tion which involved questions of private law. 231 What the politician and the 
lawyer had in common was this—a conviction that the Americans themselves 
were the proper judges of what was applicable to their situation. 
preme Court applied this rule, although the 
statute did not extend to the colonies. Cf. King 
v. Sealey and Jackson (MS Mins. N.Y. Sup. Ct. 
Jud. [Rough], 1764-67, 15); King v. Neeley 
and Stephens (ibid., 22); King v. Kain (MS 
Mins. N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jud. [Engrossed], 1764- 
66, 100). 
231 There was some fear abroad in the colonies 
that if the colonies were regarded as conquered 
countries the inhabitants might be held to have 
forfeited part of their English liberties. On 
May 26, 1768, it was accordingly resolved in 
the Maryland lower house that "this province 
is not under the circumstances of a conquered 
country"; that "if there be any pretence of conquest, 
it can be only supposed against the 
native indian infidels; which supposition cannot 
be admitted, because the Christian inhabitants 
purchased great part of the land they at 
first took up, from the indians, as well as from 
the lord proprietary"; that "this province hath 
always hitherto had the common law, and such 
general statutes of England as are securitative 
of the rights and liberties of the subject, and 
such acts of assembly as were made in the 
province to suit its particular constitution, as 
the rule and standard of its government and 
judicature" (61 Md. Archives, 330-31). 
Edward Long (1 The History of Jamaica 
[1774], 160-62) made a similar comment as 
follows: "The island of Jamaica being originally 
conquered from the Spaniards, settled 
by natural-born subjects of England, and at 
die national expence, there can be no pretence 
to question their title to the benefit of all the 
laws of England then existing, and the rights of 
Englishmen. These were their true, legitimate 
and undoubted inheritance, at the time of the 
conquest. I know that some antient reporters 
of law-cases have laid it down for found doctrine, 
'uhat the West-Indian islands, being originally 
gotten by Conquest, or by some planting 
themselves there, the king may govern them 
as he will.' Nothing can more expose the absurdity 
of such an opinion, literally understood, 
than the position into which it is resolvable, 
and which amounts in effect to this, 
viz. if any English forces shall conquer, or any 
English adventurers possess themselves, of an 
island in the West Indies, and thereby extend 
the empire, and add to the trade and opulence 
of England, the Englishmen, so possessing and 
planting such territory, ought, in consideration 
of the great service thereby effected to their 
nation, immediately to be treated as aliens, forfeit 
all the rights of English subjects, and be 
left to the mercy of an absolute and arbitrary 
form of government; for such is a government 
founded and dependant upon the sovreign's 
will. This is no unfair construction of the 
maxim I have cited, yet it has received countenance 
from some other Law Reports, which 
assert, that 'The King, having conquered a 
country possessed by foreigners, gains by saving 
their lives' (i.e. by not murdering them in 
cool blood), 'a right and property in such people, 
and may impose on them what law he 
pleases [citing Dyer, 224; Vaughan 281]. The 
books inform us, that this savage doctrine was 
founded on a determination of the lords of 
the privy-council, at a colony appeal; and they 
most probably deduced it from the civil 
codes, whose institutes were framed for, and 
received by, enslaved nations. Wherever their 
lordships found it, their determination on this 
or any other constitutional point is not law (I 
mean the law of the land) and ought not therefore 
to have admittance amongst those collections 
of sage authorities which are to form 
the rule of judgement in our English courts 
of law." If the maxim applied to the conquered, 
not the conquerors, it was still not applicable, 
for by the fifth article of capitulation 
certain inhabitants were permitted to stay on 
the island "they submitting and conforming 
to the laws and government of the English nation." 
The conquerors could not have made 
this assurance unless at the time they were in 
absolute possession themselves of those laws 
and government. While approving the doctrine 
set forth at 2 Peere Williams 75 and 2 Sal\eld 
411, Long stated, citing Vattel, that "More 
modern civilians would have instructed their 
lordships of the privy-council, that, 'when a 
nadon takes possession of a distant country, and 
settles a colony there, that country, though 
separated from the principal establishment, or 
mother country, naturally becomes a part of 
the state equally with its original possessions.' " 
Territory conquered at the national expense 
should be annexed to the sovereignty and become 
an additional member to the ancient 
dominion of the realm.