The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-08-03
iGbe GnQulrer.
RICHMOND. AUGUST 3. 1910
FOR THE ENQUIRER
THE YAZOO FRI UD!s

The very first bar, which meets us in
the examination OF these claims. is the De-
cision of the Supreme Court OF the ". S.
This is the Entering IVedge-whic'l is to
drive every thing before 1.-THE risnts of the
nation, as well as the ties of public virtue.
For, if we may believe Mr.. Peck, this very
document decides sal the points in contro
versy in favor of the Georgia grants"-the
merits ot these grants were fully discussed,
ne tiTle of the purchasers under the act
OF 1795 adjudg"d VALID. and the resembling
Ac a the ; Ale of Georgia of 1876 declared
NULL & yo1D."
We might indeed, meet the Yazoo hero on
the thr shud rs 20 the truth OF his own asser
tions Furis 1T true that the Supreme court
mas made this very GENERAL decision, in
WORDS; whatever may have been the
scope and spirit of their reasoning The
special case within their contemplation was,
that OF "purchaser for uoiua5Le conside
ration. WITHOUT NoTIcE"-and what is
the summary of their decision, in WORDS ,
1t was, that the state of Georgia could not
pass IN act, by which "the estate of the
plaintiff in the premises so purchased could
be consttutionally and legally impaired"
But let us pass this over-W,. contend
that the opinion of the Supreme Court was
Improperly and incautiously pronounced-
We say, that this was case where there
was fictitious issue made up between the
parties in such cases is there not every posi-
BILE scope Tor collision, TO the defeat of JUS
EIce { May not parties agree upon those
facts, on which the whole case hinges -
which facts, therefore, should be Contested
and weighed, with the utmost caution
| Judge Johnson seems to have e1sdek where
he ought TO have begun "I have been We
ry unwilling" says he, Ito proceed to the
decision of this cause at all. l. appears o
me to bear a strong evidence UPON THE
| FACE OF 1T, OF being MERE FEIGNED
CASE" Yet his confidence in the res
pectabie gentlemen who have been engaged
| for the parties baDshes all his" scruples. %
"a They would never consent TO impose a mere
| feigned case upon this Court" Ihey the
LAWYERS And pray, from what romantic
Bar were the ideas of Judge Johnson ex
traced? Are the lawyers of South Caro-
lima. so many Wyttess Will they never
vindcate cases, which their consciences do
not approve! Are not good fees apologies
for every thing. Was not Warren Has
tings himsel FORTUNATE enough to &C.
quire ADVOCATES ?-Bestes, is it not the
interest of these respectable gentlemen to
''make the BAD appear the BETTER rea-
sons "-'fh &c scruples" Of Judge John
son would nave been more creditable to him.
if they had bu persuaded him TO pause up
on the very threshold Of his argument -
How much better would it have been, ifhe
had at once declared, that he would not
proceed to the decision Of this Cause at
ALL" so long as there was such 4" stronge
violence upon the face of il, of it's being a
mere feigned cause %
The parties to this suit were MesSrs
Fletcher and Peck--Each of them is a
Yazoo laimant--and one of them sues the
other, tor the purpose OF making good his
own title. Is not The INTEREST Of these
parties the very same Fletcner's interest is
to secure the TERRA FIRMA which he has
bought---and Peck's, 70 fortIfy his claims
to these extensive tracts, of which he is
" the principal owner" Each of them luld
have regretted, it the other had been BAH I'd
IL his purpose. Was it, then, TO be presum~
ed, that Fletcher would have put forth all
his strength TO overthrow the professions OF
Peck Is there not suspicion. upon the
very face Of it, that this was a mere leign-
ed issue to TRr THE TITLE to- the land -
This issue pdrticua rly rests on the Sd Couut,
in the declaration
g. The third count recites the undue meang
practsed on Certain members of the leg;sla
ture, as stated III the second count, and
then alleges that, in consequence of these
practices, and of other causes a subseuuuent
legislature passed an act annuilnG and RESI-
tue INV uHuGT WHICH the CONVEYANCE
to the original grantees was made, declar.
ing that conveyance void. and asserting the
title OF the state to- the lands il cont aimed -
The count proceeds to reciie, at large this
resembling act, and Concludes with averriug
that, by reason of this act, the title of the
said Peck in thu premises was constitution
ally and legally impaired and rendered null
and void.
" After protesting, as before, that no such
promises were made as stated in this count,
the defendant again pleads that himself and
the FIRST purchaser under the original gran
tees and all intermediate holders of the p1o-
perry were purchasers without notice.
I" To this plea there is demurrer and
joinder."
We ask then. If this defence was such a
one, as the state of Georgia. or the u S.
would have SCI mp, it they had been party
to the suit ? Were those exertions made
to prove the fraud and existence of such
promises" as the case required ? Above
all, we're the requisite exertions made to
disprove the plea Uf " No Notice." on which
this who question was made TO hinge, in
the decision of the COURT What is easisr
in such cases than collision Between par.
ties In the present instance, he imp ~.
tant Ingredient of Notice, is 1850 EAcTo, to