professional abilities may be." From the above ex-
pressions of opinion, it is apparent that the new Judges,
Chase and Ellsworth, must have come into a Court
none too enthusiastic to accept them.
At the February Term of 1796, six cases were heard, two of which were of the highest importance. In Ware^ AdifCr. V. HyttoTiy 8 Dallas, 199, there was presented the great question of vital interest to the relation of the States to the Federal Government, whether State laws confiscating and sequestrating debts due to a British enemy or allowing their payment in depreciated cur- rency were valid against the provisions of the treaty with Great Britain. Its decision involved the pecu- niary fortunes of the States as well as of hundreds of American citizens ; in Virginia alone it was estimated there were more than $2,000,000 of such British debts. Political excitement over the case was intense; and in view of the divisions of the country on pro-British and pro-French factions a decision in favor of the British creditors was likely to strengthen the Anti-Federalist party and the opponents of the Administration. As Edmund Randolph wrote to Washington: "The late debates concerning British debts have served to kindle a wide-spreading flame. The debtors are associated with the Anti-Federalists, and they range themselves under the standard of Mr. Henry, whose ascendancy has risen to an immeasurable height.*' ^ The question had been originally argued in Virginia before Judges Johnson and Blair, and District Judge Griffin, in September, 1791, and again in May, 1793, before Chief
» See PfOrick Hmry (1891), by William Wirt Henry. H, 472. 476. 6S6. The Connecticut Journal said. Sept. 29, 1794: "The high-flying Democrats are continually 'letting the cat out of the bag.* As late as the last month, the Grand Jury of the Federal Circuit G>urt in Virginia presented as a national grievance the reoovery of debts due to British subjects, contracted prior to the year 1774. Spendall in the play says, 'It is a cursed thing to pay debts — it has ruined many a man.’" See also WiH, U, letter to Gihner. Nov. 2, 1828.
