Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-05-13

us I'm OF January, l79o, passed an act authorizing the
"ovefptr to grant four large tracts Of country 10 COM
panies OF ipdividnals; eni on the ISL Of the same mon h
tue Goveruor is'ued a grant for one Of The tracts to the
=" Georgia Con pany." AT tbs next session OF the LIE.
gilature, on the 18Th Of February, 1916, an act was
passed to repeal the aci OF 1895. ard anuul the grant is
sued to the company; End this upon the grounds Il a.
the members who vo ed for the act authorizing the
grant, were % have an inter. ST in all the lands TO be
granted; aud that in so doing, they voted corrup,ly and
against the solemn Obligations I ev were under to
toer cen'u'nen's and country. The question was
o,cusht up to the Supreme Court upon an action
OF covenant, comm.i ced in lie Circuit Court Of
Massachu'e,'s, by Fletcher. uJoa a deed execute
ted TO him by Peck, Tor | 5000 acres Of t g land for The
price OF 50 900. The whole matter W A Sc, on, in the
a'sigomehto Of the breach Of covenant, and ia the plead.
ing'. L, was held by the court Ina, It could not sustain
the suit founded on the a LEGATION, that the grant was
repealed ny the subsequeLt act, for the corrupt con-
duet Ct the nembers who passed The law authorizing
II; and tina, when n law in it's nature is a contract, and
when rights bave vested under that contrac', a repeal
OF the law cannot divest those rights, and SO much of
ne act az declsred the grant void, was Of no ell e..
The grant remained uni Impaired. When 50 high.
handed a measure as this h~s been attempted In one OF
inc American S'a'es-when the Legislature Of a free
people has zen atraigned FOR corruption, and il is de-
ciied that their acts, although corrupt, cannot be in.
CURED into, ought we not TO be careful what course we
lake! We are no, lei isla,ipg Tor our own gain; nor can
we lesislate Tor The Iriva,e gain Of or constitu nts
The Legislature Of & .orgia TAI power TO grant the
lands IN The brs' instance, because they belonged TO
tn" S's'e-ard having done so, although corrup,ly, the
court would no, inquire into the corrup: conduct, but,
set ABIDE the second act ai,ose her, because it was in
violation Of The grant of The State, made in obedience
oil a public law, aud which could rot be i'm paired.
III we had The power to forfeit, one mans land abso-
lutely end Immediately , and vest IL in another, we see
that The propriety Of our conduct could not be il quired
into by the courts; and "a seine gentlemen ,biuk we have
THIS power, dos /, become ia TO exercise II, and make
II take effect before our constituents can pass upon our
conduct viii he Senate OF Virginia do this? No
II cannot be!
to the subject uuder conside ration han ether of TIE
ca'ee before referred to-. Ii is the case Of Vanhorn',
'es.es %. Dorrarc', 81 Dallas. 3oi To,s wa, de cid.
ID IN the Circuit Court OF the United States for the dis.
trict OF Pennsylvania. 1, fully pfovss 'ha, the Legis.
i"ure OF a Safe Cannot, from - ere COED will and plea.
sure, nor from a de ire OF quieing iites, reiune he
lands oil one person and give hem to ano her. L, was
a case OF great expectation, involving important con-
stiutionai law in relation % the terri orial controversy
between the States Of PennsylvAnia and Connecticut,
a. well as between The individual claim ants o! The pro-
perry in dispute. The Vile OF .he real plaiu,iH Van.
horn. was regua ly deduce', by several conveyarces
to himself, from the Sir Nations Of Indians, VIII, on
the D h day oil November, l76S, execI'ed a deed fr a
large tract o. country to Thomas and Richard Penn, a e
land in dispute beii < part OF The tract. Tue defendant
in possession claimed, LAT. Tn Ter C.nnec,icu ~. Ur-
der a deed from he Sir. Nations. dated The Ilth OF
July, 1854; AID 81. Under The act passed by The L.gi.
latufe OF Pennsylvania, commonly called the "quis,ing
and confirming act" These claims were respectively
examined and decided on. The claim under Gomez
nut was bad, because the chart-r-bounds OF the
State aver i 'eluded the lands in dispute, and the Penn
" wanna charter bounds did: And the title from the In.
dams was bad, for d-iec cts and fraud appealing on the
face of the del. The whole question turned upon the
va'iity OF The " quoting and confirming ac'," passed in
March, 1877.
eeunty of Luzerne, should be Quoted end confirmed
ia their tides d rv d as telrrs statet; AMI by an ,ther
act, passed in 1889, il was provide hy The LEGISLATURE
OF PN., NAT ell persors claiming lands under Pepnsyl
v MIA authority ard Pa. Grants, and which lands were
occupied by the Connecticut settlers, should be COM
pensated { r the loss OF those so taken from ihem, in
warrants Tor vacaLt lands Of equal value. A Board Of
Commissiore rs was appointed for the purpose; and all
persons desirous Of claiming the benefit OF this lasi pro-
vision, were required, within one year, to exhibit, their
clalns-prove their title and the value nf the cir lands,
which were to he a Judged of by the Board, and 10
receive warran's Tor o her lands Of equal value. The
services OF the Commissioners were re ndered free OF
charge to the claimants. The ease was tried before
Ju'g-s Patterson and Peters; and after stating the poin's
to the jury j. Paterson said TO them:
"To clcss thi' part of III. discourse: 1t l., eontended
that he Legislature must judge OF the necessity ofin-
serposing their despotic au ho'i'y; il 10 a right Of neces.
sty upon which no other p wer in GIvernmen, can
decidf: That no civil institution is perfect and that
cases will o'cur, in which private property must yield
to urg'nt calls At public u'i'i'y or general danger. b.
il so. But then it NUT bs upon comple,e inlemniica-
ton 20 the Individual. Agreed But who shall Judge
OF tbs! Dill there also exist a state necessity, that he
Legislature, or persons solely appointed by them, must
admeasure the compensation, or value OF the lands
s lied and tsken, and the validity of the title ,hereto'
Did a thitd state neGe.sitv exist, that the proprietor
mu't take land ny way Of equivalent for his Land? And
lid a fonrth state necessity exit, that The value OF this
land-equivalent mus b, atjn.ted by the Bo,rd o. pro-
perry, wi hout The consent # the party, or the inter-
vention of a jury' Alas! how necessity begets neces-
Sly. They rise upon each other and become endless.
The proprietor st,pds afar off. a solitary and unpro.
tec'ed s'ember of the community, and is stript of bis
property, without his consent, without a hearing, with.
out noice, III value Of that property judged upon with
out his participation, or the Intervention Of a Jury, nd
the equivalent therefor in lauds ss-ertained in ,he
aame way. Ifihis be the Legislation Ct a Republican
GOVERNMENT, in which the preservation Ct property is
made sacred by the Constitution, I ask, wherein itdf
iers from the mandate of an .fsiafic Pfince' o Unipo-
tence in Legislation 10 de.Foism According 10 this
doctrine, we have nothing that we can cali our own,
or are sure OF for a mon en'; we ate all tenants at the
will, aud hold our landed property at the mere pleasure
OF The Leeisla IRE. Wre,ched si,uatiOn, precarious
tenur AMI yet we hoa't OF property and its security,
OF lave, OF courts, OF Cons itn iois, and call ourselves
free! In sbor', btentn, he confirming act is void;
ltnever had constitutional existence; il is a dead letter,
and OF no more virtue or avail, than If i, never had been
made" The jury found for the plaintiff, and this pat
an end 70 the g quieiing and confirming aci" OF Pa.
Did ( ever enter into the mind of any OF our constiiu
ents, who are afar oil, unapprizsh Of Our &C ions, hat
We would, y a s'ngie act, sweep from the peopl.,ffom
30, 1000. probably to so, 900 titles "a they appear on the
lists? No time il given them 10 pay their DIVES, if any
there be! No time nor means given TO correct errors
TO detect the frauds or mistakes OF officers! N, tine
for those now in possession CT properly, who have no.
nesily paid for II, 10 look back 10 o. 20 YEARS 10 see
whether the taxes were regularly paid before they
zane in possession! No: nothing Of this ia allowed by
the q section. The 81 gives some time, which will, OF
course, mitigate son g Of the eyIls il relation 10 the
lands proposed to be forfeited by il. He infer frors
these ~a6judged cases, tha, the authority conteuded for
cahroi be sustained upon any right in the Legislature
to resume property, and re-grant il, With O view even
of promoting the public int, rest.
He would now examine the question in relation to
the1ands upon which the Commonwealth holds a lien
Tor the arrears Of taxes, as a mere question Of contract,
and show that the Legislature, cannot, by its own ar
nltFaTV act COnyprf tho lion ipan a EygfoiI,fra of the