Gazette of the United States & evening advertiser. (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1793-1794, February 18, 1794, Image 1
oaptfe d tlje IJfatifei) H> fates E VENING ADVERTISER. [No. 58 of Vol. V.] Jnthe $:if>rfin • Court of the United Slates. *Tbe State of Georgia, •w. / Br ails ford, Powell f and Hopton. J HTHIS cause came before the Court 'under the following leading circum- stances On the 20th of May 1782, the state «f Georgia pafied an a&, in which, a iviong other things, (he confifcated the ellates, and debts of persons, whose property had been confifcated in other dates, in like manner and form of for feiture, as they were fubje&ed to in the Hates refpeftively, of which such persons were delinquent citizens : And, with refpeft to British merchants, or others residing in Great-Britain, it was declar ed, "that all debts dues and tjciriands due or owing to them be and they are hereby sequestered, & the commifiioners appoint ed by this a&, or a majority of them are thereby empowered to recover receive and deposit the fame in the Tieafury of.tfyis state, in the fame manner, and under "the fameregulations, as debts conftfeated, there to remain to the use of this Hate, until Other wife appropriated by this or any future houle of Assembly." Brailsford was a Britifti merchant, re fidiiig in Great Britain ; and Puivtlland Hopton, wae delinquent citizcns of South Carolina, vvliofe tftatts had been confifcated in pursuance of an ast of that state, pafied on the 25th of February 1782, in the following teims; "that all the real eftatc6 either in pofllffion, in re»erfion,or remainderof thefevcral per sons &<.. fhallbe veiled in 5 commissioners, «nd all the personal estate» (debts except ed) of fucli persons &c. are hereby veil ed in the said commissioners &c." In the year 1774 Kelfall and Spald ing, citizens and merchants of the state of Georgia, had executed a bond for a tonfideiable sum to Brailsford, Powell, and Hopton; upon which, after the war, a suit was instituted by the obligees againU Spalding, tiie fuiviving partner, in the Circuit Court, for the diftrift of Geor gia, returnable to October term 1791. The defendant pleaded the above men tioned confifcation laws in bar of the present attion ; the Plaintiffs demurred to the plea, and the defendant joined in a demurrer : but at April term 1792. Judgment was given for the former by Judges Iredell and Pendleton. An ap plication made by the state of Georgia, for admission to defend her tights in the suit iullituted by Bralsfmd, Powell, and Hopton, being rejected, abill was filed on her behalf,on the equity lideoftheSiipieme Court of tile United Stales, again It all the parties to the suit below, representing her claim to the debt in question under the cnnfifcaiion laws of Georgia and S. Carolina ; and praying that an injunc tion might issue to prevent an execution Wing taken mit on the judgement ob tained by Brailsford, Powell, and Hop ton, until the merits of that claim were lieatd and decided. After two argu ments by Mr. Ingerfoll and Mr. Dal. las for the State, and Mr. Randolph for the defendants, the injunction was granted ; and the present issue was joined, under the recommenda tion of the Court, to try the general question, whether the debt due from Spalding, and the right of action to te- CBver it, now belonged to the slate of Georgia, or to the original creditors? On the 4th of Feb. 1794, a special jury was qualified to try thecaufe, which during four days, was argued by Mr.ln gerfoll and Mr. Dallas for the state of Georgia, and by Mr. Bradford, Mr. Tilghman, and Mr. Lewis, for the de fendants. As we underhand tliac a full report of the record and the pleadings, is preparing for the press, we (hall only add on this occasion, the charge of the Couit, which was delivered Chief juttice on the 7th of Febiuary in the fol lowing terms. Tuesday, February 18, 1794. " Gentlemen of the Jury, This Caufc has been regarded, as of great importance ; and doubt less it is so. It has accordir»gly been treated by the Counsel with great learning, dili gence, and ability ; and on your part, it has been heard with particular atten tion. It is, therefore, unnecefTary for me to follow the invefWgation over the extensive field, into which it has been carried : You are now, if ever you can be, completely possessed of the merits of the cause. The fa&» compiehended in the cafe, are agreed : the only point that te rrains, is to fettle what is the law of the Und arising from those ; and on that point, it is proper, that the opinion of the Court ftiould be given. It is for tunateon the present, as it must be on eve ry occasion, to si id the opinion of <lie Court unanimous : We entertain no diversity of femrrnent ; and we have ex perienced no difficulty in uniting in the charge, which it is my pioviuee to deli- We are then, Gentlemen, of opinion, that the dr.bls due to Hopton and Pow el, (who were citizens of S. C.) vrere not confifcated by the flatute of S. Car olina : the fame being therein expressly excepted : That those debts weie not confitca-ted by the flatute of Georgia, for that statute enacts, with refpeft to P. and H. precisely the like and no other degree and extent of confifcation and forfeiture with that of South Carolina, Wherefore it cannot now be necessary to decide, howfar one state may of right legislate relative to the personal rights of citizens of another state, jiot residing within their jurifdiftion. We are, also, of opinion, that the debts due to Brailsford a Btitifh fubjeft residing in G. Britain, were by the statute of Georgia fubjefted, not to confifcation, but only to sequestration ; and, therefore that his right to recover them, revived at the peace, both by the law of nations and the treaty of peace. The question of forfeiture in the cafe of joint obligees, being at present im material, need not now be decided. It may not to be amils here, Gentle men, to remind you of the good old rule, that on qucllions of fact, it is the province of the Jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the Court, to decide. But it mufl be observed that by the fame law, which tecognizes this rea sonable distribution of jurifdiftion, you have nevrrthelefa a light to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on eveiy other occalion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that refpeft, which is due to the opinion of the Court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that Juries are the bed judges of facts ; it is, on the other hand, prefumeable, that the Coutt are the b ft judges of law. But still bo h objects are lawfully, within your power of decision. Some stress lias Deep laid on a conG detation of the diffeient situations of the parties to the Cause i The state of Georgia, files three private petfons. But what is it to justice, how many, or how few ; how high, or how low ; how rich, or how poor ; the contending parties may chance to be ? Justice is in discriminately due to all, without regard to numbers, wealth or rank. Because to the state of Georgia, composed of many thousands of people, the litigated film cannot be of great moment, you will not for this reason be juftified, in deciding against her claim ; if the money belongs to her, (he ought to have it ; but on the other hand, no consideration of the circumstances, or of the compar ative infignificanee of the defendants, can be a ground to deny them the advantage of a favorable verdiA, if in justice they are entitled to it. Go, tben, Gentlemen from the Bar,, AND with nit any impressions of favor or pre' judice for the one party, or the other: weigh well the merits of the cafe ; and do on this, at you ought to do on every occasion, equal and impartial judice." The jury having been absent foroc time, icturned to the bar, and proposed the following queltions to the court. I. Did the adt of the state of Geor gia, completely veil the debts of Brailf ford, Powel and Hopton, in the ftate,at the time of palling the fame ? 11, If so, did tbe treaty of peace, or any other matter, revive the tight of the defendant! to the debt in controversy ? In atifwer to these queltions, the chief justice Hated, that it was intended in the general charge of the court, to cemptife ihciT sentiments upon the points now fug gelled ; but as the jury entertained a duubt, the enquiry was perfe&ly right. On the firft question, he said it was tbe unanimous opinion of the judges, that the ad of the (late of G. did not vest the debts of B. P. and H. in the Hate at the time ofpafiing it. On the 2d ques tion he said, that no fequeflration divellsthe property in the thing sequestered ; and, coniequently, Brailsford at the peace, and, indeed, throughout the war, was the real owner of the debt. That it is true, the Hate ofGeorgia interposed with her kgiflative authority to prevent. B's recovering the debt while the war conti nued, but, that the mere reftoratios of peace, as well as the very terms of the treaty, revived the right of aiSion to recover, the debt, the property of which had never in fadl or law been taken fiom the defendants : And that if it were o therwise, the fequeflration would cer tainly remain a lawful impediment to the recovering of a bona fide debt, due to a British crcditm-, in direct oppolition to the 4th article of the treaty. After this explanation, the jury, with out going again from the bar, returned a f rrdicl for the Defendants. CONGRESS. House of Rcprcfentativcs. January 27. In committee of the whole on Mr. Madison's resolutions. ( Mr. Ames's Speech continued. J A question remains refpefling the state 6f our navigation. If we pay no regard to the regulations of foreign nations, and alk, whether this valuable branch of eur industry and eapital is in a diftrelTed and sickly llate, we (hall find it is in a ilrong and flourifhing condition. If the quanti ty of (hipping was declining, if it was un imployed, even at low freight, I should fay it must be sustained and encouraged. No such thing is afierted. Seamen's wa ges are high, freights are high, and A merican bottoms in full employment. Butthecomplaintis,our veflclsare not per mitted to go tothe Britilh Weft-Indies. It is even affirmed that no civilized country treats us so illy in that refpeft. Spain and Portugal prohibit the traffic to their poffeflions, not only in our veffefa, but in their own, which, according to the style of the resolutions, is worse treatment than we meet with from the British. It is also asserted, and on as bad ground, that our vefiels are excluded from most of the Bri tish maikets. This is not true in any sense. We are admititted into the greater nnmber of her ports, in our own veflels: and by far the greater value of our exports is fold in Britifli ports into which our veflels are re ceived, not only on a good footing, com pared with other foreigners, but on terms of positive favor—on better terms than Britifli veflels are admitted into our own ports. We are not fubjeft to the alien duties, & the light money See. of l/g ster ling per ton, is less than our foreign ton nage, not to mention the ten per cent, on [Whole No. 516.] the duties on the goods in foreign bot toms. But in the port of London our veflels are received free. It is for the unprejudi ced mind to compare these fatls with the aflertions we have heard so confidently and so feelingly ma de by the mover of the resolutions—that we are excluded from mod of the British ports, and that no ci vilized nation treats our veflels so illy. The tonnage of the veflels employed between Great Britain and her dependen cies and the United States is called 220,000, and the whole of this is repre sented as our just. right. The fame gen tleman speaks of our natural right to the carriage' of our own articles, and that we may and ought to infill upon our equi table /hare. Yet, soon after, he ufesthe language of monopoly, and represents the whole carriage of imports and exports as the proper objedl of our efforts, and all that others earn- as a clear loss to Ame rica. If an equitable share of the carri age means half, we have it already, and more, and our proportion is rapidly increaf lng. If any thing is meant by the natu ral right of carriage, one would imagine that it belongs to him whoever he may be, who having bought our produce, and made himlelf the owner, thinks proper to take it with him to his own country. It is neither our policy nor our design to check the sale of our produce ; we invite every description of purchasers, because we expect to-fell dearefl when the num ber and competition of the buyers is the greatest. For this reason the total exclu sion of foreigners and their veflels from the purchase and carriage of our exports is an advantage, in refpeft to navigation, winch has disadvantage to balance it, in refpeft to the price of produce. It is with this reserve we onght to receive the remark, that the carriage of our exports should be our object rather than that of our imports. By going with our veflels into foreign ports we buy our imports in the belt market. By giving aiteady and moderate encouragement to our own {hip ping, without pretending violently to in terrupt the course of business, experience will soon establish that order of things which is most beneficial to the exporter the importer and the (hip owner. The belt interest of agriculture is the true in terest of trade. In a trade mutually beneficial it is strangely absurd to consider the gain of others as our loss. Admitting it howe ver for argument fake, yet, it should be noticed that the loss of 220,000 tons of (hipping is computed according to the ap parent tonnage. Our veflels not being allowed to go to the British Weft-Indic» and their veflels making frequent voyages, appear in the entries over and over again. In the trade to the European dominions of Great Britain, the diltance being great er, our veflels are not so often entered. Both these circumstances give a falfe lhew to the amount of British tonnage, com pared with the American. It is however very pleasing to the mind to fee that our tonnage exceeds the- British in the Euro pean trade. For various reasons, some of which will be mentioned hereafter, the tonnage inthe Weft-India trade is not the proper subject of calculation. In the Eu ropean comparison, we have more tonnage in the British than in the French com merce—it is indeed more than four to The great quantity of Biitifh tonnage, employed in our trade, is also, in a grc?.t measure, owing to the large capitals of their merchants, employed in the buying and exporting our prod\i£lions. If we would banish the (hips, we nuil flrike at the root and banish the capital. And t'nL, before we haTe capital of our own grown up to replace it, would be .n operation of no little violence and injury, to onr sou thern brethren especially. Independently of this circuraflance, Grest-Britain is an a&ive and intelligent rival in the navigation line. Her (hips art; dearer, and the proviiionmg her sea