1781.
and operation of the law, however, the priſoner is now precluded from controverting, if, at anytime before the date of the proclamation, he was a ſubject of the State of Pennſylvania.
Here, then, the matter reſts. Had, the iſſue been in the diſjunctive, the priſoner would clearly have come within the deſcription of an inhabitant of Pennſylvania; but when the word ſubject is annexed, it means a ſubjection to ſome ſovereign power, and is not barely connected with the idea of territory—it refers to one who owes obedience to the laws, and is entitled to partake of the elections into public office. On this point, therefore, we muſt again advert to the act of Aſſembly, declaring what ſhall be treaſon, which has no retroſpect, and to the act for the revival of the laws, which implies a ſuſpenſion of all the laws from the 14th of May 1776, to the 11th of Feb. 1777. If there were no laws to be obeyed during that period, the priſoner could not be deemed a ſubject of the State of Pennſylvania on the 26th day of December 1776. Whether the Legiſlature meant to include this caſe we will not poſitively determine;—it is a new one, and we ought to tread cautiouſly and ſecurely: But, at all events, it is better to err on the ſide of mercy, than of ſtrict juſtice.
The jury found a verdict of not Guilty.
September Term, 1781.
Respublica verſus Joshua Buffington.
The Attorney General filed a ſuggeſtion, ſlating, that Joſhua Buffington of the county of Cheſter, yeoman, being a ſubject, or inhabitant of the State, was by proclamation of the Supreme Executive Council, dated the 2d of October 1780, required in purſuance of the attainder law, to ſurrender himſelf to a juſtice of the Supreme Court &c. on or before the 13th of November, 1780, to abide his legal trial for the treaſons in the proclamation mentioned, &c. That the ſaid Joſhua Buffington did not ſurrender himſelf, &c. whereby he is attained, &c. and he prays an award of execution.
Joſhua
