Yes, they did. You have been shown repeatedly with sourced quotes. Here is another:
I received yours of the 16th Inst. Relating to the Capture of Capt. Burnel. An Application is making to Government here to have him reclaim’d, as being taken from under the Protection of your Forts, contrary to the Law of Nations;
Benjamin Franklin To Charles Drouet, Paris, June 23 1777
Care to explain why Franklin was making and Application for release of a Captain because that capture violated the Law of Nations?
And I really hate to burst your 'translation' argument, but you DO know that many of the Founders were fluent in French, don't you? It's not like they couldn't read the original for themselves.
------
You also continually disregard Tucker as 'English common law'.
I suspect that is because his numerous quotes concerning Vattel, as even the lightest amount of research will reveal Tucker's history.
He annotated Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law of England specifically outlining their effects on US Law and was appointed by Madison to the US Supreme court.
Discounting someone considered the Father of American Law just because he doesn't agree with your position makes you look foolish.
“Care to explain why Franklin was making and Application for release of a Captain because that capture violated the Law of Nations?”
Because that involved INTERNATIONAL LAW. Not US law.
“You also continually disregard Tucker as ‘English common law’.”
No. I point out, however, that English common law is the source of the legal terms used by the Founders, and the definitions of those terms - which is a statement that the court have always upheld.
What they have never upheld - because it would be incredibly stupid - is that a translation made in 1797 determines the meaning of a phrase written in 1787.