It’s a familiar story. You arrive in New York City and you’re swept up by the energy of it all — dollar pizza, morning bagels, musicians in the park…you know, The Big Apple. The City that Never Sleeps. It’s infectious.

For a man who we only know as “Captain Barre,” this was his story — he disembarked from his ship, saw New York, and never looked back. The problem was, he was a Captain in the French navy, and by leaving his ship for pastrami on rye, he became a deserter.

(Of course, I’m taking liberties with anachronism here. There wouldn’t be a skyscraper in NYC until a century later.)

Unfortunately for Captain Barre, the French wanted Captain Barre arrested and deported back to France so he could face justice for deserting his ship.

The only thing stopping them was a judge in New York. His name was John Lawrence.

To most, he’s a ghost. You probably haven’t even heard his name. But after unearthing a French letter accusing Judge Lawrence of corruption, I had to dig deeper into his story. So I went down a rabbit hole.

I’m glad I did. My pursuit led me to perhaps the only scholar who holds the key to solving this mystery — a man who also happens to be the great-great-great grandson of the prolific Chief Justice John Marshall.

This is a story you’ll want to stick around for.

---

This is a civil procedure case filed straight to the Supreme Court.

Petitioner: United States Attorney General William Bradford, representing the United States.

Respondent: A freaking judge — specifically, New York District Court Judge John Lawrence.

This case went to the Jay Court during the Washington Presidency. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Judge Lawrence and denied the United States’ writ of mandamus.

See the Court’s opinion here.

---

It’s like this.

After Captain Barre traded croissants for dirty water hot dogs, the French “made a demand” for New York District Court Judge John Lawrence to issue a warrant for his arrest.¹

This might seem like an overbearing demand, but it’s actually perfectly in line with Article IX of the 1789 Consular Convention between the U.S. and France, which is a Treaty that governed the powers of government representatives (a.k.a. “consuls”) in both countries.²

Article IX of the Treaty said that consuls from both countries could collaborate to recover deserters.³ So, if France wanted the U.S. to ship back a bad noodle, the Treaty said France had to write to the American court and demand the deserter’s return.⁴

The requesting consul also had to prove the bad noodle was actually part of a crew by producing “the register of the vessel, or ship’s roll,” which was essentially an attendance record.⁵

After this process took place, then the court had to arrest the deserter.⁶

Certified Gangstas

So France demanded that Judge Lawrence issue an arrest warrant for Captain Barre.⁷

In turn, Judge Lawrence requested the required records showing that Captain Barre was actually a deserter.⁸

The French consul then responded that he didn’t have the ship’s register, but assured Judge Lawrence he could produce other documents showing that Captain Barre was, in fact, a member of the crew. The French consul even promised “he would give the judge all the proof that could be desired.”⁹

Apparently uncharmed by Genie, Judge Lawrence put his foot down and insisted that “the mode of proof mentioned in the 9th article of the convention was the only legitimate one, and…he could not dispense with it.”¹⁰

In response, the French consul managed to scrounge up a certified copy of the ship’s crew list.¹¹ A certified copy of a document is a copy that some authority swears is legit. The idea is, if some other trustworthy party signs or stamps or otherwise endorses the copy, that gesture tells others the copy is true and accurate to the original.

So here, the certified copy wasn’t the original, but the French consul insisted the copy should be good enough, as Article V of the Treaty says, “the copies of the said acts, duly authenticated by the said consuls or vice-consuls, under the seal of their consulate, shall receive faith in law, equally as their originals would, in all the tribunals of the dominions of the Most Christian King and the United States…”¹²

Despite Article V, Judge Lawrence wasn’t satisfied with the certified copy. He maintained “he did not consider the copy of the register to be the kind of proof designated by the 9th article of the convention; and that until the proof specified by the express words of the article was exhibited, he could not deem himself authorized to issue a warrant for [ap]prehending Captain Barre.”¹³

Alarmed by Judge Lawrence’s denial of the French consul’s request, the French called the principal’s office, writing to the U.S. government to complain that Judge Lawrence was disobeying the Treaty.¹⁴

When Judge Lawrence still refused to issue an arrest warrant, the U.S. Attorney General asked the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus.¹⁵

If you’re like me, you gagged at the Latin. Let me help you.

A writ is a written order issued by the court. (That’s not Latin, that’s English. Stay with me.)

Mandamus is Latin for “we command.”

A writ of mandamus, then, is a written order issued by the court commanding a government official to correct his mistake.

The Arguments

The issue in U.S. v. Lawrence was whether the Supreme Court could grant a writ of mandamus to force a judge of a lower court to issue an arrest warrant where the lower court judge ruled there was insufficient evidence to do so.

Judge Lawrence argued:

1. The 9th Article of the Treaty says we need an original copy of the rolls. And let’s not forget the old English common law rule, which says, “[W]henever a new remedy is…introduced…it must be strictly pursued.”¹⁶ The Treaty is offering a new remedy.¹⁷ Under regular old international law, when a deserter from one country flees to another, the receiving country isn’t obligated to return the deserter to his home country at all.¹⁸ So we have to follow the letter of the law.
2. The copy of the document the French are offering to prove their case doesn’t even meet our regular standards for evidence. Evidence rules say a copy can’t be offered into evidence unless a party proves that (1) an original existed at some point, and (2) the original is either lost, destroyed, or in the possession of the other party.¹⁹ We know the roll existed, but the French haven’t demonstrated that the original roll was lost or destroyed. In fact, we’re pretty sure the original copy is like…in Boston.²⁰
3. The whole thing in Article 5 about copies being okay obviously refers to documents between consuls, not to the kind of document we’re dealing with here.²¹
4. A writ of mandamus can only force a judge to make a decision, not to change a decision. “…it appears, that a mandamus is founded on the idea of a default; as, where an inferior court will not proceed to judgment, or a ministerial officer will not do an act which he ought to do; but there is no instance of a mandamus being issued to a judge, who has proceeded to give judgment according to the best of his abilities.”²²

In response to Judge Lawrence, the A.G. began his arguments with a disclaimer, making it clear that President Washington wasn’t trying to force the Supreme Court to rule one way or another. The A.G. explained:

“As it is the wish of our government to preserve the purest faith with all nations, the president could not avoid paying the highest respect, and the promptest attention, to the representation of the minister of France, who conceived that the decision of the district judge involved an infraction of the conventional rights of his republic…The president, therefore, introduces the question for the consideration of the court, in order to insure a punctual execution of the laws; and at the same time, to manifest to the world, the solicitude of our government to preserve its faith, and to cultivate the friendship and respect of other nations.”²³

Attorney General William Bradford

It sounds to me like the U.S. pursued this case because they were intent on maintaining good relations with the French.

Onto the Attorney General’s arguments.

The United States argued:

1. Whatever we’re going to argue about today, let’s not shed any tears for Captain Barre and make this about his liberties. If he gets arrested, he has remedies available to him to ensure he’s treated fairly.²⁴
2. Yes, we need the original roll to deport the Captain, but not to arrest him.²⁵ In England, everybody knows how this works. “[T]he grounds for issuing a warrant are not strong; for finding an indictment, they must be stronger; and for conviction and judgment, they are always violent.”²⁶ In other words, although you need super strong proof to convict somebody, you don’t need super strong proof just to issue a warrant. Judge Lawrence is using a standard that’s way too strict here.
3. If we’re going to be so formal about this, deserters could never be arrested. If the Treaty actually requires the original roll to be present to arrest a deserter, that’s a fatal oversight, because maritime law says the official roll is never supposed to leave its ship.²⁷ Also, if the whole crew deserts and destroys the roll, or if the roll is destroyed in a fire, that would mean a judge couldn’t arrest the deserters.²⁸ “It is inconsistent with reason, that a provision, intended to guard the contracting parties from the inconvenienc[e] of the desertion of their mariners, should, in the very mode of expression, defeat itself; and that interpretation which renders a treaty null and without effect, cannot be admitted.”²⁹
4. Under Judge Lawrence’s reading of the Treaty, Captain Barre could confess to being a deserter and that still wouldn’t be enough without having the ship’s official roll.³⁰
5. True, Article 5 doesn’t exactly apply here, but a certified copy should at least carry some weight.³¹
6. The Court should grant a writ of mandamus here because, under the Treaty, Judge Lawrence doesn’t have a choice except to issue an arrest warrant. The judge can rule how he wants at the hearing, but he has to issue a warrant when the standards are met under the Treaty.³²

The Court’s Decision

The Court unanimously ruled in favor of Judge Lawrence, stating that the Court would not grant a writ of mandamus. The Court declared that Judge Lawrence had the authority to decide whether to issue an arrest warrant.

The Court wrote, “It is evident, that the district judge was acting in a judicial capacity, when he determined, that the evidence was not sufficient to authorize his issuing a warrant for apprehending Captain Barre: and (whatever might be the difference of sentiment entertained by this court) we have no power to compel a judge to decide according to the dictates of any judgment, but his own.”³³

I Went Down a Rabbit Hole…

Am I the only one who found this case — specifically Judge Lawrence’s conduct — odd?

The record of U.S. v. Lawrence seems to indicate there was virtually no doubt that Captain Barre was a deserter of the ship he previously commandeered. Apparently, he even confessed to the fact.³⁴

Was Judge Lawrence really just so staunchly married to the text of the law that he refused to arrest the guy?

Something here wasn’t adding up for me, so I had to dig into the historical record to learn more.

Much to my frustration, I couldn’t find anything in English, but I did have better luck in French.

The French minister wrote about the outcome of the Supreme Court case in a letter, writing, “Et dans cette affaire le Juge de New York n’a refusé le mandat qu’à la Sollicitation d’amis influens qu’avait à New York le Citoyen Barré.”³⁵

In English, that translates to, “The New York judge refused the warrant only at the solicitation of influential friends whom Citizen Barré had in New York.”

The French minister, then, alleges that Judge Lawrence was corrupt and beholden to Captain Barre’s friends, and that’s why he refused to arrest Captain Barre.

That’s quite an accusation, non? I had to look into it.

The bad news is, there isn’t much written about Judge John Lawrence. His recorded historical footprint is phantasmal. There’s maybe one person on the planet who has written about the guy at any length.

The good news is, I found that person. And I wrote to him. And he wrote back. And now we know something!

Reflections from Judge Lawrence’s Biographer — Chief Justice John Marshall’s Great-Great-Great Grandson

I had the pleasure of corresponding with John Lawrence’s seminal biographer, the first and practically only person who has written about him. His name is Keith Marshall Jones III, MBA (Harvard), author of John Laurance, the Immigrant Founding Father America Never Knew.

He also happens to be the great-great-great grandson of Chief Justice John Marshall.

Yes, really.

And I asked him: Is there any merit to the allegation that Lawrence refused to issue a warrant for Captain Barre’s arrest at the request of Captain Barre’s influential friends in New York?

Jones’ response? He told me, ” I found no documentation to support such claim. However that may be because Laurance³⁶ rarely put political opinions in writing in his personal correspondence, and relied on confidential personal conversation instead. Furthermore, much of his personal records were not preserved by his descendants. Indeed, both his wives pre-deceased him and his only son never married. That said, Laurance was a staunch Federalist and certainly no friend of Revolutionary France. It’s possible that he chose to strictly interpret the law to spare Barre from extradition, but there is nothing to prove so.”

I also asked Jones if Judge Lawrence had ever been accused of or embroiled in any other scandals, controversies, or corruption. Where there’s smoke, there could be fire, right?

But Jones doesn’t see much smoke. He says, “There are no specific incidents of corruption in Laurance’s career that I found. He was smeared by Jeffersonian opponents for leading the defense of Alexander Hamilton against unproven corruption charges on the floor of Congress, but Laurance himself was never accused. Yes, he acquired substantial land investment property while in public office, but so did many founding figures including Washington and Hamilton. The only stain on his long record of public service came in the Election of 1800 when he became Federalist Party pariah by resigning as senior senator from New York and withdrawing from party politics during the Jeffersonian victory.”

Jones adds, “[Laurance] was financially quite comfortable after marrying his second wife, Blue Blood Philadelphia’s most eligible wealthy widow, so he did not require political favor to sustain his comfortable lifestyle. Bottom line, I think, is that he believed in strong Federal government and a strong New York City and served to advance both with integrity.”

Judge Lawrence benefits not only from Jones’ endorsement, but from George Washington’s as well. Jones told me, “Washington must have had a solid opinion of Laurance because he kept him as his JAG for five years and nominated him for federal judgeship.” (And that’s how Lawrence got the job as a judge.)

(A JAG, or Judge Advocate General, is a military lawyer.)

And according to Jones, not only was Lawrence George Washington’s JAG, but Lawrence also appointed John Marshall to the position of Assistant JAG at Valley Forge. This appointment, Jones says, launched the career of John Marshall, the man who would become one perhaps the most respected Chief Justice of the Supreme Court — if not the most respected Justice altogether.

It seems, then, that Judge Lawrence wasn’t some random judge caught in the crosshairs of litigation. Rather, he was someone who actually worked with Washington closely before Washington ever became President, and someone who had a hand in John Marshall eventually being elevated to the Supreme Court.

Final Reflections

All of this illuminating background information makes it even more interesting that Washington commanded his A.G. to bring this case to the Supreme Court despite his friendship with Judge Lawrence.

Perhaps you can argue that Washington sent this case to the Court confident the Justices — all of whom were Federalists — would have Judge Lawrence’s back.

Or maybe President Washington resigned his friend’s fate to the Court in good faith. I don’t know. I’m determined to revisit this case after reading more about Washington.

As for Judge Lawrence…Leaning on Jones’ studied opinion, I think I am comfortable concluding that, based on the evidence we have, the French accusation that Judge Lawrence was corrupt is nothing more than sour grapes. Whatever Judge Lawrence’s private motivations may have been, his actions were supported by the text of the Treaty.

I suppose his reluctance to arrest Barre when those calling for his arrest failed to follow procedure is admirable. Captain Barre’s very freedom was at stake, after all.

After sitting with this case for weeks, I think I really like this result. I also like that the Court supported Judge Lawrence’s reasoned judgment.

Even though Judge Lawrence was faced with a law that was arguably poorly conceived and impractical, I appreciate that he limited himself to the text of the law and came down on the side of the person whose liberty was at stake. He could have just as easily granted the arrest warrant for Barre in the name of “fairness.”

If I could Build-A-Judge, I think I’d stuff that sort of textualist, liberty-focused posture in the Judge’s foot. (And when you press it, he sings.)

You Be The Judge

Rather than asking how you’d rule on this Supreme Court case, I want to know what you’d do if you were Judge Lawrence sitting in New York. Would you have issued an arrest warrant for Captain Barre?

What do you think of this case? Leave a comment!

Studying this case for class? I offer 1-on-1, virtual law school tutoring. Learn more here.

Here’s a Bluebook cite for ya – Johnathan J. Azar, When You Lose Your Case So You Sue the Judge Too: United States v. Lawrence (1795) (June 23, 2026)

FOOTNOTES

1. United States v. Lawrence, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 42, 42 (1795). ↩︎
2. Consular Convention Between the United States and France, Fr.-U.S., Nov. 14, 1788, 8 Stat. 106. ↩︎
3. United States v. Lawrence, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 42, 43 (1795). ↩︎
4. Id. ↩︎
5. Id. ↩︎
6. Id. ↩︎
7. Id. at 42 ↩︎
8. Id. ↩︎
9. Id. ↩︎
10. Id. ↩︎
11. Id. ↩︎
12. Id. at 43-44 ↩︎
13. Id. at 44 ↩︎
14. Id. at 44-45 ↩︎
15. Id. at 42 ↩︎
16. Id. ↩︎
17. Id. ↩︎
18. Id. at 45 ↩︎
19. Id. ↩︎
20. Id. at 47 ↩︎
21. Id. ↩︎
22. Id. ↩︎
23. Id. at 48-49 ↩︎
24. Id. at 49 ↩︎
25. Id. at 49-50 ↩︎
26. Id. at 50 ↩︎
27. Id. ↩︎
28. Id. ↩︎
29. Id. at 51 ↩︎
30. Id. ↩︎
31. Id. at 52 ↩︎
32. Id. at 52-53 ↩︎
33. Id. at 53 (emphasis added) ↩︎
34. Id. at 51 ↩︎
35. Correspondence of the French Ministers to the United States, 1791–1797, vol. 2, at 683 (Frederick Jackson Turner ed., Da Capo Press 1972) (1893). ↩︎
36. Although Jones spells the judge’s name as “Laurance,” I’m sticking with the Court’s spelling of “Lawrence” for consistency’s sake. ↩︎

Disclaimer: All content on Lex Sans Latin is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. Nothing on this site creates an attorney–client relationship. If you need legal advice, please consult an attorney.

This blog may include quotations or excerpts from judicial opinions, statutes, scholarly articles, books, and other primary or secondary sources. Such materials are used for purposes of commentary, criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research in accordance with the fair use doctrine under U.S. copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 107). All cited materials are attributed to their original sources to the extent reasonably possible.

Any tutoring or instructional services offered are educational in nature and are not a substitute for legal advice or legal representation.