and upon the person of the said Francis Barbe Marbois, under the protection of the laws of nations, and in the peace of this commonwealth, then and there being, an assault did make, and him, the said Francis Barbe Marbois, unlawfully and violently did strike and otherwise, &o., in violation of the laws of nations, against the peace and dignity of the United States and of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” To these charges, the defendent pleaded not guilty. The evidence in support of the first count, was, that on the 17th of May, de Longchamps went to the house of the minister of France, and after some conversation with Monsieur Marbois, was heard to exclaim in a loud and menacing tone, “ Je vous deshonnerera, policon, coquin,” addressing himself to that gentleman. That the noise being heard by the minister, he repaired to the room from which it issued, and that, in his presence, the defendant repeated the insult to Monsieur Marbois, in nearly the same terms. In support of the second count, it appeared, that de Longchamps and Monsieur Marbois, having met in Market street, near the coffee-house, entered into a long conversation, in the course of which, the latter said, that he would complain to the civil authority, and the former replied, “ you are a blackguard.” The witnesses generally deposed, that de Long- .. champs struck the cane of Monsieur Marbois, * before that gentle- *- man used any violent gestures, or even appeared incensed ; but that as soon as the stroke was given, Monsieur Marbois employed his stick with great severity, until the spectators interfered and separated the parties. One of the witnesses, indeed, said, that previously to engaging with their canes, he observed the two gentlemen, at the same instant, lay their hands on each other’s shoulders, in a manner so gentle, that he, who had heard it was cus-tuinary among the French to part with mutual salutations, imagined a ceremony of that kind was about to take place, and was surprised to see de Longchamps step back, and strike the cane of Monsieur Marbois.' On the part of the defendant, evidence was produced of his having served with honor in the French armies, and his commission of sub-brigadier in the dragoons of Noailles, was read. It appeared, that the occasion of his calling on Monsieur Marbois, was to obtain authentications of these, and some other papers relative to his family, his rank in France, and his military promotions, in order to refute several publications, which had been made in the newspapers, injurious to his character and pretensions. The refusal of Monsieur Marbois to grant the authentications required, was the ground of de Longchamps’ resentment, and the immediate cause of his menaces at the minister’s house. With respect to the assault, one witness (a Frenchman) swore that he saw Monsieur Marbois give the first blow, and his excellency, the President of tiie state, testified, that Monsieur Marbois, having complained to him of the insult received in the minister’s house, he sent a message to de Long' champs, requesting to see him ; that the defendant readily attended, when his excellency explained his reasons for apprehending that he meditated some personal violence upon Monsieur Marbois, and requested him to pledge his parol of honor, that he would prosecute the matter no further. This he declined, in polite but positive terms ; when his excellency proposed to Monsieur Marbois that the Chevalier should be bound over for his good behavior ; but that gentleman would not accede to the proposal. Sergeant and Vannost, for the defendant, contended, that the expressions laid in the first part of the indictment, were too equivocal to be construed into menaces of corporal harm. “ I will dishonor you,” is a sentence that conveys more than one signification ; and the threat would have been fully accomplished, had the Chevalier descended to any of those very libellous publications, with which his own character had been aspersed. The established maxim, that words ought to be taken in their mildest sense, operates, therefore, in favor of the defendant; and, at all events, that they do not amount to an assault, and are not the subject of an indictment, are principles incom trovertibly established. 3 Bl. Com. 20; Finch L. 202 ; 4 Inst. 108. They insisted, that the president offered Monsieur Marbois the only security which the law will allow on such occasions, and which would effectually have resi sta’abied any future violence intended *to be committed on his per- -* son. That, therefore, his having suffered a second insult, must be imputed to his refusal to accept that security. It is pretended, that by the menaces at the house of the minister, the law of nations was violated ; yet, it must be remembered, that the reparation sought, and the remedy offered, are confined to the municipal law of Pennsylvania, where the offence was committed ; and, in all cases of menaces, the law of Pennsylvania yields no further relief, than the imposition of a legal restraint on the execution of those menaces. The degree of outrage is, likewise, to be computed by the quality of the person offended ; and as the application of the defendant was to procure a certificate from the Consul of France, if Monsieur Marbois has been at all insulted, it is only in that character, which is not protected by the law of nations ; Vatt. lib. 4, § 75; and, consequently, there is no redress, but what the law of the state provides. On the second count of the indictment, they argued, that it was not sufficiently proved, that de Longchamps was the aggressor. One witness has sworn positively, that the first blow was given by Monsieur Marbois, and another describes the parties to have laid their hands on each other, at the same instant. Though other witnesses did not see these circumstances, yet they are grounded upon affirmative testimony, which cannot be destroyed by that which is merely negative. Gilb. L. Ev. 157. If, therefore, the evidence for the defendant was entitled to credit, it appeared, that Monsieur Marbois was the author of the outrage ; and, it is so well established, that no elevation, rank or immunity of character, can abrogate the right of self-defence, that if a sovereign minister offend a citizen, the latter may oppose him, without departing from the respect due to his station, and give him a lesson that shall both efface the stain and expose the author of the outrage. Vatt. lib. 4. § 80. The Attorney- General, assisted by Wilson, supported the prosecution. The necessity of sustaining the law of nations, of protecting and securing the persons and privileges' of ambassadors ; the connection between the law of nations and the municipal law, and the effect which the decision of this case must have upon the honor of Pennsylvania, and the safety of her citizens abroad, were stated at length from 3 Burr. 1480; 1 Bl. Com. 253; 4 Id. 70; Vatt. pref. 6, page 203; Id., lib. 1, § 6; lib. 4, § 84, § 80. Ayliff’s Pandect, lib. 2, 132. On the first part of the indictment, they observed, that the meaning of the menace used in the minister’s house, was to be sought for in the opinion of the French nation. With them, the phrase extended further than colloquial dishonor (that, Monsieur Marbois had already suffered), it implied personal violence. This was the idea, likewise, of his excellency the President of the State, and the event confirms it, beyond a doubt, if, therefore, the menace had been attended with its natural effect, impressing Monsieur 1 . "i Marbois with an apprehension for his own safety, the consul-general -1 of France, *and the secretary of the French legation to the United States, must have been prevented from paying a proper attention to his appointments, which is certainly a violation of the law of nations. Vatt. lib. 2, § 218. Upon the same principle, that the infringement of a statute is an indictable offence, though the mode of punishment is not pointed out in the act itself, an offence against the laws of nations, while they compose a part of the law of the land, must necessarily be indictable. With respect to the assault, they contended, that the weight of the testimony proved de Longchamps to be the aggressor; and the respective characters of the parties tend to confirm it ; Monsieur Marbois preserved, during the whole transaction, his constitutional temperament — cool, deliberate and self-possessed; while de Longchamps, naturally captious and impetuous, became incensed at the imaginary injuries he had received, and, by his own declaration, was determined to be revenged. [MAJORITY — McKean, Chief Justice.] The Chief Justice, after minutely recapitulating the evidence, and applying it to the charges in the indictment, expressed the following sentiments :— McKean, Chief Justice. This is a case of the first impression in the United States. It must be determined on the principles of the laws of nations, which form a part of the municipal law of Pennsylvania ; and, if the offences charged in the indictment have been committed, there can be. no doubt, that those laws have been violated. The words used in the minister’s house (which is to be considered as a foreign domicil, where the minister resides in full representation of his sovereign, and where the laws of the state do not extend), may be compared to the same words applied to the judges, in a court of justice, where they sit in representation of the majesty of the people of Pennsylvania. In that case, the offender would be immediately committed to jail, without the preliminary process of an indictment by a grand jury ; and, in the case before us, if the offender is convicted, he may certainly be punished by fine and imprisonment. In actions of slander, words were formerly construed in the mildest sense they would admit; but reason has superseded such forced interpretations, and words are now to be taken according to their ordinary import and meaning. Those expressed by the defendant, are evidently of a tendency so opprobrious and violent, that they cannot fail to aggravate the outrage which has been committed. As to the assault, this is, perhaps, one of that kind, in which the insult is more to be considered, than the actual damage ; for, though no great bodily pain is suffered by a blow on the palm of the hand, or the skirt of the coat, yet these are clearly within the legal definition of assault and battery, and among gentlemen, too often, induce duelling, and terminate in murder. As, therefore, anything attached to the person, partakes of its inviolability, de Longchamps’ striking Monsieur Marbois’ cane, is a sufficient justification of that gentleman’s subsequent*"conduct. *Bryan, Justice. — The distinction between a consul and a member of the legation, is not warranted in this case ; for Monsieur Marbois [*115 never ceased to be the latter. As secretary to the legation, his authority descends from a high source, his commission being made out in the same form as the mirister’s, and signed in the same manner, by the king his roaster. The jury, at first, found tbe defendant guilty of the assault only; but, the court desiring them to reconsider the matter, they returned with, a verdict against him on both counts. The sentence of the court was suspended, in consequence of a case stated by his Excellency the President, and the Honorable Supreme Executive Council, for the opinion of the judges. It was argued in open court, on the 10th and 12th of July, by five counsel, two for the affirmative, and three for the negative ; and on the 7th of October, the prisoner being brought before the.court, the Chief Justice stated the case, repeated the. answers of the judges, and finally, pronounced the judgment of the court, in the following manner. McKean, Chief Justice. — Charles Julian de Longchamps: You have been indicted for unlawfully and violently threatening and menacing bodily harm and violence to the person of the Honorable Francis Barbe de Marbois, secretary to the legation from Franco, and consul-general of France to the United States of America, in the mansion-house of the minister plenipotentiary of France ; and for an assault and battery committed upon the said secretary and consul, in a public street in the city of Philadelphia. To this indictment, you have pleaded, that you were not guilty, and for a trial put yourself upon the country; an unbiassed jury, upon a fair trial, and clear evidence, have found you guilty. These offences having been thus legally ascertained and fixed upon you, his Excellency the President, and the Honorable the Supreme Executive Council, attentive to the honor and interest of this state, were pleased to inform the judges of this court, as they had frequently done before, that the minister of France had earnestly repeated a demand, that you, having appeared in his house in the uniform of a French regiment, and having called yourself an officer in the troops of his Majesty, should be delivered up to him for these outrages, as a Frenchman, to be sent to France ; and wished us in this stage of your prosecution, to take into mature consideration, and in the most solemn manner to determine :— 1. Whether you could be legally delivered up by council, according to the claim made by the late minister of France? 2. If you could not be thus legally delivered up, whether your offences in violation of the law of nations, being now ascertained and' verified according to the laws of this commonwealth, you ought not to be imprisoned, until- his most Christian Majesty shall declare, that the reparation is satisfactory ? 3. If you can be imprisoned, whether any legal act can be done by council, for causing you to be so imprisoned ? *nfíl *To ^ese questions we have given the following answers in -* writing:— “ In compliance with the request of his Excellency the President, and the Honorable the Supreme Executive Council, we postponed passing sentence upon Charles Julian de Longchamps, until we had maturely considered the three questions above proposed for our determination. On the 10th and 12th days of July, the several. questions were argued before the court by five counsel, two on the affirmative and three on the negative side. We have kept the matter under advisement until this day, and now deliver our opinion thereupon. “ 1 And as to the first question, we answer, that it is our cpinion, that, in this case, Charles Julian de Longehamps cannot be legally delivered up by council, according to the claim made by the minister of France. Though, we think, cases may occur, where council could, pro bono publico, and to prevent atrocious offenders evading punishment, deliver them up to the justice of the country to which they belong, or where the offences were committed. “ 2. Punishments must be inflicted in the same county where the criminals were tried and convicted, unless the record of the attainder be removed into the supreme court, which may award execution in the county where it sits ; they must be such as the laws expressly prescribe ; or where no stated or fixed judgment is directed, according to the legal direction of the court; but judgments must be certain and definite in all respects. Therefore, we conclude, that the defendant cannot be imprisoned, until his most Christian Majesty shall declare that the reparation is satisfactory. “ 3. The answer to the last question is rendered unnecessary, by the above answer to the second question.” The foregoing answers having been given, it only remains for the court to pronounce sentence upon you. This sentence must be governed by a due consideration of the enormity and dangerous tendency of the offences you have committed, of the wilfulness, deliberation and malice wherewith they were done, of the quality and degree of the offended and offender, the provocation given, and all other circumstances which may any way aggravate or extenuate the guilt. The first crime in the indictment is an infraction of the law of nations. This law, in its full extent, is a part of the law of this state, and is to be collected from the practice of different nations, and the authority of writers. The person of a public minister is sacred and' inviolable. Whoever offers any violence to him, not only affronts the sovereign he represents, but also hurts the common safety and well-being of nations — he is guilty of a crime against the whole world. *A11 the reasons, which establish the independency and inviolability of the person of a minister, apply likewise to secure the immuni- [*111 ties of his house. It is to be defended from all outrage ; it is under a peculiar protection of the laws ; to invade its freedom, is a crime against the state and all other nations. The comites of a minister, or those of his train, partake also of his inviolability. The independence of a minister extends to all his household; these are so connected with him, that they enjoy his privileges and follow his fate. The secretary to the embassy has his commission from the sovereign himself ; he is the most distinguished character in the suit of a public minister, and is, in some instances, considered as a kind of public minister himself. Is it not, then, an extraordinary insult, to use threats of bodily harm to his person, in the domicil of the minister plenipotentiary ? If this is tolerated, his freedom of conduct is taken away, the business of his sovereign cannot be transacted, and his dignity and grandeur will be tarnished. You then have been guilty of an atrocious violation of the law of nations ; you have grossly insulted gentlemen, the peculiar objects of this law (gentlemen of amiable characters, and highly esteemed by the government of this state), in a most wanton and unprovoked manner : and it is now the interest as well as duty of the government, to animadvert upon your conduct with a becoming severity — such a severity as may tend to reform yourself, to deter others from the commission of the like crime, preserve the honor of the state, and maintain peace with our great and good ally, and the whole world. A wrong opinion has been entertained concerning the conduct of Lord Chief Justice Ilolt and the court of king’s bench, in England,- in the noted case of the Russian ambassador. They detained the offenders, after conviction, in prison, from term to term, until the Czar Peter was satisfied, without ever proceeding to judgment; and from this, it has been inferred, that the court doubted, whether they could inflict any punishment for an infraction of the law of nations. But this was not the reason. The court never doubted, that the law of nations formed a part of the law of England, and that a violation of'this general law could be punished by them ; but no punishment less than death would have been thought by the Czar an adequate reparation for the arrest of his ambassador. This punishment they could not inflict, and such a sentence as they could have given, he might have thought a fresh insult. Another expedient was, therefore, fallen upon. However, the princes of the world, at this day, are more enlightened, and do not require impracticable nor unreasonable reparations for injuries of this kind. 0 ' The second offense charged in the indictment, namely, the assault and battery, need no observations. Upon the whole, the Court, after a most attentive consideration of every circumstance in this case, do award, and direct me to pronounce the following sentence :— !|:That you pay a fine of one hundred French crowns to the commonwealth ; that you be imprisoned until the 4th day of July 1786, which will make a little more than two years’ imprisonment in the whole ; that you then give good security to keep the peace, and be of good behavior to all public ministers, secretaries to embassies and consuls, as well as to all the liege people of Pennsylvania, for the space of seven years, by entering into a recognisance, yourself in a thousand pounds, and two securities in five hundred pounds each : that you pay the costs of this prosecution, and remain committed until this sentence be complied with, See Ex parte Cabrera, 1 W. C. C. 232; United States v. Little, 2 Id. 205; United States v. Hand, Id. 435; United States v. Ortega, 4 Id. 531,