Wilmington daily gazette., 1874-07-03

the water and soil Of the river az represent, !
ing such river and Its bed. sTha iarm OF
livery appears by the evidences In the "Pea
Patch case" bAfore Mr.. Sergeant.
". Bot II Penn's utle Wa not coinnlete
under the feoffment from the Duke OF York
Il became 30, at law and 10 'quity ov the
goth Of March, 1883, above ret forth-the
words OF DESCRIPTION In which are Identical
with thoss In The feofiment.
lat. Because Penn being enieoHed by The
Daks. and lessl eeists being thereby ofe-
ated In him. the Duke was estopped from
against hi. prior deed. Hence Psnn's tit 10
became complete al lar ht eetoppel: which
ran with the land.
Shep. Touch. 2O4 2l0-Co. Lit. ga. 49.d.
PloW 423. Rawie ON Gov. tor t,tie. 4o5'
also ihs " hole Chap y. TX. aud the authorities
Treylniau a. LawTonce | Salk. 276: =. G.
Mod. 25S Palmer a. Ekins, 2nd Id. Kayni.
ltsl.
2nj. Because ia equity where cne sells
land having no title, and Afterwards acquires
the ownership. the newly acquired f'Ro'
3rd. Also, hecause IN equiy such grant
or is held TO be u trustee for his gtantee
He may be compelled 10 convey 10 nis
grantee, under covenant for iurtner as
surRnce, any Tile he may uaSe hcu"hoo
since the conveyance.
Penn q. Baltimore, l Yes. ST. page 4a4.
Kildare q. Enstsce. / Vern. 439.
Burgess q. Wheate, Eden 223
2 Sim. q Stuart 5l9.
haW le on Gov. fol title. Chap. VI.
4th. Pen1's tide, though questioned SOME
times IN the courts, as In Lac case ef rem
v. Baltimore in cbzncery, and oftener 10
the Privy Council of retgDs following mat
of Charles III. was never overthrown or
| weakened. On the contrary, the decision
OF Lork Hard icke, in the above clss T.
| mits 1t; and the doubts suggested concern
| ing its validity, in the controversies before
| The Privy Council. never went TO the extent
| of auy steps to establish tHi6 superior 10
his. We refer To The Pea Patch case and
the arguments OF the counsel OF the =. 3.
| aud the evidence shown by them to estao
| lIsh this point.
| 5th. All statutes enacted in the colonies
duripg the 4 uglish rule were subject to SUI
| psrvision by the crown, and were not 10
| become laws if disspprot ed ol 10 SIX months
| from their passage. The statutes enacteo
| by Penn and his deputies, and those VINO
succeeded him. assisted by the Provincial
| Council and the separate assem hies, we're
never disa approved for want OF authnrhy,
during any reign-thus establishing re
copuition Of mis- and their power TO pass
them.
The whole system of political admini5tra- a.
ton under which Pennsylvania and the three
counl,es now imposing Delaware, were gov
erned up to the time of the Revolu ion, was
| the fruit of Penn's jurisdiction and authority
derived in the case of Pennsylvania from lhe
Kinc'a charter of 1851. 1t is impossible to
| conceive such a state of things exis'ing In an
empire SO well governed as that of Great Br-
| tain, without conviction that the right OF the
actor must have been recognized as valid. A
usurpation of authority cannot be Imagined;
| for intercourse with the home government Was
| SO freeuent as 10 preclude such an idea Be
sides it was well known that Penn was gov
crninp Pennsyivapia and The three counties
under a claim OF proprietorship and sovereign
| ty for he was deprived OF The soysegg'l func-
ton for near two years during the reign OF
William and Mary when Benjamin Fletcher
governed in his stead:tut he was no; distmp q
| in his propriety or ownership OF the territory
and his government was restored to him2oth OF
August 1904 by the King and Queen. For me
| evidence upon this point the undersigned pom
| to the legislative records Of Pennsylvania ana
Delaware, and Vol OF the Colonial recoTds
| of Pennsylvania pages 312 and 431.
Theundersign' q also r'fer uTon an 1on
presented to the Pa Pa cl' case, and paIscu-
! iarly to the argu enls II The counsel OF the
| United States aud tbt aatho! Lies records
muniments, testimony and other iht
evidences in favor of the Delaware title ad-
duced by them. Though the case itself is no
techuicallyautho y,yet The positions assumed
| and points made AID the reasoning employed
| in support of thtiu by those counsel and the
decision reached by the distinguished Arbitrator
| the lateHonorable John Sergeant ,are believed
~ "'' JOSEPH P. COMEGTS,
| WILLIAM G.. WHITLEY
July ., 1874. EDWARD L. MARTIN.