Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/407

3961788. caſe will apply as well with reſpect to nations as individuals. Leo on Capt. 119. Beſides, a right veſted for a particular purpoſe, ceaſes with that purpoſe: The war being at an end, the object of confiſcating the Plaintiff’s debts, &c. is alſo extinguiſhed; and if the Adminiſtrators could not recover the debt in Connecticut, nor, a fortiori, in Pennſylvania, by the rules of natural juſtice, Camp may recover it; for, there can be no plauſible reaſon why Lockwood ſhould be exonerated. Under the Treaty of Peace, indeed, and the law of Connecticut (paſſed the 2d Thurſday of May, 1787) repealing all acts repugnant to the Treaty, the Adminiſtrators could not now interfere to prevent the Plaintiff’s recovery; for, the act by virtue of which they were appointed, is certainly of that deſcription;–ſo that by the 4th article Lockwood is ſtopped from ſaying that he will pay the debt to the Adminiſtrators; and, by the 6th article, they are precluded from compelling him to do ſo. This expoſition has alſo prevailed in England; for, the Agents on the claims of the Loyaliſts make no allowance for outſtanding debts; becauſe, as it has been already obſerved, they may be recovered under the Treaty.

Rawle then proceeded to confider, particularly, the objections offered by the Defendant’s Counſel, in ſupport of his plea; which were, he ſtated, 1ſt. That the Plaintiff was not an enemy, but a rebellious ſubject; 2dly, That by the act of Connecticut, and the proceedings under it, he was attained, and conſidered as actually dead; and 3dly. That he was not entitled to any benefit under the Treaty of Peace.

1. To the firſt objection, he anſwered, that the proceedings were expreſsly againſt Camp as an enemy; that it was by reaſon of his adherence to the enemies of the United States, and of actions nor merely criminal as they relate to his duty to the State, but to a Foreign nation at war with the State, that the forfeiture had been effected; and that the law of Connecticut neither knew, nor indicated, a diſtinction between the immical character of a ſubject and a Foreigner. But, he urged, that, as againſt a delinquent citizen, merely in relation to the State of which he was a member, not an enemy in the ſtrict ſenſe of the word, the act of the State, non valet extra territorium; that, therefore, it could never be any bar to Camp’s recovery in Pennſylvania; and that, even in Connecticut he would now be entitled by the Treaty of Peace, and the law paſſed there in ſupport of it, to recover all the property not actually veſted and in poſſeſſion of the State. It, on the other hand, he was proceeded againſt as an offending ſubject, in relation to his adherence to a foreign power, the general principle entitle him to recover alter the war has ceaſed. But, in either point of view, the allowance of the preſent plea would contravene the eſtabliſhed principles in the cafes enumerated by Vattel 1 Vol. p. 4. ſect. 13. 14. p. 121. ſect. 2. 3.p. 129. ſect.25.

Beſides, his offences as a Subject, though committed againſt a nation confederated and allied with ours, do not allow us to join