itself. It is a matter of notoriety, and will be taken notice of as part of the law of nations acknowledged by all.'

The proof should be made on the trial; foreign statutes cannot be first produced in the appellate court.2 Foreign laws which have been promulgated as such by our government,3 or officially procured pursuant to statute for judicial reference or evidentiary purposes, may be read in evidence without other verification. A printed volume of foreign laws proved by witnesses to contain the statutes of a foreign state or country, or to have received in the home country the sanction of the executive and judicial officers as containing its laws, is admissible. The proof of foreign laws has been facilitated by statutes in the different states by making publications purporting to be by authority self-proving. Congress has provided.

a mode of proof, and such proof is sufficient though the state statute may require more, but it is not exclusive of other methods."

In Taylor v. Bank of Illinois 10 the court reached the conclusion in which the authorities generally agree: "if certified according to the act of congress they must be admitted, and if certified or authenticated according to state provisions they

1 Robinson v. Gilman, 20 Me. 299; Lincoln v. Battelle, 6 Wend. 475; Norris Peake (ed. 1824 from 5th London ed. 109, 110, note); Henry v. Adey, 3 East, 222; U. S. v. Johns, 4 Dall. 412, 416.

2 Munroe v. Guilleaume, 3 Keyes, 30; Belleville S. Bank v. Richardi, 56 Mich. 453.

3 Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cranch, 38; Flanigen v. Washington Ins. Co. 7 Pa. St. 306.

4 Cox v. Robinson, 2 Stew. & Port. 96; Biddis v. James, 6 Binn. 321; Munroe v. Guilleaume, 3 Keyes, 30.

5 Owen v. Boyle, 15 Me. 147; Burton v. Anderson, 1 Tex. 93; Lacon v. Higgins, 3 Stark. 178; Herschfeld v. Dexel, 12 Ga. 582; Emery v. Berry, 28 N. H. 486; Foster v. Taylor, 2 Overt. 190; Sussex Peerage Case, 11 Cl. & Fin. 85; Barrows v. Downs, 9 R. L.

447; Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2 Hagg. Consist. R. 81; Jones v. Maffet, 5 S. & R. 528; Brush v. Wilkins, 4 Johns. Ch. 506; People v. Calder, 30 Mich. 87.

6 Cummins v. State, 12 Tex. App. 121; Ellis v. Wiley, 17 Tex. 134; May v. Jameson, 11 Ark. 368; Dixon v. Thatcher, 14 id. 141; Foster v. Taylor, 2 Overt. 190; Allen v. Watson, 2 Hill (S. C.), 319; Smoot v. Fitzhugh, 9 Port. 72; Clanton v. Barnes, 50 Ala. 260; Biddis v. James, 6 Binn. 321. 7 Sec. 905, R. S. U. S.

may be admitted without contravening the laws of the Union." The foreign unwritten law, and the construction of statutes, may be proved by parol by expert witnesses.1

§191. A decision of the highest judicial tribunal of a foreign state construing one of its statutes is to be received elsewhere as an authoritative exposition. Nor is its weight or authority affected by the fact that it was made after the occurrence of the transaction in question, or after the departure from the state of the person affected by it.'

§ 192. The functions of the court and jury in regard to foreign laws.- Foreign statutes, though to be proved as facts, do not necessarily require a jury to determine the question of their existence. If proved by a sworn copy, doubtless the

evidence would go to a jury.' But if proved by an exemplification, or by reading from a book published by authority, the court would decide not only the admissibility but the effect of the proof. The home construction of a foreign statute is provable by parol, and if so proved as a fact, is to be found by a jury. The published official reports of decisions showing such home construction are held to be admissible evidence. When the evidence admitted consists entirely of a statute or judicial opinions, the question of construction and effect is for the court alone. If a foreign statute be proved, but no evidence given of any peculiar home construction, the court will construe it by the settled rules of construction, or as similar statutes of the state where the court sits are construed."

34, declaring that the laws of the several states should be taken as rules of decision in the United States courts in cases where they apply; and many clauses of the constitution cannot have their full effect as laws unless we take judicial notice of the institutions of sister states.

"It is commonly said that foreign law is matter of fact, and so generally it is, but not necessarily to be found by the jury. If a state law comes to us certified under the seal of the state, it comes to us as a fact in the first instance; but then we need no jury to establish its existence and its character. There may very often be cases in which a jury is necessary for this purpose, but our knowledge is not necessarily dependent on their verdict." See Barkman v. Hopkins, 6 Eng. (Ark.) 157.

Carson, 12 id. 54; Bristow v. Sequeville, 5 Ex. 275 and note; Penobscot, etc. R. R. Co. v. Bartlett, 12 Gray, 244; Ames v. McCamber, 124 Mass. 85; Craigin v. Lamkin, 7 Allen, 395; De Sobry v. De Laistre, 2 Har. & J. 191, 229. See Gardner v. Lewis, 7 Gill, 377.

4 Charlotte v. Chouteau, 33 Mo. 194; Kingsley v. Kingsley, 20 l. 203; Kline v. Baker, 99 Mass. 253; Andrews v. Hoxie, 5 Tex. 171; McDeed v. McDeed, 67 Ill. 548. Contra, Gardner v. Lewis, 7 Gill, 377.

5 Kline v. Baker, 99 Mass. 253; Ely v. James, 123 id. 36; Hale v. New J. St. Nav. Co. 15 Conn. 539; Lockwood v. Crawford, 18 Conn. 361; Charlotte v. Chouteau, 33 Mo. 194; Cecil Bank v. Barry, 20 Md. 287; People v. Lambert, Mich. 349; Inge v. Murphy, 10 Ala. 885, 897; Sidwell v. Evans, 1 Pen. & W. 383, 388; De Sobry v. De Laistre, 2 Har. & J. 191; Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. 400; Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch, 187; Di Sora v. Phillips, 10 H. L. Cas. 624; Bremer v. Freeman, 10 Moore, P. C. 306; Owen v. Boyle, 15 Me. 147; Warnick v. Grosholz, 3 Grant's Cases, 234.

6 Smith v. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 690.

§ 193. Private statutes. A general or public statute is a universal rule that regards the whole community; is of public concern; the courts take judicial notice of it. On the other hand, private statutes operate only on particular persons and private concerns; the courts do not take notice of them without proof; when relied on they have to be pleaded and proved.1 Acts may be local and special, immediately designed to affect only a part of the territory or people under the jurisdiction of the law-making power, and temporary in duration, and yet be public because being intended for a public object. Thus, acts for the establishment of a local government, a village or city, being for public purposes; or fixing or amending the boundaries of a city or county; establishing or changing the county seat; to organize corporations for canals, railroads or turnpikes, when they contain provisions affecting the general public; or authorizing particular municipalities to contribute aid for such enterprises,- are, in this country, public acts. Here the tendency has been to enlarge the limits of public statutes, and to bring within them all enactments of a general character, or which in any way affect the community at large.

5

11 Black. Com. 86; People v. Wright, 70 Ill. 388; State v. Chambers, 93 N. C. 600; Meshke v. Van Doren, 16 Wis. 319.

2 Unity v. Burrage, 103 U. S. 447; Allen v. Hirsch, 8 Oregon, 412; Burnham v. Acton, 35 How. Pr. 48; 1 Kent's Com. 459; City of Covington v. Voskotter, 80 Ky. 219.

3 People v. Wright, 70 Ill. 388; Clark v. Janesville, 10 Wis. 136; Mason v. Mulholn, 6 Dana, 140; Pierce v. Kimball, 9 Me. 54, 56; Halbert v. Skyles, 1 A. K. Marsh. 369; Van Swartow v. Commonwealth, 24 Pa. St. 131; Burnham v. Webster, 5 Mass. 266; Ellis v. Commissioners, 2 Gray, 378; Burhop v. Milwaukee, 21 Wis. 257. See King v. Burridge, 3 P. Wms. 496; Gorham v. Springfield, 21 Me. 58; Prell v. McDonald, 7 Kan. 426.

4 Commonwealth v. Springfield, 7 Mass. 12; Stephenson v. Doe, 8 Blackf.

508; New Portland v. New Vineyard, 16 Me. 69; West v. Blake, 4 Blackf. 234; State v. Jackson, 39 Me. 291; Ross v. Reddick, 2 Ill. 73.

5 State ex rel. v. Lean, 9 Wis. 279.

6 Jenkins v. Union Turnpike Co. 1 Cai. Cases, 86; Proprietors of Fryeburg Canal v. Frye, 5 Me. 38; Att'yGeneral v. Erie, etc. R. R. Co. 55 Mich.

21.

7 Unity v. Burrage, 103 U. S. 447. See Clark v. Janesville, 10 Wis. 136. 8 Unity v. Burrage, 103 U. S. 447; Boyle, In re, 9 Wis. 264; Yellow R. Improv't Co. v. Arnold, 46 Wis. 214; State v. Chambers, 93 N. C. 600; Price v. White, 27 Mo. 275; Bretz v. Mayor, etc. 6 Rob. 325; McLain v. Mayor, etc. 3 Daly, 32; West v. Blake, 4 Blackf. 234; Bevens v. Baxter. 23 Ark. 387; State v. Judges, 21 Ohio St. 1; Kerrigan v. Force, 9 Hun, 185; Wright v. Hawkins, 28 Tex. 452.

An act authorizing a named person to construct a dam of a particular description for the purpose of improving the navigation of a river is a public statute. Acts for the incorpora

tion of banks have been held public by reason of provisions affecting the general public,2 and other corporations. A penal act is public; and the defining of an offense in an act otherwise private renders it a public act. An act authorizing a foreign private corporation to do business, and providing that it shall have an office and place of business in the state where the law is passed, and that such corporation may then sue and be sued like a domestic corporation, is a public act. The distinction between public and private acts defined in the common law of England by Blackstone is not quite the distinction recognized in this country. Here acts may be public though they are local and special, when they concern the public generally, though more particularly a local community or only a class of the general public-where they concern the class in distinction from the individual.' Where a statute of a private nature is declared to be a public act, it will be treated as such and need not be pleaded nor proved. A statute amendatory of a public law is public.

9

§ 194. A private statute is one confined to a special case.1o An act "to enable the Bishop of Canton to make a lease to A. B." for an exceptional period is a fair example of a private statute." A statute enabling the local authorities of a particu

1 Calking v. Baldwin, 4 Wend. 667. 2 Smith v. Strong, 2 Hill, 241; Louisiana State Bank v. Flood, 3 Mart. (N. S.) 341; Bank of Commonwealth v. Spilman, 3 Dana, 150; Young v. Bank of Alexandria, 4 Cr. 384; Bank of Utica v. Smedes, 3 Cow. 684; Bank of Newberry v. Railroad Co. 9 Rich. 495.

6 Fall Brook Coal Co. v. Lynch, 47 How. Pr. 520.

¡Commonwealth v. Worcester, 3 Pick. 473; Wales v. Belcher, id. 508; Bish. W. L. § 42c; Wheeler v. Philadelphia, 77 Pa. St. 338.

8 Brookville Ins. Co. v. Records, 5 Blackf. 170; Beaty v. Knowler, 4 Pet. 152; Covington Drawbridge Co. v.

3 Portsmouth Livery Co. v. Watson, Shepherd, 20 How. 232; Bacon's Abr. 10 Mass. 91.

4 Burnham v. Acton, 35 How. Pr. 48. 5 Bacon's Abr. tit. Statutes, F.; Heridia v. Ayers, 12 Pick. 344; Burnham v. Webster, 5 Mass. 266; Young v. Bank of Alexandria, 4 Cr. 384; Rogers' Case, 2 Greenlf. 303; Rex v. Buggs, Skin. 428.

Statute, F. See Edenburgh R. R. v.
Wauchope, 8 CL. & F. 710; Rogers'
Case, 2 Greenlf. 303.

9 Unity v. Burrage, 103 U. S. 447;
State v. Welch, 21 Minn. 22.
10 Whart. Com. on Am. Law, §§ 13,
598.

111 Black. Com. 86.