284 CONTEE v. DAWSON.

each state of our perpetually intermingling confederacy, know more
of the forms and modes of proceeding of the officers and magis-
trates 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 pro-
perty will permit, and that may be 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, (i)

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 didimus potestatim
even to a neighbouring colony, to take the answer of a defendant
resident there, (j) But soon after the revolution a didimus po-
testatim, seems to have been dispensed with, and answers from
other states of our confederacy by being sworn to before a mayor
or other principal magistrate of a city, or a justice of the peace, on
its being certified under the seal of the proper officer, that the per-
son who administered the oath or affirmation was then in truth the

officer he professed to be; (k) as where an answer had been sworn
to before a justice of the peace of the District of Columbia; and it
was certified, in the usual form, by the clerk of the county, that he
was duly commissioned at that time, the answer was received. (I)
But in the case under consideration, the affidavit of the truth of
the answer of the defendant Philip A. L. Contee, purports to have
been made before a justice of the peace of Westmoreland county,

(i) Omealy v. Newell, 8 East. 372.-— (j ) Chancery Proceedings, lib. D. D. No.
J. fol. 59.

PROUT v. SLATER.—On 3d of April, 1799, on the petition of the defendants 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 adminis-
ter the oath. The answer so taken was certified by the commissioners, and then
certified by a notary public.—Chancery Proceedings, lib. S. H. H. No. 7, fol. 25.

(k) Hartshorne v. Hands, 2d June, 1795. M. S.—(l) Murdock v. Forrest, 1803,
and 1815, M. S; Gibson v. Tilton, 1 Bland, 352.