my own, than to reduce the case into
a form which might be supposed to be less accurate.

As I do not discover an essential difference between Mr. Tilghman and
myself, I shall not discuss any seeming variance, but proceed upon his
ideas.

It is too obvious to require a diffusive exposition, that the
application for a writ of error was not only prudent, but a duty in
Pagan. To this Mr. Tilghman explicitly assents, when he says, that he
was perfectly 'satisfied of the prudence of applying for the writ of
error, as Pagan could not complain of a defect of justice, until he had
tried the writ of error and found that mode ineffectual.' This remark
becomes the more important, as it manifests that the process was not
suggested as an expedient for shifting any burthen from the government.
Indeed I may with truth add, that the proceedings, taken collectively,
appeared to me to present a sufficient intimation of the main question,
to serve as a ground of decision.

However, take the case under either aspect; as excluding the
consideration of the main question by an omission in the pleadings and
record; or as exhibiting it fully to the cognizance of the court.

It never was pretended that a writ of error ought to have been granted,
unless the matter was apparent on the record. Whose office was it to
make it thus apparent. Of the attorney who managed the pleadings. If,
therefore, he has failed to do so, we may presume that he considered the
ground untenable, or was guilty of inattention. Either presumption
would be fatal to a citizen of the United States; and the condition of a
foreigner cannot create a new measure in the administration of justice.
It is moreover certain, that those who have been consulted on Pagan's
behalf, as well as others, have seriously doubted whether a cause,
which has been pursued to the extent which his had reached before the
commencement of our new government, was susceptible of federal relief.

The last observation opens the inquiry, what remedy ought the Supreme
Court of the United States to have administered, even if the question
had been fairly before them? My opinion is, that the very merits are
against Mr. Pagan. In America, the construction of the armistice has
been almost universally to compute the places, within which different
times were to prevail, by latitude only. Am I misinformed, that such
an interpretation has been pressed by our ministers, and not denied by
those of London? A second