The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-04-23

lcheat and forfeiture. II is only f6en in rel;ti-
on to Lsgi40ti0e AIS efcoYifcn.ion and ftizure,
that the frt part Of this article is TO be under
food even it rsfpects the refugees. Why
therefore ihould we give contraction to The
treaty, which will ntrench upon the munici-
pal fyitems of the fcyeral itates, when every
end neceilary to BE- attained in relation to the
refugees can be completely effected by the in
terdietion of extraordinary acts of coEiifcatoa
and feiZure.
This article, taken eoile7ivciy, does not then
relate to real Britiih fubieets ard as to that
particular part of the article which interdicts
future conffcations, it is fuperruous and unne-
cefiary to apply it to them; for fuch interdic-
ton had already ariGn from the mere conclu-
hon ofthe treaty of peace.
9. With refpe6t to lands bolden kere at tie time
efonr Epara.ion, i. {. at the epoch of our indie
pendence, by Britilh fubjeets, it would be unne-
ceiiary TO exprefs any opinion, becauie the pre-
ient cafe ftands on much 4ueGker- foundation
than that. Such lands are fate i'm the hands of
theie holders, by the principle of the common
law, literally mderRood, in relation to efcheat
and forfeiture for aenage; that law not per-
hitting iu,iect to beeone an alien. IF then it
be true, that the lands OF thofe holders are fate
under the operation of the laws Of eicbeat and
| forfeiture, the treaty need not receive iuch an
e:stenaed contribution as vii! protef them from
| contifcation, and as fuch lands are alto protect
ed from extraordinary conficatons by the mere
fignaturc the treaty, that inftrument need not
to be applied at all to the lands 70 holden by
real Britilh fubjeets.
But even if contrary opinion fhould prevail;
II 1t ihoud be even deemed neCeflary to give
10 the treaty Trained Interpretation in regard TO
vefed rights, the fi,ne neceility does not exif
ID relation to contingent, Pe9i6ie rights. The
cafes of this cafs occurring during tie evar
were probably very few, becaufe all ntercourfe
between the two countries being prohibited s,
interrupted, few would with TO puchnJca title
10 real property in either country and we mutt
impute very grofs ignorance to our people, on
the fubjeef of alienage, before we can iiipDofe
that many 1ez'jcJ were made, or many dejcents
were permitted, to fuch 0i;enJ. Beiides whate-
yer obligations there may have been upon the
Drtlin government 10 guarantee to lis fubicds
property beid inthe enemy scountry at the COM
mencement Of hoitilites,it wasnot euuallybound
to protectallfuture. pofibe Observation-Disclosures
ons. With retpectto acquiGtioasas may have
accrued fnce the 1ate Of tie treaty, it would
have been moi UNREASONABLE for the Bri.ifh king
to have expected us to grant, fuch ineRimable
privileges to his iubje6ts, as the people OF no o.
ther power upon earth arc permitted to enjoy,
although they render us 10 iery:ces, aud owe us
no allegiance. AN analogous illufra;ion may
be drawn from the fubftquent treaty of 1875 {;
which although 1t has expressly eftahliihed the
title to lands teen at7MQLy boilen in either
country, has fu.fered thee eventual rights. or
IN other words, this famous doctrine of Lsgiti
nation TO be cah into that fathomiefs vortex
prepared by our revolution for all thofi. parts
and principles of the common Ia.v of ENGLAND.
which refIle to be blended with our republican
inRitutions.
q. oi,f IL. IL I. 4
ced to ettabliih determination between forE;
tire and eoRGita:i0n, applies with much greater
force to the discrimination between an ejcAeat
and ccnh.catlon. 1t would be doing much
more violence to the figniicaton of the latter
than the former term, to confound it with the
term eozElcation. Aud yet the right row in
fusition, rs right accruing by efcheat.
The contribution of the 9th article of the
treaty OF peace may now be collected into one
general point OF view. II appears, that that part
OF 1t which prohibits all future conffcations re-
iates only to American refugees, and perhaps
alio through abundant caution to real Byitiih
fubjects; that it was intended to fecure mo o.
tier privileges even to thefe men, than a future
indemnity from al extraordinary acts of feizure
and conhtcation and that under all thrfe con-
alterations, that contraction of it can no longer
be admitted, which under the cover Of its gene
raj expreiions, would atempt to proarate all the
ordinary rights OF efcheat and forfeiture, which
the feveral Rates have claimed over the mere
contingent and future acquiGtions OF Briti1 fub.
je6ts.
The claim of the plaintiffs therefore is TO be
Imported neither by the principles of the COM
mon law, nor by the 9th article OF the treaty of
peace.
The court affirmed the deciGon of the DIFF.
trict court, and the defendant retains the pro-
perty.