E JOURNAL.
Inc country ,une constitution one deNl:O
Huntingdon July 2S. 1 I.
Democratic Candida e
FOR GOVERNOR,
JOHN BANKS,
OF lIIIRKS COUNTY
COUNTY CONVENTION,
Democratic Meeting.
The citizens of the several Townships)
and Boroughs of this county, are request- ,
ed to meet at their usual places of meet
ing, on Saturday, the 7th of August, to
elect two delegates from each of said town
ships and boroughs, to represent them in
the County Convention, which will meet
in the borough of huntiogdon, on
We triesday, the 11th of August,
at 2.o'clock in the afternoon, to nominate
a County Ticket to be supported by the
opponeuts of the present State Adininis
tration, at the coining election.
By order of the County Committee,
TIIOS. FISIIER, (Amman.
July 21,1841.
Croakings of the Locos.
It is really laughable to hear the laces
sant growlings and howlings of the Loco
Focos, about the proscription of their old
sap suckers, who fairly drew their subsis
tence for years from the body politic.
They • are not satisfied to growl a while
and then quit, but they must continue
their makings about our friends preten
ding, before the election, that they would
not play the old farce of "Tarn Out."—
Now this all consumately smart on their'
part, only the joke is,—it is not true. We
ask our friends in this county, if we did
not on every occasion, and did not all
other speakers or writers you heard, tell
you that the Swartwouts and Prices were
robbing the country? that they werif'as
much afraid of the Leg-Treasurers as the
Sub-Treasuries, and that there must be a
reform of men, or else we could never
have a reform of measures? Yet these .
croakers howl forth "proscription, only
see what this •coonskin party is about,
turning old officers out to put in new
ones," and call en their party to see the
_Federalists proscribing for opinions sake.
Bob! Don't think the people are fools.
Let the People Know
Mr. "Watchman," by what kind of
some
ofdo you make out your case about some
of the officers of the "Big Break" keeping
the Pursue money? They, if they any
thing of the kind, have the money. Ritner
and his Commissioners borrowed on their
own credit, and David It. Porter has re
peatedly vetoed the Bill to pay the money.
B the money belongs to the state, or peo
ple, why don't he pay the Banks that
loaned it to the state? Or if the Banks did
not loan irto the state, what right have'
you to endeavor to make the people think
the money is in any way the property of
the state? Do answer us! The people
will not be satidied with' you, unless you
come up to the work.
Dr. Dyott, the Pardoned Perjured,'
Fraudulent Insolvent, has been allowed to
take the benefit of the Insolvent Laws.
We should like to know if that has cured
the stain of an attempt to rob his creditors
out of their just claims, we would recom
mend the same thing to another chap we
know.
The "Yeoman" thinks the charges
against Porter ere no longer repeated or
believed. If the Editor of that print will
come into this county, he can hear the
latter from some of Porter's old bosom
friends ; and if he will obtain a copy of
the "Journal," of July 21, 1841, he will
be able to ascertain whether the former is
true or not.
Canal Commissioner's) Bill.
Porter vetoed one Bill passed last win
ter, to choose Canal Commissioners, and
in that veto signified his willingness to
sign a bill giving the election immediately
to the people. Another bill of that kind
was passed, and was given to him to sign.
He has pJt that in his pocket, and the cit
izens of the State must forget their desire
to have all such power in the hands of the
pc opl e
Examine
The article of Geo. Taylor Emir, It is
deserving of particular examination. We
!dire place to it in order that Mr. Taylor
can have some chance through which to
•like public. a defence. Having failed in
;ctting it published in two papers which had
made the attack, in this, county "common
justice" seemed to say, that we should
nut exclude him from our columns, and
we have also, given this week that
portion of the central committees ad
dre,s, that assails Mr. Taylor. Our
neighbors of the '"Standard" & "Watch
man" have tacitly admitted that they fear
ed to Fend this article among their sub
scribers, by refusing it admission in theh
columns. No one can say that we wen
either afraid or ashamed to let our read ,
ers see both sides. We therefore corn
mence with the extract aluded to
(From The Porter Address.)
CASE OF WM. A. SMITH.
The neat case to which we call your at
tention, Fellow citizens, is of a peculiar
character. When we have briefly narra
ted the circumstances which inthiced th,
\ Governor to withhold his signature, we
believe you will agree with us that a
more flagitious attempt aieV.
er was made, by expake leg
islation, to divist a - eitizeit
his rights and plunder hint of
'his property.
The till vetoed by the Governor bore
the plausible title of "An Act for ena.
'Willi; religious societies within this Coin
ttionwealth to purchase and hold lands fa
burying grounds and churches, and fa
othcr purposes : " To that part of the ac
relating to religious societies, the Guyer
nor had not the slightest objection, ant
The ''''for of/1;r Purposes,
Itnaile Lone,
however, was a section which: wiled re
ported to the House of Representatives
by the Chairman of the Committee of Rs
. . . .
'ttites and Escheats' bore the title of "A
Act to quiet the title to•cettain land
granted 'for the use of Wm. R. smith ii
tailmail•gentral." It was offered ant',
carried as an amendment to the act firs .
recited, and the federalists, with thei,
usual regard for candor, in consequenct
of the title, have attempted to make you
believe, fellow-citizens, that the Guyer.
nor vetoed a bill having relation, exclu•
sively, to "rengious societies." Such i•
not the fact. In his veto the Govern°,
states that after the bill had been in hi!
possession he received a letter from Wu
A. Smith, Esq. of Cambria county, reins
strafing against the 18th section of th
proposed bill becoming a law, the section
that was embraced in the words, 'and for
other purposes"—and he then proceeds to
assign his - reasons for returning it to the
Senate in which it originated, without his
signature. It seems that William Smith,
D. D. conveyed to trustees certain lands
in trust for his grandson Win. A. Smith,
land the eldest male heir of this body law-
Vally begotten. William R. Smith and
his wife afterwards executed a deed to ,
Thomas Montgomery, with the intent of i
barring the estate tail, or in other words
to deprive William A. Smith, the eldest
male heir of all the interest in the lands
in wiestign, contrary tb the intention of
William - Smith the grantor. The deed
was not acknowledged, or it acknowledg.
ed no entry thereof was made, and there
(Ore defective; and withobt any notice to
William A. Smith, a law was passed con
firming and making valid the deed, in like
manner and with like effect, as if it.had
been acknowledged and an entry made on
the record of the Court of Common Pleas.
The remonstrant, William A. Smith, sets
forth in his remonstrance to the Governor
among other things, that "he being the
eldest son of William R. Smith, (and of
course the party most deeply interested)
was opposed to the passage of the bill ;
and further, that up to the time of its pas-,
sage, he was unaware of the existence of
the deed of William Smith, conveying in
trust the property in question to two trus
toes, or that such an instrument of wri.
,
ting had ever been recorded—nor was he
• aware of the existence of ad :led from Win
I R. Smith and wife to Thomas Montgome
; ry; and further, he never received any
consideration for the property thus deed
ed away without his knowledge or con
'
, sent."
Under these circumstances the Gover•
nor returned the bill to the Senate remar•
kink, that "as the act may dispose of th'
whole question of the title in regard to the
lands to which it refers, it would be pro•
per that the parties whose rights are to be
affected by it should be heard. Legisla.
lion for curing alleged defects in titlt
should be attended with great caution and
upon full notice. Injustice may be dont
by ex parte enactments, and I would ce
spectfully suggest whether in all such
cases as that for v hich the eighteenth sec
tion proposes to provide, it would not be
better to confer upon the Courts of Com
mon Pleas of the proper county if they do
not already possess it, the power to cor
rect or amend the records of the Court,
oune protune, if they should deem it right
and proper so to d 3, upon a lull represen
tation of all the facts, or notice to the par•
ties interested. Thus• all parties will be
heard. No injustice can be done to any'
one. The right of those interested will
be investigated and duly respected."
Now, in ;ill candor, and in name of
► all that 1, put, we ask von fellow•citizens,,
'who that has any pretence to honesty ' contrary, which ought not, in conscience
would object to giving all the parties con- to have been granted,—tt should be as
cerned a hearing in Court? Is not that knowledgeti that the writer of the address
;the proper tribunal before which to hives- is, in this instance, engaged in a superla•
;the
the matter, where and when both tively little effort to make political capi •
!parties can have an opportunity of ex- ' tat, by lampooning those whose only of
mining and cross- exmaning the wanes- fence, was the exercise of the right of pe
ses 'I Who among you will be secure in tition to the representatives of the people.
'your property, if a law of this kind can he And, that such isemphatically the "case,"
'passed at the instance of a Lawyer,, who, I call facts which challenge refutation or
riappens to be n member of the Legisla- denial,-1 call records,—to witness. •
Lure, without notice and without chance William Smith, D. D. being seized of
to produce evidence of the validity of the certain lands, in this county, an the tat
title. If such conduct can bejustified or March 1803, by his deed of that date re•
tolerated fur an instant, there is an end to marled in Bunk, L. page 45, fur the
,very thing like security to LIFE or consideration, as therm expressed, of his
:iroperty. William A:Smith, who claims desire "of giving some testimony of his
to be the eldest male heir of William It. affection for, and his desire to promote in
Smith, resides in Cambria county. IT the world liilllane Rudolph Smith whom
WAS AN EASY MATTER, IF FAIR- he had anorrED* as his grand-son
NESS AND,HONESTY WERE AT TILE through his son William Moore Smith Esq
norrost OF THE TRANSACTION to have con- at whose request he granted the estate
'suited him. The presumption is, howev- and premises therein afterdescribed, with
'r, all was not fair, all was not honest--:or ii view, as aforesaid, to advance his inter
le would have been notified of the inten est in ife," &c., and for the nominal sum
'ion of the party or parties to legislate him ; of one dollar, granted and conveyed to his
nit of his rights and and plunder him of brother, the lion. Thomas Smith Esq.,
its property—the gift of his great grand- .and B. R. Morgan, .Esq., lour tracts or
rather. It was well known to all con parcels of land in the county, and near
:erned in the stealthy legislation which the borough of Huntingdon, viz: "No. 1."
took place, that William A. Smith resided containing 16 acres— "N 0.2." 151 acres
in, and was Prothonotary of Cambria —"No. 3," 60 acres; and "No. 4." 228
county. There is not a shadow of excuse acres 76 perches: "In trust, nevertheless
'or THE ATTEMPT MADE TO 1)1- for the use of the said William Rudolph
VET L' lIIM OF his property without Smith [who was then . a minor] and the el.
iotice ; and there is not a man in this (lest male heir of ids body law lay begot
vide world, whose conceptions (cflionesty ten," with other limitations in case of
remain untainted by the tricks, interested failure of issue on the part of Win. R.
men learned in the lac, are feed to
play Smith.
Arend practice in and out of the Legisla- This conveyance, he it here observed,
'lire, that will condemn the Governor for was made exclusively Fon THE ni,Never
voting the act we have reviewed. op Ti ii. R. &urn, before "the eldest
tl. BUEHLER, Chairman. male heir of his body" was, in its lan-
Jaaon SELLER, Secretary. guage, 'begotten:' tic "minnwra 55151 IN
THE WORLD:" "warn A craw TO ADVANCE
1114 INTEIIEtT Ii LIFE." TIIC COII4iIIIT-
Mion had reference 1 0 W3l. Sateru,
and to him alone. The limitation "to
the eldest male heir" created what is ter
toed an 'estate toil;' which limits the in
heritance to one particular heir to the ex•
elusion of all others. And it is impossi•
hie to conceive, it may be here forting
observed, how "the eldest male heir" ca
have any stronger EQUITABLE. 111,BT to
land granted through affection for his fit•
thee, or bought by his father's money be
fore any of his children were born, than
"the youngest female heir," or any other
child. A system, so repugnant to natu
ral justice, is, at best, worthy only of the
'iniqaity' in which it was "shapen," and
the soil in which it was nurtured.
Then, while Wm. R. Smith by virtue of
this deed (having afterwards male issue)
was formally tenant in tail of the pre•
mi, , es, which were really granted FOR III;
SOLE BENEFIT, he became, about the yeti!'
1816, largely indebted to the Huntingdon
Bank; and his uncle Richard Smith, Esqr.,
who was the son of Dr. Smith the grantor,
and the brother of "NVilliarn Moore Smith
Esqr., at whose request" the grant was
made, became involord with him as his
surety. lie had these lands, so far as they
would go, as means of paying his debts
and saving and securingtus friend; grant
ed really for his benefit - , and in conscience
his, although technically entailed in
contumely to aristocractic custom, or
merely perhaps, (as chief Justice • Tao
! man somewhere remarks, when pointing •
out the iniquity oh entailments) "through
family pride."
He had the undoubted right to cast of
this trammel, and apply the land accord
ing to the spirit of the deed • under Which
he held it, to his hemp and the benefit of
his creditcrs ; and the circumstances in
which he was placed rendered such a
course peculiarly p roper.—Entailments, a
device of the nobility in England to keep
their lands perpetually in their families by
transmitting them to a son discharged of
of his father's debts, and removed beyond
the t each of creditors, had, principally for
that reason, become extremely odious ev
en in England, long before the first settle
ment of this country; and the English
courts of justice, to reinedy the evil, had
devised a means of destroying all such
limitations of estates, thereby convertng
an estate tail into an absolute estate is fee,
by a fictitious proceeding called "a fine
and common recovery," And in the eat -
Hest settlement of this country when the
practice of entailing was first imported
hither, our courts affordcd and encourag
ed the same retnedy; holding that, apart
from the improper object noticed, it was
contrary to the spirit and policy of our
institutions, and inimical to the prosperity
of the country ; "peculiarly repugnant,"
as Judge Yeates strongly expresses it, "to
our laws and manners." The courts were
seconded in their efforts to suppress the
transplanting of the baneful aristocratic
weed, by the legislature; which, as early
as the year 1749, passed "an act for bar
ring estates tail ;" in the preamble to
which it emphatically declared, that" . the
entailing of estates within this province
without a provision by law for barring
them, would introduce perpetuities, pre
vent the improvement or such estates,
disable tenants in tail from nuking provi
sion for the younger branches of their
families, prove 1,1 general detriment to the
province, and be attended with manifold
inconveniences." This act to remedy
these evils, "and for preventing whereof
in future," set the seal of legislative aps
probation upon "fines and common re
' coveries," and ratified and confirmed those
which had been "theretofore levied 4'c.
within the province of Pennsylvanii." And
carrying out . this policy,—in 1;99 the
' I legislature passed another tact "to facili-
Fur the Journal.'
MR. BENEDICT:—
The following article, written in the de.
.ensive, and with no political view, was ad
teemed to the Editor of the "Watchman"
ind its insertion requested on the grounds
herein stated; most reasonable surely, when
tis further considered that here, if I have
stated any fact untruly, evidence of the
ruth is at hand. He refused. It was then
Wilt to the 'Standard,' and its publication
;Latina! 'in common justice,' since that pa
rer had also published;the article to which
.hisis a reply.
Messrs. l'raugh & Boggs' returned it,
.vith the refusal of the editor to publish, for
tree reasons:
'l. On account of its extreme length, Deep'
drying as it would at least eight columns in our
;taper." This, the best of the three, may not
leter you: it will not occupy much over
roux f your columns.
*2. If we publish this lengthy statement
in one side, Dr, Smith will in all prob 'Mh
o/ demand to be heard on the other: a claim
we could not in common justice mime' &c.
They forget that this is a reply to an uncan
lid and violent article on 'me side' which
they had published: & that they 'could not in
common justice refuse' its publication, them
selves being the judges. But they did refuse,
notwithstanding!
'3. Because unnecessarily severe and
harsh language is used' &c. They seem to
forget, also, that an article charging us with
'the most flagitious attempt ever made &c.
to divest a citizen of his rights and plun
der him of his property' was not too 'unneces
sarly severe mid harsh' to find a place in
their columns!
We are thus reduced to the necessity of
suffering the misrepresentations of the 'ad
dress' to go uncorrected, or of asking a place
n the 'Journal'
For the "Democratic Watchman."
MR. EVERHART
Nearly one ballot the
' , Address to the people of Pennsylvania,
No: 4," published by the chairman of the
Democratic Central Committee, is deco. I
led to the discussion of a certain act; pas- I
sed by the late Legislature, and of the ye
to thereof by the governor, introduced in.
to the.address as the
"CAsE OF W ILLIAM A. Satins "
of which the writer is pleased to say, "a
more flagitious attempt was nev,:r made,
by ex parte legislation, to divest a citizen
of his rights, and plunder him of his props
erty."
The act of which he thus speaks was
(passed in pursuance of a petition, and
upon evidence, laid before the legislature
by myself, being interested with the heirs
of John Miller, slec'd., in part of the pro.
perty referred to in it. To me, and to me
alone, if to any body, the above and oth
er kindred expressions in the address,
are applicable. I caul(' let that pass—but
I cannot, - in justice to those for interests'
feel greater solicitude than for my own,
.ufliir the thsengenuous and vituperative
, nis-representations contained in that pa.'
per to be published at our very door, to
prejudice our rights, without' confrontina
them with the truth. And, as you have
laid before your readers, and invited their
•'eandid attention" to the one, I trust you
will candidly submit to them the other.
Let the whole "case" be fairly submitted,
Ind MUTH, which 'has nothing to fear
from investigation, be assured, will tri
ignph. IF a candid community, after a
Full hearing, shall render verdict against
we will cheerfully acquiesce. if, on
-the other hand, the cry of "stop thief,"
raised in the address, should fall back in
-imphatic echo; if the "attempt to divest
citizen of his rights, and plunder him of
his property," should turn out to be noth
ing more than a show of attempt, on his:
part, to fatten on the property of orphans
and TIIF. DEBTS OF HIS FATHER ; If it
Ishollid appear that .the reasons assigned
fur the veto, were NOT the reasons which
induced the veto ; and if it be made plain
ly inardlest that we asked, and the legis
lature granted, nothing unusual or unreas
onable, nothing unjust, nothing, on the
G. T
* Why this word was used, need not
mere be told .
lute the . barring of entails" by giving
that effect to a common deed of hargain and
sale, in which the tenant in tail had onl►
o declare, without any hypocrisy about it,
his purpose to do so;—an act which, while
►ln►ost every other important law has un
dergone at least slum; alteration, still
stands by the side of its venerable peede•
cessor, unaltered, upon the statute book;
—an act, one word orwhich no intelligent
man in the cemmon wealth could wish it
.......
expunged, except he be solie patriot, who,
like the govern° 's "remonstrant," might
desire to receive an estate against right,
and over the shoultlrrs of his father's debts.
In accordance with the last recited ac,
of assembly, the act of 1797, and for the
purpose be/bee mentioned, Wow. It. Smith
Eliza his wife •in the 4th of Jan. 1817,
by their deed of that date, recorded in
lßook P, p. 164, lor the consideration id
'ssooo, granted and conveyed the said
several parcels of land to Thomas Mont
gomery, Esq., in fee ; being,. (as d e .]
Glared therein) "the express vacation if
the said 11 m. R. Smith and Eliza his'
wifet
..ns_rnment to bar and distroi
any and till manner if estate t la re
=tinder or revision which does n9w or
may hereafter exist, or be derived in, by,
or tinder the said dved of II nc. Smith
I). D." 'l'lle original deed, in the hand
writing of Nam It.• Smith, witnessed
by Francis B. Nichols (a relation of W.
11. Smith's wile) and the lion. Charles
Huston, is in our possession. It was ac
knowledged IN ores comer the day it was
executed, as is attested by the signature
of the Judge and the certificate of the
Prot'y • under the seal ot the court. The
same lands were re•coveyed by Thos.
Montgomery to Wm. K. Smith, in fee ;
and on the 7th of January, three day af
terwards, A MOM GAGE upon the same
lands was executed by %Vol. It. Smith, to
his friend and surety Smith, E.qr.
which is also recorded. in kook P. p. 108.
On the 4th Nov. 1813, a sirefucias upon
d m in irtvg was issued out of the ,
court of commen pleas of said county,!
70 Nov. term I 18, at the suit of the
said Itich'il. Smith, Esqr. and on the same ,
day Win. It. Smith the defendant, con
tested judgment therein ; and by tue of
1 . an alias us nit of Levari ltaias issued on
this judgment to No. 43 April term 1819,
Ithat part of the lands embraced in the
above recited deeds and mortgage, con
, oisting of lots "No. 2." and "No. 3," was
sold by the sheriff 18th April 1819, to
John Miller, now deed, tor $:2250; its
extreme value; stone than it was worth
then ; MOMS than the value set upon it on
the 20th of March last by twelve respect
able men acting under "their oaths and
allirmations."—The other parcels were
sold on the same judgment, wider pre
cisely the same cireumstances, and are
now owned by Geo. Jackson, David
Sturtzmsn, Henry Sturtzman, Henry
senberg, John Snyder, and others.
Item is th, simple, I might say the record
history, of this matter. The law renders
lit legally right, and the reason of the law
shows it to be morally right, fist any ten
ant in tail to bar the entailment. But far
different still was this case. Here righ'
became du'y. Here the lands had been
granted, as the grant itself shows, van
TOR ohsert r of the ;grantor's A DOI 11,1),
grand-son, NI , ILLI oar it. SMITH. The en
tailment was barred to enable urot to pay
his debts; to secure his surety
Smith,!' who was his c NOLV, the SON of
Dr. Smith the grantor, and the nu (MIER .
t.f "Wm. M. Smith, Esq. at whose re
quest" the grant (vvithout ally valuable
consideration except the nominal sum of
one dollar !) was made. The land, after
the lee was vested in Wm.ll. Smith, was
mortgaged for that homiest purpose ; sold
for its full value to innocent purchasers,
who, when they paid their hard earned
motley, supposed they were investing it
permanently in soil which would yield
bread to their children when they should
sleep the steep of death beneath its sur
face. "Anil is there a man in this wide
world," except his own son, and his..oni
cial coadjutors, who will not say that the
conduct of Wm. It. Smith, while it was
lawful, would also stand the test of the
strictest justice, the most scrupulous mor
ality ? Is there any honest man who will
not say so? But, above all, is there to
be found another man on the face of the
earth, embued with a moral sense, who
must not accord to the children of those
innocent purchasean title as inviolably
sacted as justice itiell?
After the lapse of nearly a quarter of a
century, however, the chiblrm of one of
the purchasers accidentally discovered
that the Proey. hail omitted to make TILE
ENTRY on the docket, which seems to be
required by the act of 1797 a although lie
and the Judge both certify to the acknOwl•
edgement in open.court ; ;Ind although the
requirements of the act were substatially,
nay, in every thing else, strictly and fully
complied with. To relieve their title to
this little firm even • from suspicion, as
they might soon desire to expose it to sale,
and as it was uncertain \whether the court
might, at a period so distant, feel author
ized to direct the entry still to be made,
petitioned the I•gislature, stating accu
rately all the facts, and praying (*or the
enactment of a law, "authorising the
court or common Pleas of Huntingdon
county on the truth of the facts stated be-
f Whose wife en excellent old lady
is now puer, in her old age, and in her
widowhood, from the same surayshilt. if
the fancily have any conceivable right ti
,this land after receiving its full valueonce,
she (but bhz. would scorn it!) might chin
with infinitely more show 'et justice, that
the great grand-sun by ADOFTIL,
ing made appear to the said colrt, on mo
non to direct theentry as required by the
;aid act to be made on the records of the
oiid court, and declaring such entry to
'ut as effectual As if it had be:!n made
'when said deed was acknowledged."
They dill so, with as pure confidence• as
they could approach 'a throne of grace ;'
never thinking for a second that any man
in or oft of the legislature would, or pos
sibly could, raise the slightest objection
to the granting of their prayer ; much less
that his excellency might feel it his 'duty
to Interpose his veto between orphans and
justice They laid before the legislature
or put in the possession of one tints mem
. iwl'A for that purpose, indisputable evi
, deuce of the truth of every thing contain
, cd in th,ir petition, even to the minutest
shade of coloring. They exhibited the
I deed of Dr. Smith—the original deeds
I front W. It. Smith and his wife to Mont.
'pottery and from Montgomery to Smith,
with the Judge's signature anti the. Proty's
certificate—th , niortgal., , c to Pich'd Smith,
Esqr..—the record of the sire farina and
judgment on that mortgage, and of the
iubsequent proceedings which terminated
in the sale by th, • sh'tl: the sh'it's deed to.
John 111iller: amid a err' died extract front
an inquisition hitt n upon his real estate
in which 12 respectable men "upon their
oaths and affirmation," late ly valued lois
"No. 2 and No.:)" at A LKSS glint than the
consideration of the slieritr's deed. They
showed, in a word, and they are prepared
to show any personal any moment, that
their pet'tion contained "the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the tro:11."
And shat did they ask ?
, ONLY that the ERIZOR or out;isioN of A
PUPLIC 1(FFIO(.11 should be corrected or
~,upplied.: They asked, and they only
. asked, that a &Heal miii . sgionshould :not,
in any way, prejudice their rights. - They
asked what no honest man in all christen
, don will sty ought not in conscience to
have been granted. They asked what no Is
gislature ever refused to grant, or everwill.
The statute book is literally crowded with
special acts of assembly, passed to nffitrd re
lief where substantial jusiite could not be 01)
tained through the technical forms of law, or
was liable to he thwarted by errors, over
sights, and informalities. I credit Joint, tt•
mongst others, to a score, by which all the
acts of particolar Jusices of the peace, void
for want of authority, including of coarse,
the taking of the acknowledgment of ;turner
sus deeds, were, within stated veriods, "cc N
FIRMED AND nADE. VALID." Two or three
examples of a more general character, pre
cisely here in point, will, however, abundant
ly suffice. I have already referred to the
act of 1749, entitled "an - act for barring a
trztes tail," which, while it established "fines
,tad tomato,' recoveries" as a future remedy,
RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED ALI. which had
"theretVore been levied or suffered within
the province of Pennsylvania." "Fines and
,common recoveries," although eat i l rtained
by the coat ts, had not been recognise d by
our statutes; and, on account of the nicety of
the proceedings, errors and informalities had
occurred in carrying them thi•ough. Ilere,
by pm act, ALL, iI,ISCCIMIOB:cIy, were
MADE. VALID. Scarcely less directly in point
are the statutes curing deeds defectively ac
knowledged by married women, who have
always been regarded as "the peculiar fa
vorites of the law," An act was passed in
1770, entitled "an act for the better coN
FIRM ATION of estates of persons holding or
claiming under feint' coverts, and for estab
lishing a mode by which husband and Wife
may hereafter convey their estates." It re
cited, that it "had been the custom rnd u
sage ever since the settlement of the prov
ince, in transferring the estates of fence coy
erts, in many cases, fir husband and wife to
execute the deed in the presence of vituess
es only," &c: that "d. übts had arisen wheth
er the said deeds were sufficiently valid in
law," &e. : and that it was "ntr JUST AND
REASONABLE THAT Trig SAID PURCHASERS
SHOULD BE QUIETED AND SECURED " &C.
It then ennacts that "Its such deed shall fe
deemed held or adjudged invalid or defec
tive at law or avo sled or prejud . ced"
l'he same act then prescribed a film slack
nowledgment to be followed in future. Fifty
six years afterwards, it became:lca ssary for
the legislature again to interfere in favor of
bona fide' purchasers; and in the year 1820,
"a supplement to the act entitled 'an act for
the confirmation of estates" &e., was pass •
ed, which recited: "whereas by an act 6f as
sembly to which this is a supplement, it is
enacted that the estates of fame covens may
be transferred by deed executed by husband
stud wife, and by them acknoWledg,ect before
certain officers: And whereas under this
act estates of great valued hare been bona
fide sold by husband and wife for a legal and
sufficient consideration and the deeds there
for have been acknowledged before the pro
per officer; b u t in many cases the mode of
making the acknowledgment hath been im
perfectly set forth in the certificate. And it
bath been held by the supreme court that
deeds transferring the rights and interests of
fume coverts art invali 1 and void, unless cur
tam requisites of the acknowledgment of
sift.h deeds, provided by the said act, shall
appear on the face of the certificate 4u, have
been pursued; AND IN ALI. SUCH CASES IT
IS RUT JUST AND REASoNADLE THAT ' , Kg-
SONS SILO HOLD SUCH ESTATES 51100.74,
NOT, IN ANY CASH, BE DISTURBED, IN
TILE ENJnYMENT OF TIMM, THUS EQUITA
BLY ACQUIRED, Non DtVESTI(D thereof ux
*DER ANY PRETENCE WHATSOEVER. " he
act then, "for the purpose of carrying into
effect the real intent of the parties, !land of
quietinF and securing th e estates. so tram,
'erred, ' enacts that “No grant, bargain,
sale. &c. shall be held or adjudged invalid
or-detective, or insufficient in law, or avoid
ed or prejudiced By REASON OF ANY INFoli-
DIALITY OR 01,IiSsIoN in .setting forth the
particulars of the acknowledgment &c. And
another supplement, in the very words of
the act of 1836, was passed in 1840, (P. laws
p. 361) and ;IN:roved by governor Porter.
15y these acts hundreds, at least, of defec
tively acknowledged deeds were made valid,
and the persons who hold under theta (1 1 fictO
and secured in their titles; "a very large
number," we cure told, about which "doubts
existed," before 1770; and not a less number
. perhaps, within the fifty-six years which
followed, which the laav, as settled by the
supreme court, condemned as "invalid and
vonlj" independent of those made valid
by the supplement of 1840'. Speak
ing of the act of 1826 al. he, Judge Duncan,
in an opinion of the supreme court delivered
by him the year after its passage, rejoice;