266 CONTEE v. DAWSON.— 2 BLAND.

The first section of the fourth Article of the Constitution of the
United States delegates to Congress the power to prescribe the
manner in which the public acts, the records, and the judicial pro-
ceedings of each State may be proved in every other State, and
the effect thereof. And Congress have passed several Acts in exe-
cution of this power. But those laws of the Federal Government
cannot be allowed to regulate the matter now under consideration;
because, an answer to a bill tiled in this Court, or indeed any
other portion of its proceedings, wherever it may be authenticated
or wherever the person may reside from whom it may be derived
must be deemed to all intents and purposes a record or judicial
proceeding of this State only, and not of any other State. It is,
therefore, perfectly obvious, that this Federal law can have no
direct and positive application to the mode of authenticating
answers, or any other part of the judicial proceedings of this
Court. Gibson v. Tilton, 1 Bland, 352.

It is quite common for the Courts of one nation to seek the aid
of the magistrates of foreign countries; and to ask to be allowed
to collect testimony, and obtain from them and under their author -
ity * the means of administering justice at home. The Acts,
283 testimonials and documents thus drawn from abroad, are
accepted as a courtesy from the foreign nation, and accredited, not
upon the ground of their having any force or operation in the
country from which they are derived; Kennedy v. Earl of Cassillis,
2 Swan. 322; but because of the value set upon them by the tri-
bunal before which they are used. They are nothing where taken;
but duly and properly appreciated here where they are allowed to
be, to a certain extent, available, Parsons v. Dunne, 2 Ves. 60;
Gason v. Wordworth, 2 Ves. 325, 336; Minet v. Hyde, 2 Bro. Ch.
C. 663; Bourdillon v. Adair, 3 Bro. C. C. 237; Hornby v. Pember-
ton. Mosely, 58; Campbell v. French, 3 Ves. 321; Garvey v. Hibbert,
1 Jac. & Walk. 180; Thurlt v. Falter, 18 Com. Law Rep. 136;
Turnbull v. Moreton, 18 Con. Law. Rep. 215.

Considering the great intercourse between the several States of
our Union, it is obvious, that in many cases it would be difficult to
do justice unless the Courts of the several States should lend their
aid to each other in matters, from any jurisdiction over which, all
other judicial power was excluded. Kennedy v. Earl of Cassillis, 2
Swan. 313. (i) It seems that some of the English Courts have held,

(i) TAYLOR v. TAYLOR.—"This 5th day of March, 1713, a commission came
from Doctors Commons to the Honorable the President and Council; or any
of them, to examine witnesses in a cause depending at said -Commons, be-
twixt John Taylor, of the City of London, merchant, and Mary Taylor, in
said Commons, fourteen days notice to be given to Robert Bradley, substi-
tuted for the proctor of the said Mary. His Honor EDWARD LLOYD, Esq., (then
Chancellor,) Orders, that summons issue for such evidences as Charles Car-
rol), Esq., substituted for the proctor of the said John Taylor, shall re-
quire. ''—Chancery Proceedings, lib. P. L. fol. 63.