330 G1BSON v. TILTON.—1 BLAND.

Constitution of the United States. That delegation of power
enables Congress to prescribe the manner in which the public acts,
the records and the judicial proceedings of every other State shall
be proved, and the effect thereof, in this State. Bat, the affidavit,
and certificate appended to this answer are not in any sense public
acts, records, or judicial proceedings of Delaware. They are parts
of a judicial proceeding of Maryland; such as have been called
for, and authorized b\ the usage and law of Maryland, not of
Delaware.

According to the long established practice of this Court in
various cases, some of which have been recognized by legislative
enactments, 1797, ch. 114, s. 5, it will act upon the evidence, de-
rived from affidavits taken in a foreign country. Prior to the Revo-
lution a dedimus was always sent to obtain an answer from a de-
fendant resident in any of the neighboring colonies or in a
foreign State, Chart. Pro. lib. D. D. No. J, folio 6, 59, &c., and now
commissions are often sent to other States of this Union, Runt v.
Williams, Taylor's Rep. 318, and into * foreign nations to
354 take testimony where the commissioners must be sworn, by
some magistrate of the place, before they can proceed to act. So
an affidavit verifying the trutli of an answer, made before a magis-
trate duly authorized to administer an oath in the country where
the respondent resides, has long been admitted as sufficient. The
acts of foreign magistrates, in all such cases, are however consid-
ered as having been done under the authority of this Court; and
as deriving their sanction from the judicial power of this State,
not from that of the foreign State. For, standing unconnected in
the foreign State with that to which they relate here, they would
be there wholly unintelligible and inoperative. This interchange
of courtesies, in aid of judicial proceedings, seems to be as com-
mon among the nations of Europe, as it is with the several States
of our Union. Dalmer v. Barnard, 7 T. R. 251; Ex parte Worsley,
2 H. Blac. 275; Omealy v. Newell, 8 East, 364; Hornby v. Pember-
ton, Mosely, 58; Gason v. Wordsworth, 2 Ves. 325, 33G; Garvey v.
Hibbert, 1 Jac. & Walk. 180; Fraham v. Howes, 1 Jac. & Walker,
296. And in all such cases it would seem, that the comity of nations
is carried so far, that the public functionaries will not only suffer
the commission to be executed by the commissioners to whom it is
sent, but if necessary, will compel a witness to appear and testify,
so that his deposition may be taken, and returned to the tribunal
of the foreign nation whence the commission emanated. Young v.
Causa, 3 Eccle. Rep. 417; Mitchell v. Smith, 1 Paige, 287; Mitf. Plea.
186, notes.

The tribunals of this State have often found it necessary to ask
the assistance of the judicial power of the other States of our
Union or of foreign countries to procure testimony or obtain the
means of administering justice. And in doing so those Courts