Thompson v. United States
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court:
In the case of the schooner Nancy, Haddaway, master, and in that of the schooner Yandeput, Fitzhugh, master (present term), it appeared by the decrees of condemnation that an owner of' each vessel was foreign born, a subject of Great Britain, and that no evidence of his naturalization was produced before the prize court. It was accordingly held that the condemnations of the vessels were not illegal. In the present case it also appears that an owner of the vessel was foreign born and that no evidence of his naturalization was produced before the prize court.
This remark, of course, does not extend to cases where a foreign power is the one to which the person originally owed allegiance. The right of an individual to expatriate himself without the permission of his own government has been one of the vexatious diplomatic questions of the last century and has been generally the subject of adjustment by treaty. But that right to question citizenship does not extend to nations who claim no allegiance from the individual. To the French courts in the eighteenth century the register of an American vessel should have been conclusive evidence; its only impeachment could have been through the application of the French Government to the Government of the United States, giving reasons whj^ the register should bo set aside.
It must therefore be held in this case that the condemnation of the schooner Conrad was illegal, and the case will be so reported to Congress, together with a copy of this opinion,
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.