The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-03-14

after compelled by due coarse ct law TO pay taat
sum according to the decree Of the court Of ap-
peals.
These loan office certihcates were in the name
of Mathew Clarkson, w.io was marshall ut the
court of admiralty, aud were dated the 9th Of
November Ira. Indents were issued ON thes
TO David Rit,enhouse, an, the whole principal |
and interest were afterwards funded by him
in his own name under the act of congress
making provision for the debt of the United
States.
Among the papers Of David Nittsnhousc was
. memorandum made b. hiiNsels at the foot OF II
list of tie certificates mentioned above, i'll these
words
"NorE-The above certificates will be the
property ofthe state of Pennsylvania, VIXEN the
state releases nc from the bond l gave il 1879
to Indemnify George Ross, Esq Judge of the
admiralty, tor pa3 ,ag the fifty ~cr,suhal certi'
iicates into the treasury IS the states share Oh the
pri8~."
The state did not release David Rittenhouse
from the bond mentioned n this memorandum
These certificates remained in the private pos IS
sion of David Riitcnhouse, vino drew the interest
on them during his life, and after his death
they remainedIi possession ofhisrepresentGti'eS
against whom the libel il this case was fled, for
the purpose OF carrying into execution tie de-
cree fthe court OF appeals.
While this suit was depending, the stale of
Pennsylvania forbore tn assert its title, and N
January 1905, the court decreed III favor fthe
i~oetiants ; soon after Which the Legislature pas
sed the act which has been stated.
It's con,cnded that the federal coucts were
deprived of jur;sdiction in this cause, Sy that u
mendmcnt Of the constitution waicn eXempts
states tom being sucd inthose courts by i'.;livid-
tus--ThiS amendment declares :" that the Judi
al power OF the United States shall not be CON
strued to extend TO any suit in law Or equity com
meaced or prosecuted against one of the u s. by
citizens OF another state, or by citizens Or subjects
OF any foreign state"
The ri Eat ola state TO assert as pl1intif any IN
terest 1T may have in 4 subject which forms the
Inattero OF controversy between individuals in one
OF the courts of the United States, Is not affected
by this amendment nor can ii be so construed as
10 Dust the court OF its jurisdiction, should such
claim be suggested. The amendment simply pro-
vides that no suit shall be commendsd or prose
cuted against a state. The state cIHR,ot be made
adetendantt to a suit brought by an hdtidual, but
1T rem.;ins the 4 itv of The courts of the United
States tcdecide all questions brought before them
6y citizens OF one state against citizens OF a DIFF.
Icrent state, where a state is not necessarily a de-
PENDANT. In this case the slit was not insr;rIted
against the state or it's treasurer, but against the
executors ofDavid Rittenhouse, cor tbc proceeds
OF 4 vessel condesnned in the court of Admiral
ty, which were admitted TO be in their possessi.
on. 1t those proceeds had been the actual FRO
perty OF Penity,vania, however wrongtu.iy ac-
CURED, the disclosure OF that fact would have pre-
sentcd = case on wbicl. it is unnecessary 10 give
"' l'''iO I'M q CCE(algl Co1 never EG @ Ell
that a mere suggestion G. title in a state 10 pro-
perry IN possession OF an md @idual, must arrest
TIE proceedings of the court, and prevent their
tossing INTO the suggestion and examining the va
lidity of the title.
Il the suggestion in this case be examined. tits
deemed perfectly clear that 10 title whlteyerto
The certificate IN question WAS vested iii the state
OF Pennsylvania.
BY the highest Judicial authority IN tho nation !,
has been long since decided, ti.at The Court 81 a3-
pe'ls, erected by Congress, had ful au,nr:ity 10
rcvise and correct the sentences OF III courts u
admiralty 1t the several ..ates in prize ca,ise2.
1hat Question therefore is al rest. Conscqueutly
the decision OF the court Of appeals in this case
annu.!cd the sentence of Ie court Of admiralty,
eXtm.siished the inteTcsto Of tic state OF Penn
sylyania in the Active aud her cargo, which was
acGu''ed oy that sentence. The fail right TO tha;
property was immediately vested in the ciai.
mdnts, vino might rightfiily pursucit INTO whose
soever heinls 1t might come. These certificates
/, nthe hands, first of Matthew C~ilrtsnn The mar
siIai, and afterwards Of George Ra5s the Judge
OF the court OF admiralty, were the abs. late pro
Perty OF the INFANTS Nor did uhcy change their
character on coming into The possession of Da. |
yid Rittenhousc.
Althcu, +. Mr.. Rittea>onsq W. treasurer of the
state of Pennsylvania, aud the bond Of Indemnity
which he executed, states the money to have been
paid 10 him for the use oFu,e state OF PeDnsvlya-
MIA, 1t is pretended that nc hell thsm in his own
fiS1t liiIll ic SlSuiu ne completely IlGC1a".cU d.:
bY the state. The evidence 10 this point is con. ,
elusive. The original certificates do not appear 10 |
have been deposited in the state treasury. to have |
been designated in any manner as tic properly
OF the state, or TO nave been delivered over TO the !
Successor of David Rittenhousc. Thcv rcmain- |
ed il Us possession. The indcnl5 issued upon
them for interest were drawn hv David Ritten
house, and preserved with the or nal cey!iG !
Gates. Whenfiajc as par OF the debit OF the U. /,
States, they were funded Is David R.ttcn.aasc !,
and the interest was drawn by him. The note |
made by himself at the foot If the list which I've
preserved AZ c% ~ianatory of the Whole transac.
ton, demonstrates that ne held the certic -4tes as
security against the bond he had executed 10
George Ross, aDl tdat bond was obligatory, no.
opttic state OF Pennsylvania, but ON David Rit.
tenliouse in his private capacity.
These cifcumsttnces demonstrate beyond The
possibility of doubt that the property which re.
presented The Active and hey cargo, was in nos.
session nat OF the state of PenHgyirania. but of,
David Httenl"ise - an individual, after shoe,.
death itp passed like OTHER properly to his repre-.
scntativcs.
Since then The state of PENNSYLVANIA had moi;
ther possession Of nor right TO she vroi)e rtv oo
winch the sentence OF the district cu,;ct was g,o.
nounoed, and since tie suit wasneitler con,ncn.
eed nor pro~cGGtcd against tat st,tc. there -.
nuns No protest FOR the allegation Hat the case
Is wit!iin that amendment 0f t. c9irtitui,n
which has been cited and c5nseqY rjy q, .t,to