Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1823-09-16

10 continue u after.
But where would this land uS VI the State of |
Kentucky had, ty law, enacted, that the dow er of
widow should extend to life estate in ont-halC Of
her husband lau6, would the widow of Vi,unan, |
whose husband died the day after have lost ala. heu-
EFT al th> law ecause the laws of Virginia had gi,
ca the wife inchose right la bat thi1d This
would he cutting deep. indeed, mo the sovereign
powers OF Kentucky, and would be establishing the
anomaly OF u TERRITORY over which no government !
could lesi,aie noi Virginia, Tor She had parted |
with the sOveregut not Kentucky. Tor the laws cf
Virginia wee "revocaby fastened upon o-thirts
OF her terrUury
But, 1t Il commended, that the clause of the COM
pact under considerations, must have meant more
than what Is implied every OF territory, or
II was nngAtoty 10 have inserted IL.
confess, canno, discover the force Of this argu-
mcni. In thr present IL admits OF two answers
the one Is found an the very particular of the
lIud titles created by Virgiuia. and Ken floating over
the State Of Kentucky. Land they were not aud vet
ALI the attributes ofeal estate extended TO them
and intruded by the compact to- he preserved 10
thee" unde: The dominion of the new STAT. There
was, then, something than the ordinary ighis Of
individuals IN tie cededterri,ory to he perpe uat-d, aud
enough 20 Justify the insertion Of snch provison As
" ne'eS'"ry measure But, there is another answer
TO ne l"und ~ the ordinary practice OF nations in
tielr treaties, ~ which, from abundant caution, or,
perhaps, diplomatic parade, many stipulaiions
inserted tor the preservation of tights winch civil
Ian would suppose could he affected by Il change Of
sovereignty. Wiluess the frequent sIipnlntions for
the restoration Of wrecked goods or goods ~, atiea
~ taken witness, also, the third article of the ,rea-
l ~
my FLORIDA, huih OF winch are intended TO secure To
| the 'nhahianiahis oil the ceded territory, rights
which, under our civil institutions could not be with
| held f,oui them.
Bat, let us reverse the picture, and inquire
whether this stimulation Of The compact or g. he con-
Situations prescribed no Limits the legislative power
of Kentucky over the coded territory Had the Stale
oi hen.ucky, Immediately after it was Organized
passed a Law, declaring, that wherevera plaintiff n
jcctment, or IN writ of right, shall have establish
ed his riehl in law 10 recover The iury shall vain.
., Tnr tta
land, and The writ OF possession, the plaintiff shall
nave ms judgment Tor the value assessed, aud the
ordinary process Of law to recover "a sum of money
on Judgement who is there who would not have felt
thai THIS was mere mockeIy of the compact a vio-
'ton oil The h's principle of private right, and of
iaith ~ contracts lct such law is, IN degree. NOT
IN principle, variant from the occupying claimant
| laws under consideration, and the same latitude of
legislative power which viii justify the one, would
/ Justify the other
| But, again, the other hand (and acknowIe,Irc
tha' am cropping my way through abyriutl trying
10 lay hold OF sensible objects 10 guide me y who can
DOUBT that where private property had heen wanted
Tor national purposes, the legislature of Kentucky
might have compelled the individual 20 convey !, C,r
value rendered, Notwithstanding it was held under
! - grant rom Virginia, aud Notwithstanding such a
violation al private RIGHT had been even cousti,,t-
! tonaly forbidden hy The State of Vioinin Or
VINO can doubt the power of Kentucky tn regulate
| the course oil descens, the forms OF convey
ing, the rowerof devisng, the maiurc and extent
~ "ehS wlhih her territorial limits For example ::
By the civil law, the workman who erecIs an etice
acquires lien on both the buildiug and TIE land il
s''nGS upon, Tor payment of his bill. WHY should
not the Stale at kentmcky have adopted this wise
and just principle ino her jurisprudence Or why
NOT nave extended 10 the Of the labouIrr ~ ho
'e."sa held YET, m principle, the occupyimg
ca'i1nt laws, @ least that of 1897. was really IN
tended to engraf THIS very provision into the Ken
lucky code, as 10 The innocent iniprover OF another
man : property. II was thought, and Justly thought
that as tie Safe OF Virginia had pursIed a course Of
legislation IN settling the country which had inI,o
dnccd such state of confusion m the titles 10 landed
properly as rendered II impossible for her so guaranty
am specihc tract 10 the individual. i, was but fair
and right security should he held our 10 him for
! The lahour and expense bestowed in improvinr The
couH'fi and thai where the successful claimant re-
covered is land, enhanced in value by The labonrs
o' '"oher, At was but righI that he should make
compensation icr the enhanced value To secure
us "rheh' To me Occupying claimant, give lien
/ upon The land Tor his indemnify and avoid the no
CeSss o. SUIT IN equity wete in fact, the sole Oh
jecIs OF ie act Of 1871 The misfortune of this sys
lem appears TO nave hecn, that to curtlil Irrigation by
providing the means of closing This account CURE n,
ol rights aud liabilities Ia Court of law and IN a
single 'H So as 10 obviae the necessity OF going INTO
e'l"'! or OF an action Tor mesne profits on tIe one
side, aud an action for compensation ON the otber
appears To- nave absorbed the attention of the egis-
hlnre. Tue consequence of which is thar a course
"I proceeding, qule inconsistent with The simplicity
Z" We common law process, and curious debit and
Cie"l oil ianu, damages and mesne profits on the one
mana, ana OF 9N1HfHp Periit on the other has been
adopted, exhibiting an anomaly well calculated TO
alarm me precise notions Of the common law
but suppose, that instead of i'm posing this complex
mote al coming NJ the end propose d, the legislature
oil henIncky had passed law simply declaring thai
the innocent mProver OF lands, Ui,onf notice should
nave MS acon To recover indemnify for his improve
menis, aud lien on the premises so imnroved in
preference 10 all other creditors can see no urin-
cIpe on which such law could be declared uncon-
siniona' nor any tling that is 10 prevent The
parry from enforcing 1t in any Court having competent
| jurisdiction.
! But the inconsistency which strikes every one in
considering HE laws as they now stand ia thar one
| party shoUdl have verdict, and another finally
me judgment That, eOdeHl fafu, the plaintiff should
! TILED TO recover land.
! Alier thus mooiine The difficulties Of this case !
| am led Ia Tire opinion that If we depart from The
restricted construction Of the article under consdera
non, we are left 10 float a sea of uncertaintv
! as TO the extent OF the legislative power of Ken.
! lucky over the territory held under Viro,n,
grants that Il, obliged 70 elect between the assumed
exercise aud the utter eStinction Of The mower Of
Kentucky o er the subject, would adopt the for
! nrr mat every qnesi0n between extremes is one
o expectancy diplomacy, rather than of judicial
cognzancc, aud not &c decided before This tri, n
! nat IL compelled TO decide the constutouaIi-
] " 81 Nee laws, strictly speaking | would saw
hh ihey M no wise mpugn the force uf the laws of
Virginia, under which the titles Of landhoiders are
derived, but operate To enforce right acquired sub.
sequ'hiy, ana cap1bie OF existing consistently with
! 'h"se acquired und&r HE laws Of Virginia. cannot
auui, that a. was ever the intention Of the Trainers
OF tbs constitution, Of the pafes 10 this compac,
Or al The United ates, n slnctioniap that comDact
that Kentucky should be for ever chained down TO a
| state oi hopeless observation-disclosures ed with n
thousand fanuic DETERMINATIONS drawn from the conn
! mon law, reG1eHcnts on mesne profits set-oHs &c
appropriate 10 stale Of society, and Stale OF pro-
pery, having analogy Whatever 10 the actual state
OF things ~ keutgcky--and yet, no power on earth
eS sling 10 repeal % alter or TO effect those accom-
! l9uhHons TO Tie ever varying state Of human things
when the necessities or Improvements Of society NAV
| require. u any thing more was intended than tie