The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-12-13
FOR THE ENTQUIRER.a
MARSHALL Us. CONRAD.

This moi important and celebrated cafe, has
lately been reported, at length, in the columns
of the Enquirer. To that repor: it is anxoully
wifhed to turn the attention of our c0rIn.rymen;
or at Leaf fuch of them as with to tioy danger
at diRance, and who believe that trivial fums
may produce preeeaentJ, to bear out the moi
enormous and neiarous consequences.
Our couutrymeR will Judge therefron, whc-
ther iince the above deciiion, our citizens in the
Northern Neck can claim an exemption from
the payment of Iut-rentS oil their lands, bv a.
ny ftronger tenure, than the ,node,ysfiou of MIR.
Fairfax, or thoie I6eegiatorJ who have purcha-
fed, may purchafc, his rights. Their alarm
and anxiety on this fuhjeta will not be ieiTened,
when they end, that one of our rnoh iiftineuifh-
ed Judges, has infatuated his opinion to be, tina.
all thofe quit-rents arc recoverable, under the.
treaty of peace (See fuckers Black. 2 Vol.
pa. 42.) ~ e.
That ground of claim, has been ALWAYS fore
fecn and deprecated, by our beh AMI wifcft
patriots. 1t was rtfcrved, however, fer the
Court of Appeals to find out, and ~y9a6Hb. A
nrzU ground of title: and that is, that Lnrd
Fairfax was 0Si5iuTe ozUasr of the Ioii when hs
granted it out, and that thus the rents refcrved
on nbfo!ute grants of his waite lands, were
gJ'oEnd-rrntJ, and not qif.renfJ fav this po-
fition was eRa6i;Bed, by the judgment of the
Court of Appeals, in the cafe before us, for no
thing is more clear, than that no fpecif, appro-
priation Of the lot in auction, had ever been
made by Lord Fairfax to mis- own uft and if
this petition be eftabiihed, are not al the quit
rents in the Northern Neck equally recovera-
BILE
as then there are two grounds, thus fan6tion-
ed by high authority, ON which claim to the
quit-rents may b. fet up, I repeat, do we not
hold the fame, at the mercy of Mr.. Fairfax I,
or perhaps, from his fear that rebellion wonld
be excited, were he to come forward, until he
was fortified by precedent from the Court of
Appeals, given in the frf inftance, spon a
fmalIer f'ales A perufil of that report will
lhew, that the Court did not, and to,,ld not be-
tween the then parties, decide the E4er9i Quit
rents to BE iyvscoyersble. Two judges indeed
faid fomething ioojSiy on that fibietf The pre-
ild'ng Judge was Flent on the fuhicGt, and the
| dinenting Judge di(cIaimed difference between
the two rents. When TO thefe, therefore, is
added, the opinion of the refidOary Judge, be.
fore mentioned, that aH tbe qnit-renfJ are reco-
verable, may we not confidently ak whether
the decilion in qneaion may not, hereafter, be
uied as a precedent?
! An anonymous writer in the Argus of the
Soth ult. attempts. however, to fupport this de.
clifton by the brivafe opinions of two other
| Judges, who are no. named, and who are fran.
gers to the cafe, except from common report
\ ~ nNhbUNlNS WI tiio ftfI dTG ~ We FClftitC0 10
it is confidently believed, that great nnaiorii,
Of the judges Of Virginia, would ,iiTeht from
the decilion given by the three Judges Of u,
Court Of Appeals. Such ia knozUf to be the o
! pinion Of the able and respectable Judge Bro9kc
and is beiifUrd 70 be the opinion OF the venerA
bic judge Tyler The opinions of others arr
unknown to the writer hereof Dircardinc
however, the pri5afs opinions of Judges, tn
judgment Of the learned aud refpettatIe iudg
Melton now reverted, comes in aid of tie dii
ienting judges, and thus makes fqvo out of IA,
| Of thofe judges who have bfard and deeidrd tn
csufe.
But what if Judge R6ane were alone in N
Court Of Appeals? Was he not 70, in the "a
nous cafe Of qomhRjoa rs. Dihard5 ard di
not the General Ag,'rnbly, perhaps una 7ont
4 ly, fupport his opinion by paning declarator
law ON the fbljetf Of that decifon Nav. ha
, not the Court Of Appesisittelf, Ia,eIy refolVe
. 90 rs1iSzO and rcfoqhder that decffon, in cat,
y now depending before them? II lodge koan
u were aiOm 10 this safe, was he net ~, IN IN