1788.
would be neceſſary to tranſport, not only the public ſtores, but alſo ſuch private effects, as it might be thought expedient to remove.
Several intercepted letters having increaſed the apprehenſions of Congreſs, on the 16th of April, 1777, they reſolved "that it be recommended to the Preſident and Members of the executive authority of this State, to requeſt the commanding officer of the continental forces in this city, to take the moſt effectual means, that all proviſions, and every other article, which, by falling into the hands of the enemy, may aid them in their operations of war againſt the United States, or the loſs of which might dutreſs the continental army, be immediately removed to ſuch places, as ſhall be deemed moſt convenient and ſecure."
This recommendation was tranſmitted by the Executive Council to the Pennſylvania Board of War, who, on the 18th of April, paſſed an order, that “ houſes, barns, ſtores, &c. ſhould be hired or ſeized, for the reception of ſuch articles, as ſhould be ſent out of the city by their direction or that of Congreſs;” and, accordingly, a very conſiderable quantity of property was ſoon removed to Cheſnut Hill, and placed under the care of Meſſrs. Laughead and Barnhill; who gave receipts to the owners, promiſing “ to reſtore what belonged to them reſpectively, or to deliver the ſame to their reſpective orders.”
The enemy, not approaching ſo rapidly as was expected, a conſiderable part of this property had, accordingly, been re-delivered to the order of the owners, before the city was entered by the Britiſh troops, when, however, the depot at Cheſnut-Hill fell, likewiſe, into their hands,and, with it, 227 barrels of flour, belonging to Sparhawk; being the remainder of 323 barrels that had been originated removed thither, in conſequence of the above mentioned proceedings.
For the price of theſe 227 barrels of flour, with intereſt from the time of their being taken, Sparhawk exhibited an account, amounting to Ł919 6 6 againſt the public; upon which the Comptroller-General reported to the Executive Council, that "neither the principal, the intereſt, nor any part of either, could be allowed," and againſt this deciſion the preſent appeal was entered.
The queſtion,therefore, on the motion for a new trial, was, whether this claim, under all the circumſtances, ought to be admitted? and it was argued on the 28th of April, by Ingerʃol, for the Appellant; and the Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
On the part of the Appellant, it was premiſed, that, in a ſeaſon of peace, the law had ſo great a regard for private property, that it would not authorize the leaſt violation of (illegible text) not even for the general good of the whole community. 1 Black. Com. 139. And, it was contended, that, although a ſtate of war entitled one nation to ſeize and lay waſte the property of another, and their reſpective ſubjects to molefſt the perſons, and to ſeize the effects of their opponents, yet, as between a ſtate and its own citizens, the principle, with reſpect to the rights of property, is immutably the ſame, in war as well as peace. Sometimes, indeed, the value of the pub-
lic
