Page images
PDF
EPUB

HAZARD'S

REGISTER OF PENNSYLVANIA.

DEVOTED TO THE PRESERVATION OF EVERY KIND OF USEFUL INFORMATION RESPECTING THE STATE.

VOL. VIII.-NO. 15.

EDITED BY SAMUEL HAZARD.

PHILADELPHIA, OCTOBER 8, 1831. NO. 197

[blocks in formation]

Gentlemen of the Inquest-We have, after a long and laborious investigation, arrived nearly at the close of this case. Its importance, not only to the persons in possession, but particularly to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, demanded a patient and serious examination. This it has received. It now becomes my duty, as the representative of the interests of the Commonwealth, to lay before you the grounds upon which this property is claimed as an Escheat. In doing so, it will be my object to select from the great mass of testimony that has been offered, such parts as really have any bearing upon the immediate points in issue; and to present them for your consideration in as plain and simple a shape as the nature of this case will admit.

[ocr errors]

see a former number [Register, p. 209] of the paper containing it. He then proceeded.)

The first question for your inquiry, and to which your attention must be particularly directed, is, Did John Reynolds die intestate, without heirs or any known kindoubt, gentlemen, of the death of John Reynolds, aldred? 1st, Did he die intestate? There can be no though it has been seriously urged that there is no evidence of it, and that you should not be permitted to presume it. The Patent was granted to him in 1687, and supposing him to be then only 21 years of age, he would at this time, if living, have numbered 162 years. The time that has elapsed, therefore, is sufficient to raise a presumption of his death. Independent, however, of any presumption, you have in evidence the admission of the settlers themselves, in all their proceedings with the commonwealth in relation to this land, that John Reynolds is dead.

Did he then die intestate? It has been shown by the certificate of the Register of this county, that there is no will of John Reynolds on record in his office; and also by the certificate of the Register of the city and It has been objected in the outset of this case, and county of Philadelphia, that there is no will on record urged strenuously in the argument of it, that this Court in that office from the year 1687 to 1776, both inclusive. has no authority to take cognizance of the case now If John Reynolds had died testate in this county, his trying but that the decision of it belongs to the Board will must have been recorded in one of these offices; of Property, under the act of Ap. 5, 1782, 2 Smith's and consequently, as no will has been found, it is suffiLaws, p. 15. The determination of this question forms ciently proved that he died intestate. It has been no part of the matter you are called upon to decide. urged, however, that he might have died in England, The oath or affirmation that you have severally taken is, and left a will on record in that country; and that his that you will diligently inquire whether John Rey-intestacy has not been made out, inasmuch as there has nolds, late of the county of Bucks, hath died intestate, been no certificate adduced in evidence, showing that and whether he was at the time of his death seized or there is no will on record in that country. Even adpossessed of any and what estate, real or personal, in mitting that he died testate in England, still, unless the county aforesaid, and also in whose hands or posses such will is executed and proved according to the laws sion the same shall be." You cannot therefore extend of this State, it would not pass real property situated in your inquiry to questions relating exclusively to the this county (Tol. Ex, 72;) though as respects personal power and authority of this court; but must confine property the case would be different. (1 Binn. 266.) yourselves to the matters contained in the oath that it has then, I think, been clearly shown, that John has been administered to you. The question of juris-Reynolds died intestate. diction must be determined by another tribunal. Suffice it to say; that the proceeding in this cage is founded on the 14th sec. of the act of 1787, which expressly authorizes the cognizance of cases of Escheat happening as well previously, as since the Revolution.

By the 28th sec. of this act, it is provided, "that if any person, who at the time of his or her death, was seized or possessed of any real or personal estate within this commonwealth, die intestate, without heirs or any known kindred, such estate shall Escheat to the Commonwealth, subject to all legal demands on the same." In order then to establish the Escheat of this land, it is necessary that the commonwealth should prove, 1st, That John Reynolds hath died intestate, without heirs or known kindred.

2d, That he was at the time of his death seized or possessed of this property.

3d, It is also necessary to show in whose hands or possession the said land may be.

(Before Mr. Ross proceeded to an examination of these points, he presented the Jury with a history of the proceedings that had at different periods taken place in relation to this property, as far as it could be collected from the evidence adduced. For this statement, VIII VOL.

26

The next point under this division of the case is, did he die without heirs or known kindred? This might be presumed from the fact; that although a period of 144 years has elapsed, no one has been able to establish his title to the property, as the heir of John Reynolds. You are, however, not asked to presume it; you have the admissions of it by those under whom the present holders of this land claim. Upon examining the Escheat Warrants of 1769, you will find that the settlers themselves represented to the commonwealth, that John Reynolds had died "without issue, relation, or known kindred," &c. The present holders claim under the persons to whom these Escheat Warrants were granted; so that you have the express declarations of the parties immediately interested, admitting the fact; stronger evidence than this could not be offered. These Escheat Warrants are the foundations upon which rest the titles which Betts and Bonner have obtained from the Commonwealth; and which if the representation then made be now denied by you, can convey no title, although they have received patents for the respective quantities of this tract. In addition to what I deem such strong conclusive testimony, we have also the decision of the Board of Property made in 1794, upon the caveats

226

[ocr errors]

LAW CASE-ESCHEAT COURT.

[OCTOBER

filed in 1788 by the persons claiming to be the heirs of In support of this branch of the case, a warrant for John Reynolds. The Board in their decision say :- 1000 acres of land in Bucks county, granted "at the Heatly and Tilghman, counsel for the caveators, re- request of Zach Whitpaine in behalf of John Reynolds, spectively appearing, and producing divers testimony, has been read in evidence. This warrant is dated the some in support of an English John Reynolds, and some 18th of February 1687. A return was made of the of that under an Irish John Reynolds, neither of which survey on this warrant the 7th of May 1687; and a pais satisfactory to the Board, therefore the said caveats tent issued to John Reynolds the 8th of July in the are dismissed, and patents allowed to the said settlers, same year, for 984 acres, the quantity returned in the &c." Thus it appears that so late as 1794, the Board survey. It has, however, been strongly contended, that of Property examined this matter, and not only decided these proceedings are no evidence that John Reynolds against the claims of those representing themselves as was ever seized or possessed of this property; and the heirs of John Reynolds, but directed patents to particularly that it was necessary for the commonwealth issue to the settlers. This decision, independent of to have shown that this land was seated and improved the Escheat Warrants of 1769, goes far towards esta. by John Reynolds within three years after the survey blishing the point that I am now considering, particu-made upon it. A patent is prima facie evidence, that larly if taken in connexion with the other strong pre- the title is vested in the patentee, [2 Binn. 12,] and in sumptive evidence. [Here Mr. Ross also commented this State, title draws after it, as a legal incident, a conupon the Report of the Board of Property, made in structive possession, unless where the land is held ad1784, and the petition presented to the Legislature in versely, (4 Serg. and Rawle, 466.) It has been shown 1831, together with the report of the committee, to that John Reynolds received a patent. This was prima whom had been referred the petition.] facie evidence of his title. It threw the onus of disproving it upon the occupiers of this land, who now deny the title. If John Reynolds did not seat and improve this land within three years after the survey, according to the tenth article of the concessions agreed upon, between William Penn and the first purchasers, it rested with them to show it, and not with the commonwealth, as has been contended. Some of you, gentlemen, I believe, own land originally patented to the first purchasers; and can you for a moment believe, that in order to derive a title from the commonwealth, you would be called upon not only to produce the patent, but also to show that the land had been settled and improved within three years from the survey? Who of you could make the requisite proof? Such, however, is not the law. The party disputing your title would be bound to show that the settlement required had not been made. In this case, what evidence have the present occupiers offered, to show that the land was not settled or improved within three years?

To refute this evidence, you have the declarations of Samuel Reynolds that he is an heir; made at different times and to different individuals, once I believe before the committee of the Legislature. The church records of Chichester, in England, have also been offered in evidence, to show that John Reynolds left heirs.

First, as respects the declaration of Samuel Reynolds, I would observe, that they can have no weight with you in your decision of this point; as well might the commonwealth call upon you to receive the information, which he has filed as evidence of the facts therein stated, as the counsel for the claimants to ask you to receive his declarations, as sufficient evidence of John Reynolds dying without heirs. If he be really an heir, why has he not long since established his claim? Why has he surrendered to the commonwealth all his right to the property, as heir, and preferred receiving but one-fifth of this land, when he might have received the whole? The fact is, it is in evidence, that he did endeavour to establish his claim, and was unable to do so. So far then as respects Samuel Revnolds being the heir of John Reynolds, it has been clearly established that he is not. I lay it down to you, however, gentlemen, that the right of the commonwealth to property that is alleged to have Escheated, cannot be defeated by the mere declarations of a person that he is an heir, whether such person be the informer, or a mere stranger to the proceedings of Escheat. The heirship must be clearly and satisfactorily made out. Mere suspicion or The recital in the patent to Struttell, is also relied rumour that a person is an heir, is not sufficient to jus-upon to show that this land had not been settled, and tify you in finding a verdict, that property has not that the Proprietary Government had resumed the Escheated. grant. Upon an examination of the re-survey of 1781, you will find, gentlemen, that no part of the 500 acres patented to Struttell, was embraced within the Reynolds' tract. This therefore can be no evidence that the Commonwealth resumed the grant, neither is there any thing in the recital which proves that Reynolds did not settle the land; it is the mere representation of an individual applying for land made in 1742, fifty-five years after the patent to John Reynolds. It was impossible, therefore, for Struttell to have known whether the land had been seated or improved within the three years; at any rate, his declaration is no evidence of the fact. On the contrary, it is evident from the letter of James Steel, written in 1739, that the land had been for some time settled previous to that period. So that the representation of Struttel is expressly contradicted by this letter of Steel's, who it seems at that time assumed the charge and care of this property.

They contend that the warrant having been taken out by Zach Whitpaine, the inference is strong that John Reynolds never was in this country; and consequently, that the land could not have been settled by him. Zach, Whitpaine took out the warrant in behalf of Reynolds, and acted as his agent. If, therefore, you believe that Whitpaine settled the land, it was the same as if Reynolds himself had done it; the maxim of the law being, "Qui facit per alium, facit per se."

Then we have the church records of Chichester to the same point. These records show that there was a John Reynolds born in England, 24th of October 1651, They prove nothing more than that a man by the name of John Reynolds was born in England, and that he had brothers also born there; but whether it was the same John Reynolds who obtained a patent from the Proprietary does not appear; on the contrary it is to be presumed, that it was not the same John Reynolds, because these church records were certified in England in 1790, and in 1794 the Board of Property made their decision upon the caveats filed by the individuals claiming to be the heirs of John Reynolds. There can be no doubt therefore that these records were procured for the purpose of establishing the right of the caveators, claiming under the English John Reynolds; particularly if it be recollected that these records have been until lately in possession of a family representing themselves as descended from John Reynolds. Then, gentlemen, the commonwealth has I think satisfactorily shown, that John Reynolds died intestate without heirs or known kindred.

The next question for your consideration is, did he die seized or possessed of this land?

It is manifest that the Commonwealth has always admitted that John Reynolds was seized and possessed of this land, and that she has done no act, from which the presumption can be drawn that Reynolds forfeited his title to it. In granting the Escheat Warrants of 1769, in making the re-survey of 1781, and the contract of 1784; in issuing patents to Betts and Bonner, and in

1831.)

LAW CASE-ESCHEAT COURT.

227

purchase money from some of the tenants; as well as by the issuing of Escheat Warrants; thereby granting the pre-emption right. The purchase money that was paid was in pursuance of the contract which the settlers themselves made the State, and was founded entirely on the admission by the occupiers themselves, that the State had a right to this land as Escheated property.So far, therefore, from this being a waiver, it on the contrary, is a positive assertion of her right, in consequence of the Escheat.

deciding upon the caveats filed by Isaac and Jesse Reynolds; and in the course pursued by the Legislature at the last session relative to this matter, the commonwealth has always proceeded upon the ground that Reynolds had been seised of this property. This alone would be sufficient evidence, that Reynolds had obtained a perfect title. But there is still stronger evidence of it, and such as must be decisive of this question. You have the acts and declarations of the settlers themselves, from the year 1751 to 1831, admitting that John Reynolds had been seised and possessed of this property. You will find upon referring to the petition presented at the last session of the Legislature, that so early as 1751 the settlers entered into a contract for the purchase of this land with a certain Emanuel Rouse, who represented himself as a purchaser from the heirs of John Reynolds. This contract, however, was not carried into execution, Rouse being unable to make such a title as the settlers required. If Reynolds had forfeited his right, why did they thus wish to purchase the property from a person professing to derive title from the heirs of Reynolds? But again, in making application for the Escheat Warrants, they say "that a certain John Reynolds was in his life time lawfully seised in his demesne as of fee, of and in a certain tract of land, situate, &c. Here then you have the clear and explicit declaration of the persons under whom the present occupiers claim; that John Reynolds was law-made for the land before. In order, therefore, to se fully seised of this property. This admission, thus solemnly made, and repeatedly recognised by some of the present tenants, not only in their contracts with the State, but in their conveyances so late as 1813, renders unnecessary any further discussion of this point; and is conclusive that John Reynolds was seised and possessed of this land,

ty.

Then, as respects as the Escheat Warrants. It is contended that these warrants have vested a title in the tenants; and that the act of 1787 cannot under such circumstances extend to Escheats, happening before the revolution. For the support of this doctrine, the 2d provision of the 15th Section of the Act of 1787, is relied upon. This section provides, that the claim of no person shall be affected by the Act of 1787, who shall be possessed of any Escheat happening before the revolution, by virtue of an Escheat Warrant. But the next section provides, nevertheless, that such Escheat Warrant and survey made thereon, must be returned into the office of the Surveyor General, within two years after the publication of the act, and also provides that the purchase money, together with the interest due thereon, be satisfied within one year thereafter, where such survey hath not been duly returned and satisfaction

cure these persons from the operation of this act, it is necessary for them to show, that the surveys upon their Escheat Warrants, were returned into the Surveyor General's Office within two years after the publication of the Act; and also, that the purchase money and interest was paid within one year after the return of the survey. Have they shown this? Unquestionably they But it remains to be shown, that he was seized and have not. On the contrary, there have been but five repossessed of the land at the time of his death. You turns of Surveys on these Warrants adduced in evihave in evidence the certificate of the Recorder of this dence; some of which were returned so late as 1814; county, that upon examining the Record of Deeds for and only three individuals have paid any part of the said county, from the year 1684, there is no Deed on purchase money. The Escheat Warrants, therefore, record from John Reynolds for any land in Bucks Coun- do not take their case out of the operation of this act of You have also the certificate of the Recorder of 1787. It is true, they gave them the pre-emption right, the city and county of Philadelphia, that there is no in preference to Ellicott and Kinsey, and indeed, all conveyance on record in his office, made by John Rey- others. This right, however, has never perfected so as nolds from 1684 to 1776. If Reynolds had made a con. to give them a title,excepting by Betts and Bonner, who veyance of this land, the deed must have been recorded have obtained patents. (Mr. Albert Smith, one of the in one of those offices; consequently, if you believe that counsel for the settlers, here referred the Escheator to he was ever seized and possessed, you must also believe the Acts of Assembly, providing for the payment of the that he died su seizedand possessed. I think, gentle- public debt, and the acts generally relative to the pamen, that you will find no difficulty in making up your tenting of lands, to show that the limitation, in the 16th inquisition, as to the second point of inquiry, to wit:- section of the Act of 1787, had been extended, even at "That John Reynolds died seized and possessed of this the last session.) I do not think, gentlemen, that the tract of land, now claimed by the State as an Escheat." acts referred to by Mr. Smith, relate to cases of EsBefore I proceed to consider the remaining question cheat Warrants. Two of them were passed previous for your inquiry, it may be proper for me to notice some to the act of 1787, and relate to Indian lands, the othof the points, that have been raised by the counsel for ers, I conceive, do not extend the limitation mentioned the tenants. They consist of two leading questions:-in the act of 1787. But I will even admit that they do;nay, 1st. Have the Proprietaries, or the Commonwealth, I will go further, and admit, for the sake of argument, done any act that amounts to a direct or implied waiver that these settlers have a title by their Escheat Warof her right to the Escheat? 2d. Have the occupiers of rants; still it will not affect the question we are trying, the land acquired a vested right in it by occupancy, im- it only establishes the fact, that this land Escheated be-' provement or otherwise? As to these points, I think fore 1769, and this is all that is necessary for the Comthere is no difficulty. What have the Proprietaries of monwealth to prove. In considering this case, you are the Commonwealth done to waive the right? It is ur- not limited to any time of finding when the Escheat ged, that they have lain by and acquiesced, until the happened; the question is, "Whether this land ever possessors had obtained a title? In what does the evi- did Escheat;"-and it is this which you have sworn to dence of this consist? It is admitted, that so early as try. The time when the Escheat happened is totally 1739, the Proprietary Government exercised a control immaterial; and your finding the Escheat, does not anover it, and that in the years 1767 and 1769,she claimed nul the contract. It is, in fact, the ground upon which the right to it, upon the representation of the settlers the contract was made; and unless you find that this themselves. This right has also been recognised by land has Escheated, either in 1769, or at any other pethe Commonwealth, with the consent of the settlers, in riod, I do not see how the contract ever can be enforc1781, '84, '87, '94, and in 1831. Is there any thing in ed, or the purchase money recovered from these tenall this that has the least semblance to an acquiescence ants. If the land never did Escheat, (and this is the alin the claim of the occupiers of the land, or to a relin-legation on the part of the tenants,) the State certainly quishment of her own right? For my part I can see none. had no right to the property; and, therefore, could not It is also said, that she has waived her right by receiving contract for that, which did not belong to her. In or

228

GOVERNOR MIFFLINS' MESSAGE.

der then, to establish this contract, it is necessary to prove that the land has Escheated. But whether this contract can be enforced, forms no matter for your consideration. The point now considering is, whether the State waived her right by issuing these Escheat WarFrom the view that I have taken of these Warrants, she most assuredly did not.

rants.

We now come to the other point, viz: Have the occupiers of the land acquired a vested right in it by occupancy, improvement, or otherwise." There is no doubt that occupancy of unappropriated land will give a pre-emption right, and which if diligently pursued, will give to the occupant a complete equitable title.To such title even the right of the Commonwealth, or of the person subsequently deriving title from the commonwealth, will be postponed. The case under consideration is not, however, a case of unappropriated land.— The title to the land in question had passed from the Commonwealth to John Reynolds, and had become vested in him. There is another mode in this state of obtaining title to land by mere occupancy, and that is under the Statute of Limitations. The commonwealth, however, is not affected by the Statute of Limitations, although is has been urged upon you, apparently with some degree of seriousness, that she is. The statute does not run against the Commonwealth; but even if it did, she could not be barred in this case, as at no time has there been an adverse possession of these lands.

sons.

(OCTOBRE

and of others by signing the petition presented to the
legislature, amounting altogether to about twenty per
possession of this property, you have it in your power
If you entertain any doubt as to the persons in
to adjourn until further evidence on this point is addu-
ced. I do not think there is any necessity for this mea-
sure, as the point in my opinion is clearly proved.
cheat.
It requires twelve of your number to find the Es-
As many, however, as believe that the land has
escheated, may also sign the Inquisition. If twelve do
not agree, no Inquisition of Escheat can be returned.
You may separate the land which has been Patented
may Escheat the whole tract, and leave the Patentees
and paid for, and return the rest as Escheated; or you
This latter mode will be the more proper,as the common-
to prove their title upon a traverse of the Inquisition.
to 1769, and long before the Patents were issued to
wealth alleges the Escheat to have happened previous
Betts and Bonner.

what I believed to be my duty; and I trust that you will I have now, Gentlemen, conscientiously discharged enter upon the performance of yours with a single eye to the authority of the laws, and the maintenance of those principles of justice to which the Commonwealth is entitled equally with individuals. to contribute something to the government that protects We are all bound us in our rights, and secures us in our possessions, and Mr. Smith, with much ingenuity, has endeavoured to something to the Commonwealth for the land they oc it is but fair that the tenants of this tract should pay show, by a calculation of interest, that these lands must cupy, and which they expressly admit has been granthave been settled previous to the year 1720, and thated to them by the Commonwealth. they were so settled with the consent of the Proprieta- however, be made without any regard to the conse. Let your decision, ry Government. A letter written by James Steel, in quences that may follow; and pause ere you disregard 1739, in behalf of the Proprietaries, for the purpose of not only the rights of the Commonwealth, but also the preventing the commission of waste, has also been read solemn acts of the tenants themselves, admitting all that in evidence to show that these lands were settled with is now asked. the consent of the government. It is then argued, that filled my duty, and it remains for you fearlessly to perThe case is in your hands. I have fulif settled at that time with the consent of the Proprie- form yours. taries, the period that has elasped, accompanied by their quiet possession and improvements, would secure to them a right of property against the sovereign power of the state itself. However, this may be, suffice it to say, that the settlers themselves have never denied the title of the Commonwealth; and that, so far from claim ing under a grant from the State, accompanied by pos session and improvement, they have not only accepted Escheat Warrants, but have contracted with the State in 1784, for this very land, and which contract has been recognised by them in the conveyances made, so late as 1813. All pretence, then, of a claim of this kind, is negatived by almost every act of the settlers themselves. Many cases have been referred to, and much law cited by the counsel for the tenants in possession, in support of their different positions, but which, so far as I am able to judge, do not apply to the facts of this case. The principles laid down are not denied, but merely their application to the case under consideration.

John Reynolds, in the writ named, did not die intestate, The Inquest returned the following verdict "That without heirs or known kindred, and that the land which was patented to him the 8th of July, 1687, lying and being in the county of Bucks, has not Escheated to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

GOVERNOR MIFFLIN'S MESSAGE. The following message should, in point of time, have preceded that contained in our last number. The present one having been delivered at an extra session of the Legislature, was overlooked. The message calls to mind some interesting events of the period when it

was written.

Representatives!

The third and last subject matter for your inquiry is FRIDAY, AUGUST 13th, 1793. The Address of the Governor, being called for by Mr. to ascertain in whose hands or possession this tract of Smilie and Mr. Smith, was read as follows, to wit, land now is. This point has also, I think, been satisfac-"Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of torily shown. It is proved that a printed notice was served upon, I believe, 34 persons, either personally, or by leaving a copy at their dwelling-houses. The substance of this notice was, that an Escheat Court would be held on a particular day, to ascertain whether a certain tract of land, a part of which was in their possession, had escheated to the Commonwealth. The coun. sel who have appeared before you, acknowledged that they represented the persons who were thus notified, but have not attempted to show that any part of this land was in their possession. On the contrary, they have alleged that the title to this property is in the persons notified, so that you have thus the express admission of these settlers, made through their counsel, that they are in possession of the land. In addition to this, you have the acknowledgement of some of the tenants themselves, made to the constable who served the notice

"The state of the Union, and of Pennsylvania, as an important member of the Union, renders the present session peculiarly fortunate. The extensive commercial intercourse, that subsists between the United States, and some of the belligerent powers of Europe; the solemn obligations of treaty, by which we are pledged to others; the sentiments of a cordial friendship, which cement our alliance with one party; and the justice which, as a nation at peace, we owe to all the parties; are considerations of such variety and importance, as cannot, I think, be contemplated by any patriotic citizen, without solicitude and apprehension. But, however great the difficulty may be, under these circumstances, of preserving the neutral character, in a manner universally satisfactory, it is certainly the duty of those, with whom the administration of the public affairs is

[blocks in formation]

entrusted, to attempt the arduous task; and, I am con fident, that, recollecting the calamities, which we have formerly experienced, and reflecting, with becoming gratitude, upon the present prosperous condition of our country, you will approve and sanction every just and constitutional exertion, that is calculated to maintain the dignity of our government, and to avoid a participation, in the war.

229

called the Little Democrat) a prize to the Embuscade
frigate, was fitting out in the same manner as privateers:
and, this information I immediately communicated to
the President. On the twenty-fourth day of the same
month, the Master Warden made a more particular re-
port on the subject, which was, likewise, submitted to
the President's consideration. But, as I did not receive
any directions in consequence of these communications,
I presumed that either the case itself, was not within.
the meaning of the general instructions which had been
given; or that the equipments mentioned in the reports
of the Master Warden, did not sufficiently ascertain the
fact, that the vessel was intended for a privateer. On
the fifth day of July, however, the Secretary at War
represented to me, that since the report of the Master
Warden, such indirect information had been received,
as would, if founded, render it indisputable, that the
Little Sarah was arming and equipping as a cruiser; and,
thereupon, I instituted the necessary enquiries, for ac-
curately ascertaining the circumstances relating to the
vessel. The information which I collected, confirmed
the opinion that I had originally conceived; and afford-
ed reason to suspect that she intended shortly to leave
the President (who was then absent from the city) to
decide upon the propriety of forcibly detaining her, as
she was declared to be the property of the government
of France, I directed the Secretary of the common-
wealth to wait upon the Minister of the Republic, to
represent to him the circumstances of the case, and to
request, for the preservation of peace and harmony,
that he would give directions for suspending her de-

"Upon this meritorious principle, and in order to put
the citizens of America on their guard, at this critical
period, the President issued a proclamation, declaring
that the duty and interest of the United States required,
that they should, with sincerity and good faith, adopt
and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial towards the
belligerent powers: and, as the letter, which commu-
nicated this proclamation, expressed a confidence, that
injunctions, so interesting to the happiness and pros-
perity of the United States, would have the benefit of
my aid, to promote their general and strict observance
in Pennsylvania, I thought it incumbent upon me, like-
wise, in the most public manner, to recommend the
subject to the attention of my fellow-citizens; and to
exhort them faithfully to conform to the disposition,
which the President had officially recognized and pre-port. In order, therefore, to obtain an opportunity for
scribed.

"This amicable and impartial disposition, being thus announced on behalf of the General Government, some occurrences soon rendered it necessary to provide an adequate remedy, in case of any violence being committed by the belligerent powers, upon vessels within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States; or, in case any of those powers should commission, arm and equip privateers, within our ports; a practice deem-parture. But as the Minister would not enter into any ed inconsistent with the duties of neutrality, and dangerous to the peace of the nation. Accordingly in the capacity of Commander in Chief of the militia of the commonwealth, I received instructions from the President of the United States, to interpose in either of those events; and, with the aid of the militia, to detain the aggressor, in the first instance; or the privateer in the second; until the President should decide upon such further proceedings, as the occasion might require. These instructions being immediately communicated to the Board of Wardens, with a request that they would pay a vigilant attention to the subject, I was assured, that proper measures would cheerfully be pursued, for ascertaining and reporting, without delay, every transaction, that appeared to militate against the peace and neutrality of the port.

"Permit me here, gentlemen, briefly to recapitulate the several cases that have occurred under the President's instructions: referring, however, for a more particular statement to the documents which I have directed to be laid before you.

satisfactory assurance in this respect, I thought it my duty, immediately to instruct the Master Warden of the port to prohibit any pilot from taking charge of the vessel; and I issued orders to the Adjutant General for making a draft from the militia, for the purpose of carrying into effect the President's instructions. The necessity of an interposition, in this mode, was fortunately, however, superseded, by an explanation with the Minister of France, which induced the Secretary of State to believe, that the vessel would not be permitted to sail, till the President's sentiments on the subject were declared; and, upon the request of the Secretary of State I discontinued the military arrangements, which had been previously directed.

"A few days subsequent to this transaction, the French Consul represented to me, that an English armed vessel, called the Jane, carrying sixteen guns, provided with a Letter of Marque, and designed to cruise upon our coasts, had arrived at Mud-Island; and, referring to the treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and France, he requested that orders might be given to prevent this vessel from entering the harbour. Upon enquiring, however, more particularly

ship came hither to take in a cargo for the Island of Jamaica; and it appeared that her equipments and conmission were intended for protection, in a course of commerce, and not for offensive war, I did not conceive that the case was comprehended within the provisions of the treaty; and, therefore, I submitted the Consul's representation, and all the documents relating to it, to the President; whose opinion, I believe, corresponded with mine upon the subject.

"The first was the case of the ship William, brought into the port as a prize to the French privateer, called the Citizen Genet, but captured, as it was alleged, with-into the facts, the Master Warden reported, that the in the limits of the protection of the United States.The Court of Admiralty for this district having decided against its own jurisdiction, as to trying the merits of that allegation, the President requested, that I would order a party of militia on board of the ship, for the purpose of keeping her in safe custody, until his determination should be had upon the subject. With this request 1 immediately complied; but, upon its being officially intimated to me, that a subsequent arrangement had been made, for leaving the ship, in the pos session of the French Consul, while the legitimacy of her capture was under consideration, I directed the party of militia to be withdrawn. After this direction was given, however, and notified to the French Consul, that gentleman transmitted to me a written instrument, complaining and protesting against the seizure and detention of the prize.

"The next instance was attended with more difficulty. On the twenty-second day of June, the Master Warden suggested to me, that the Little Sarah (now

Though such were the sentiments entertained on the arrival of the Jane, it was soon suggested, that her captain, having refitted her in a warlike manner, was endeavouring to encrease the number of her men and guns. A vigilant attention was, therefore, given to all her operations; and every article of authentic intelligence that I collected, was, without delay, transmitted to the President; who desired that the vessel might be stopped, in c se she should be found augmenting her force, and about to depart. On these points, conclusive evidence was, at length, obtained; and it became

« PreviousContinue »