1788.
the ſixth Article certainly deſignates perſons acting as he has done, yet it gives no farther advantage than to protect his perſon from moleſtation, and to preclude any future confiſcations of this property. The confiſcation of the preſent debt, &c. was in the year 1779, and no further proceedings are requiſite to retain the right which the State thereby acquired. The Marquis of Carmarthaen’s complaint of laws paſſed againſt the Treaty did not include laws of this deſcription; for although he muſt have known that ſimilar ones exiſted in Pennſylvania, he admits, that here there are no acts paſſed againſt the Treaty as holding a good title; but it provides for perſons entering into a negotiation for the reconveyance of their forfeited eſtates from ſuch purchaſers.
In the cafe of Reſpublica v. Gordon, (ant. 233.) the confiſcation was compleat before the treaty; and, therefore, though it would have been incompatible with it to have ſuſtained any legal proceedings afterwards in the Supreme Court againſt the Defendant, an act of the Legiſlature became neceſſary to divert the right, which the State had acquired by the previous confiſcation.
The conduct of the Britiſh agents can furniſh no authority to us; but the reaſon for their refuſing to make an allowance for debts was the difficulty of aſcertaining them, and not the preſumption of their being recoverable after the peace. Nor does the act of Connecticut, repealing all laws againſt the treaty, affect the law in queſtion, which is directed to an object of mere municipal regulation. The State had a right to do as they pleaſed with all the confiſcated property; and on any, or no conſideration, to releaſe all his debtors. Whether, indeed, they had recovered the whole, or a part, or whether they have compounded, or diſmiſſed the debt, it could not enure to the benefit of Camp. He cannot now be puniſhed for paſt depredations; but the property veſted in the State of Connecticut, cannot be re-veſted without her authority.
If the treaty is to be conſidered as a reverſal of outlawry, then a reſtitution would enſue; but if it is taken in the light of a pardon, that does not diveſt any thing previouſly veſted in a ſubject, nor even in the King who grants it, unleſs by expreſs words. 3 Bar. Abr. 810. 2 Vin. 401. pl. 4. p. 404. The right of action in the preſent cafe was clearly transferred to Connecticut, and neither expreſsly, or by implication, has ſhe waved it.
After conſidering the cafe and arguments, the President delivered the opinion of the Court in theſe words:
Shippen, Preſident.–The queſtion in this caſe is of importance, both on account of the principles to be eſtabliſhed by the deciſion, and the many caſes which may poſſibly be affected by it. It has been learnedly and ingeniouſly argued on both ſides; but, though large ground has been taken, I think the whole may be reduced to a very moderate compaſs.
This
