A contract which violates or proposes to violate the revenue laws of the country in which it is made, is of course void. (f) But it seems to be quite settled, both in England and in this country, that a contract may lawfully be made for the purpose of violating the revenue laws of a foreign country. (g) Perhaps this rule is the necessary result of the universal antagonism which now pervades, to some extent, the revenue laws of all the states in Christendom. Everywhere duties or imposts are laid, and nowhere is there any thought of regulating them, by any other principle than that of securing the greatest gain to the country which enacts them. For even the zealous promoters of what is called free trade, rest their arguments in its favor on the profitableness of the system to the state by which it shall be adopted. And while it may seem immoral for courts to sanction the breach of the positive laws of a foreign state, yet it is too much to ask of them to enforce an observance of laws made almost professedly against the interest of the government to which they belong. The rule began in England, when the courts could not have adopted any other, without breaking up the very profitable business which their merchants found in carrying on with different nations of the continent a trade prohibited by the laws of those nations. The same rule seems to be extended to such things as making false or depraved coin or counterfeit paper-money, for use in a foreign country, although it is perhaps not so well settled. But it is obvious that arguments might be urged against this extension of the rule, which would not apply, at least with equal force, to the rule itself.

When a sale of liquors was made in New York, the seller having reason to believe that the liquors were to be carried to Massachusetts, for sale there, where the sale was prohibited, it was held in Massachusetts that this did not invalidate the sale. (gg)

(f) Johnson v. Hudson, 11 East, 180; Cope v. Rowlands, 2 M. & W. 149; Smith v. Mawhood, 14 M. & W. 452; Meux v. Humphries, 3 C. & P. 79; Holman v. Johnson, Cowp. 841; Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat. 258; Cambioso v. Maffett, 2 Wash. C. C. 98; Hannay v. Eve, 8 Cranch, 242; Lightfoot v. Tenant, 1 B. & P. 551; Langton v. Hughes, 1 M. & S. 593; Ritchie v. Smith, 6 C. B. 462; Hodgson v. Temple, 5 Taunt 181; Catlin v. Bell, 4 Camp. 183.

(g) Boucher v. Lawson, Cas. temp. Hardw. 84; Holman v. Johnson, Cowp, 841; Biggs v. Lawrence, 3 T. R. 454; Ludlow v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. 94; Lightfoot v. Tenant, 1 B. & P. 551; Planche v. Fletcher, Doug. 251; Kohn v. Schooner Renaisance, 5 La. An. 25 Pellecat v. Angell, 2 Cromp. M. & R 311.

(gg) Adams v. Coulliard, 102 Mass 167; and see Ely v. Webster, id. 804.