The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-03-10

d Disappointed in thcir hopes and expectations We
ii3ye no bestat,oa Ia, Say sDg that Pennsylvania.
however Jealous Of her figs.ts. will mot be found
IN the present crisis rank ed among the disorgan,
ising states.
That our readers may form some notion of
the general question now submitted to the leris-
%iature, we shall present the following brief state
ment of .acts.
During the revolutionary war, Che British slucp
Active being captured By Gideon Oi,nsteaa and
others,a pact OF the proct e'!s of the 2gizc were
c'a'ned (undere existing r. go.iations) h> the state
o. Pennsylvania. This rg.t was contested by
nc ~csrtars, and several discussions were had
II on the subject, on some at which The /: gtt of
Pennsylvania was acknowledged, and in others
"eg.tvcd. Some time in 1872, the decree
VI ~" court of appeals underwent a revision
~ we district court. where Jadge Frters pre-
SIZED, and the decree was in favor of tie c,,-
tors.
I!ie sui was brought against the representa-.
yves ut the late DIvii Rinsahouse, 10 whom the
IN hleE ci AIMED by the states was paid as trea.,,-
rcro' '"e state AMI lie considering himself
asa mere Stakeholder, gave bond, AS trcns,,-
req OF the state, to refund the money, if the f.
'a' Judgement Of the law should be in favor octhe
captors. '
~ an amendment to :he constitution Of the u.
'.'Ss' tae FEDERAL courts have no jurisdiction
where u state IS defendant. In the present case.
inc rsh hetsncant was the state of Pennsylvania.
Tor y Her cfhccr WAS SIZED in his public capacity
,a"d ne Wa 'nienah'c III no other under hi.
,on') ''ir STATE WAS ia face sued. Rlttennou-e
'"i to' ciaim Tie. money il WAS claiined b., lii.
c'Pto:s ono tie cne hand and b. the state of
pGnnsyiyanya' on tie ether. Mr. M'Kcan. tn.
die' attorney gen t:icrss.re pro3eily dcclined 40
?esrnS eiihet by dctrIcc, sus gestipn or oler-.
VS., ma court which could have n, ;aris tlc,ion
nu'e cause. lac proceedings of ,u.ire p ter.
therefore, and ctJudre Alarsiiai!, are perfectly ex
pa'fe--Ihcy nave decided without argument i
ther ON tic law or The merits. Intceti NJ, ,,,s,
hoTp IL has happened that chief Justice W.ushaYl
mas pSeh 50 very aiS:ous to enter INTO al ce Doy-
fe investigation OF the merits of a case. when IN.
merits n &c NO part of tbe question before him.
IS 4 circu'nst tnct That some years ago would have
been very singular in a Chief Justice of the union.
Ane oily question before the court WAS, whether
Judge Peters rettIrn 10 The nfandamus ut the act
d; The PenHsylvomia legislature of 1908, was a
sufficient return.
Ihat the State # PENNSYLVANIA was the real
eohiy defenftn t IN tie CONT ofJudge Peters, n,
Reasonable m,ncan Gctb ~ least as il aD.car, to
lis. Nor can there be a Il ubt OF the proprietv Of
declining all Investigation hei1re u courl tina, had
40 right tn entertain it. Still the paltry sum of
io,oOV doii'rs, IS not y CO lsidCratiOn Sufficient to
'haucc shc state OF. Pennsylvania, which stands
now the great bvai OF union in this nn:ion, to
tnr"w her weight into the scale oirevoit and TO
give irresistible force and effect to British ma
c"lilations. She may rrtain ard msintain her
''gTt' Jncrc need be no REIMBURSEMENT of uri,-
c'P'e, or improper admission OF pre-, e.,eat and
yetu tie wishes oftorics BE- beieated. 49,. D.,a ocya,;e
PeSs.