CONTEE v. DAWSON.—2 BLAND. 267

that no difference iii point of reason or law, exists between affi-
davits made in Ireland and Scotland, and those made abroad;
Omealy v. Newell, 8 East, 372; but others of the English tribunals
have entertained a higher respect for such acts coming from the
sister kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland, than from foreign nations
Annesley v. Anglesey, Dick. 90; Chicot v. Lequesne, Dick. 150; John-
son v. Smith, Dick,. 592; 2 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 337; Braham v. Bowes. 1
Jac. and Walk. 296; Ex parte Worxley. 2 H. Blac. 275; Dalmer v.
Barnard, 1 T. R. 251.

In accordance with the principles of these last mentioned English
authorities, I feel disposed to go forward with the spirit of the
Federal Constitution, and to allow all such ancillary testimonials,
derived from any sister State or territory of our Union, to be used
in a course of judicial proceeding without strictly exacting all those
solemnities and forms of authentication usually required for the
admission of similar testimony from an entirely foreign nation. It
is not saying too much to aver, that all the public functionaries, of
*each State of our perpetually intermingling confederacy,
know more of the forms and modes of proceeding of the 284
officers and magistrates of every other State than of any foreign
nation whatever. And besides, the harmonies of our peculiar system
of government seem to require, that the magistrates and tribunals
of each State should extend the practice of comity and credit toward
those of every other State, as far as safety to the rights of persons
and property will permit, and that maybe to a considerable extent;
for although, in such cases, there can be no prosecution for perjury
against any one here, who has, abroad, testified on oath, or made
affidavit to the truth of a fact, which can be shewn to be false, yet
the parties may be punished for practising an imposition upon the
Court, Omealy v. Newell, 8 East, 372.

This Court has, in fact, acted upon the distinction between testi-
monials from other States of our Union and those from foreign
nations for many years past. .Prior to the Revolution, certainly as
late as the year 1761, it was the practice, here, in accordance with
the English mode of proceeding, to send a dedimus potestatim,
even to a neighboring colony, to take the answer of a defendant
resident there. Chancery Proceedings, lib. D. D. No. J. fol. 59. (k)
But soon after the Revolution a dedimus potestatim, seems to have
been dispensed with, and answers from other States of our confed-
eracy by being sworn to before a Mayor or other principal magis-
trate of a city, or a justice of the peace, on its being certified

(k) PROUT v. SLATER.—On the 3d of April, 1799, on the petition of the de-
fendants here to take the answer of one of them who resided in London, a
commission was issued to four commissioners or either of them, that they
or either of them administer the oath. The answer so taken was certified
by the commissioners, and then certified by a notary public.—Chancery Pro-
ceedings, lib. S. H. H. No. 7, fol. 25.