Alexandria gazette & advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1822-1824, 1823-03-20
the Kentucky lawyers do not understand
the state OF land titles as welfas we!


the state OF land titles as well'as we!
There is another matter for some 10 con-
sIder-the constitutional question. 1t Gre
ates 90 difficulty, Mr.. T. said, with him.
because. he had the misfortune TO differ
from the courts in the opinion about suing
state. The question may be stated thus:
" The constitution gives to the federal
" courts jurisdicu ION in cases between two
states. The law says this jurisdic.
" ton shall be excl sve, The courts
without any further law on the subiec
have themselves contrived the mode in
' which a state shall be sused. This they
" did in the case against Georgia and also
" in Cobens vs.. Virginia u The judge
say, one state may even new sue another n
and accordingly such SUI. has been
brought.t Where then is the difficulty?
Ii is said, this is not a controversy betn cen
states. Ifso, then the compact does not
PERM; u. to refer il. 1t is moi within the
compact. But 10 fact il is such case be-
tween states as the constitution contempla-
ted. K. has refused justice TO our citi-
zens. But tor tie union ct the states, we
might demand redress and resort 10 arms.
The constitution vas made to pre- vent
this: it is therefore the very case int n
ded.
Although, therefore, he .(Mr. T. did
not think that the federal court could at
present try case between two states, be-
cause the law bad not prescribed the mode
OF prOsecuiion-thst court had thought o b
erwise. and those who thought them right
must con der them to have tn exclusive
jurisdiction Of this matter; an so, that
this reference is unconstitutional.
Ii had been said, Virginia only objected
to federal Jurisdiction when it was adverse
10 her interest. This is unjust TO Virginia:
she has always readily acQuiesced when
the jurisdiction was clear; she has only
demonstrated when "this Briareus with his
hundred hands" has iDlerneGdled with
state concerns, and even arrested the exc.
cutioo OF their police laws. Tho we fear
the encroachments Of federal Jurisdiction,
yet on a mere question of meum and runns
be would prefer it To any epbemeral tribu
nal
Mr.. Tucker then went into a review OF
the transactions between Virginia & Ken
lucky Virginia had promptly yielded to
the desire Kentucky expressed for indie
ppndence. She not only gave h. indepen'
dence, but she gave also all the JOINT prop
erty in Kentucky, except what had been
appropriated by law tor the revoi utioDary
soldiers. Kentucky has repaid Ter libers-
ity with iDgratitude She bad heen ir us
as one of the daughters OF Leah.-She re-
fuses now even the pittsnce we bad reser.
we'd In 1893, she torbae the further 'Ocs
ton OF warrants which we had granted un.
der the compact. In 1897, she declare
that II the claimant OF tact Of land r.
covered If, he should pay tor the improve
ments whether they were desirable to him
or not. and should be Rlored no rent for
the time The holder had used IL, except from
the ,iate ofthe aprit. Thus the real owner
was forced topay fer what lie did not want,
and was denied any compensation for the
use of bis properly. In 1919 they declar-
ed he should not even have any rent allow
eG for the time ,be suit was depending
and IN 1920, they provided that The allow !.
aDce for rent should not commence until
the owner had paid for the improvements.
Moreover, the holder OF the land was
enabled by these laws to get Judgment
against the owner for the value of the in
provements, and have the land sold for the
amount: And il it sold for less than that
value, Judgment for the difference, was
by law rendered against the owner OF the
land. Thus in many cases, the owner of
the land not only lost the land after estub
Kshing he's right II, hut found his suit
end IN a Judgment against himself Tor a
large and ruinous sum And yet K who
made these laws complains! Virginia said
nothing! 1t is like nothing in history or
fable but the complaint OF the wolf that
the lamb muddied the water, by drinking
in the stream below BIN
The reason X. complained was, that she
found the supreme court was about 10 de-
eide against her laws. She sent commits
sioners and asked US to say the laws were
not 10 conflict with the compact. We re.
iused.-She then asked US to leave it 10
commissioners to determine. We refused
this also: but yet on the same day we au-
thorised Mr.. Leigh TO submit all matters
in difference, which was supposed to in
clude the question whether the foregoing
laws were violations of our right.
Here observe, K certainly had injured
as: She had said we should not locate
our warrants. This threw dificutie. in
our way; and though our people could &c
relief in the courts, yet il this state could
prevail On x to repeal her injurious law
il would facilitate the matter. This then
was what we asked. The complaint We
made. was, Of this law OF K. against locat
ing our warrants. By the compact we had
r;ght to demand that this complaint
should be left to referees. But Kentucky
fused to 20 tbs; niles: We wou also
leave the other matter about the occupy
ing claimant laws to men. and moreover
enter into a guarantee, neither OF which
we're we bound to do. She would not do
what she vas bound 10 do, unless we would
dn what we were not bound to do.