was in 1788. If it should be necessary the affidavits may be produced, as they are with the judge, or among the files of the court. I have the honour to be, &c. ELIAS BOUDINOT.

The Honourable the Secretary of State.

Since writing the above, Mr. Boudinot is well informed that Hetfield's counsel has advised his bail to plead to the action against them on the recognisance, as they consider them as not legally bound to pay the forfeiture, and not to apply to the legislature for redress. This has been done some time past, since which the attorney general has not moved the question.

No. 48.

I DO hereby certify, that there never has been either originally instituted in the supreme court of the United States or removed there, from any inferior court of the United States, any suit or claim between a subject of the king of Great Britain on the one part and a citizen or citizens of the United States on the other. As witness my hand,

SAMUEL BAYARD, Clk. of the supreme court of the
United States.

Philadelphia, April 25, 1792.

No. 49.

THE subscribing senators and representatives of the state of Maryland in the Congress of the United States, in reply to the inquiries addressed to them by the Secretary of State, not having in this city the necessary documents, to which they might particularly refer, can only inform him generally.

That soon after the pacification between these States and Great Britain, complaints of an obstruction to the recovery of British debts in some of the States, by his Britannick majesty's minister Mr. Pitt, were transmitted by Congress to the several States, accompanied by a requisition of that honourable body," that laws should be passed to secure the effectual observance of the treaty. The legislature of Maryland in consequence thereof enacted a law declaring the treaty the supreme law of the land, which was in reality but a compliance in form with what had in effect taken place, immediately after the exchange of the ratifications of the definitive treaty. British suits having been maintained from that period in the superior and inferior tribunals throughout the state, without any obstruction whatever, to our knowledge, except in one instance in the county of Charles, wherein a lawyer thought it advisable to withdraw some actions of this description, from a dread of popular interference. But on the speedy interposition of authority those suits were all restored, and the persons concerned brought to a proper sense of their misconduct : from that event to the present, British claimants, as well under contracts previous to the late war, as since, have in every instance enjoyed every facility

in the tribunals of justice of Maryland, equally with her own citizens. They have recovered in due course of law and remitted to Great Britain large debts of either description.

It is however to be understood, that the cases of persons who during the late war paid debts, contracted previously thereto, into the treasury of Maryland, by virtue of and in conformity with two acts of that state of 1780, chapter 5th and 45th, have presented to the courts of that country an important question involving principles of much nicety and extensive national importance, which if not analogous to, and expressly protected by the laws of nations, and precedents drawn from other countries, were yet of novel impression in America, and required much deliberation. A variety of such suits were brought; the usual steps were regularly and without interruption pursued; the gentlemen at the bar of the supreme common law court were nearly equally divided, on the different sides of these claims, and it was finally agreed between them to select some one case for trial, on the fate of which the rest should depend. The case of Mildred against Dorsey, which is particularly mentioned by the Secretary, was the individual case so selected, and after a full hearing, the court determined against the American citizens in favour of the British claimants; on which an appeal was entered, as is usual in all cases of consequence, and that cause together with all others similarly circumstanced, wherein new security could be procured by the defendant, removed to the high court of appeals of Maryland, where it now remains for final decision, and where it will be tried as soon as the accustomed legal forms are complied with. Throughout the whole progress of this suit, there has been no delay on the part of the Courts or the defendants; all the forms have been conducted upon the principle of mutual agreement between the counsel on either party.

With respect to the case of Harrison's representatives :-On the disclosure of facts made by the trustees of the will of Harrison on oath, in chancery, in consequence of the claim made by the attorney general, in behalf of the state, the chancery court determined it in favour of the state, it is believed on this principle, that however Great Britain might consider the antenati, as subjects born, and that they could not divest themselves of inheritable qualities, yet that the principle did not reciprocate on America, as those antenati of Great Britain could never be considered as subjects born of Maryland.

The legislature however took the matter up and passed an act relinquishing any right of the state, and directing the intention of the testator to take effect, notwithstanding such right. It is conceived, that this was a liberal and voluntary interposition, on the part of the legislature, in behalf of the representatives of Harrison, who are at liberty to pursue their claim.

Jno. Henry, Ch. Carroll, of Carrollton, John F. Mercer,
Samuel Sterret, Josa. Seney, W. V. Murray, Philip Key,
Upton Sheredine.

No. 50.

Extract of a letter from William Tilghman, Esq. to

dated Chester-Town, April 26, 1792.

DEAR SIR, YOUR favour of the 15th instant found me at Easton. There is no doubt but British subjects have uniformly been permitted to recover from the citizens of Maryland their debts due on causes of action existing before the late war.-The only dispute has been about the interest which accrued during the war. Our courts have decided the point of interest against the British creditor.-But this decision has been founded on general principles, and not on any act of assembly contravening the treaty of peace.

We have recognised that treaty as the law of the land by a particular act of assembly, and our judges have given one very striking proof of their impartiality in the construction of it. I allude to the decision of the general court in favour of British creditors against a number of Maryland citizens, who, during the war, deposited paper money in the treasury, under the sanction of a law at that time existing, in satisfaction of their debts. Whether the treaty should have such retrospect as to avoid these payments, was certainly a doubtful point.

It would be endless to enumerate the particular instances of British debts recovered. One or two I will mention, of a stronger nature than common, which have fallen within my own knowledge. Cn. Christie, whose estate (except his debts) was confiscated, for adhering to the British army, recovered upwards of 1200 sterling from Col. Richard Graves, of this county, on a judgment obtained before the revolution. Mr. George Rome, of London, received from the state of Maryland upwards of £1700 currency, on a claim which he had against Col. Chalmers of the British army, whose estate had been seized by the state on an attainder of treason. In short, it is notorious that we have complied with the true spirit of the treaty, and that our government has thrown no legal impediment in the way of the recovery of debts due to British subjects from our citizens, prior to the revolution. I am, dear sir, &c.

No. 51.

WM. TILGHMAN.

Annapolis, April 23, 1792.

DEAR SIR, YOUR favour of the 15th instant came safe to hand, and on examining the records of our court, I find a number of suits, commenced by British merchants, against citizens of this state, for debts contracted before the revolution, in which judgments have been universally rendered, and carried into execu tion; the plaintiffs in every case released the interest during the war. James Gordon and others have brought at least a hundred suits, since the year eighty-five, for old debts, and re

covered judgments: John Buchanan and Co. have also brought a number of suits, in which they have also obtained judgments; one in particular, against Charles Ridgely, son of William of Baltimore county, for a very considerable debt, in which a payment into the treasury was plead, and proven to have been made agreeably to our act of assembly; in this, and several other similar cases, the court on a case stated, gave judgment for the plaintiffs for the full sum due, with interest, except the interest during the war, computed from the 4th July, 1776, to the 3d September, 1783. Spears, French, and Co. James Russell's administrator, and several other British merchants, have brought suits for debts of the above description, and recovered judgments with as much facility as one citizen against another could do. I could with ease give you the parties names, in all the judgments rendered in our court, of the description you men. tion, but from your letter, I imagine a few will answer. I have therefore only selected such as you will observe at the foot of this letter. I am, dear sir, &c. JNO. GWINN.

James Gordon, formerly the house of John Glassford and Co. vs. Judith Chase. James Gordon, formerly of the house of John Glassford and Co. vs. George Dent. John Buchanan and Co. vs. Charles Ridgely, of William. John Buchanan and Co. vs. Samuel Lane. Cunningham, Findlay, and Co. vs. John Belt. Cunningham, Findlay, and Co. vs. Nicholas L. Sewell. George and Andrew Buchanan, vs. Randolph Brandt. George and Andrew Buchanan, vs. Richard Brandt. James Clerke, admr. of Jas. Russell, vs. Joseph Davis. James Clerke, admr. of Jas. Russell, vs. Joseph Wilkinson. Thomas Stewardson, admr. of Daniel Mildred, vs. Edward Dorsey, son of Jno. Thomas Stewardson, admr. of Daniel Mildred, vs. John F. Bowie. Spears, French, and Co. vs. Robert Warfield. Spears, French, and Co. vs. John Plummer. James Brown and Co. vs. Henry Stonestreet. James Brown and Co. vs. John Thompson. Hon. William V. Murray, Esq.

No. 52.

Philadelphia, May 1, 1792. SIR,-IN April, 1791, in the district court of Fredericksburg, the case Mitchell against Wallis, in which the law of the state' was plead, in bar of the debt, the following were the circum

stances:

Mitchell, a native of Great Britain, residing and trading in Virginia, having debts due him, to great amount, conveyed them, with other property, just before the war, to the use of his creditors, in Great Britain, and of one creditor in Virginia. In this situation the debts remained through the war, and the action was brought in favour of the British creditors, in 1788, or 89, and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs. Several other

judgments were entered in favour of the same parties, in that and the subsequent term. This must be deemed such a debt as was supposed to be prohibited and provided for by the treaty: It was so argued on the part of the defendant, whose counsel I was, and yet judgment was given against him.

I have not known of any other instances, wherein the right to recover was regularly contested. It was, however, always the opinion of the ablest counsel at the bar, that those debts were recoverable, that no law prohibited it, and if it were otherwise, that the treaty would control it. Since the establishment of the present government, upon the presumption there would be no further doubt on the subject, I have likewise heard several of the state judges say they had entertained the same opinion.

'Tis true the British merchants declined generally bringing suits prior to that event, nor indeed have any great number been since brought in the federal courts. For the motive to this conduct, 'tis not necessary to hazard a conjecture, as your inquiries respect only the law and the decisions under it. Certain it is, they have been progressing, and with great success since the peace, in the amicable adjustment of their accounts with their debtors, which has perhaps been more effectual (admitting that there was no dispute about the recovery otherwise than other debts) than any other course would have been.

The county courts, until very lately, have had exclusive jurisdiction of sums under ten pounds only. Upon all sums above that amount their decisions have been subject to the revi sion and control of the superior courts. A late modification gives them original jurisdiction of sums under £ 30-but, as well as I remember, subject as before to correction of the superior courts by appeal or supersedeas. I believe there are but few debts under that sum of the kind referred.

In the federal court no cause had been put at issue, until the last November term, at which time, that of Jones and Walker was argued, but continued over to the present upon account of the absence of Judge Blair, who left the bench in consequence of the death of his son. I have the honour to be, &c.

No. 53.

JAS. MONROE.

The Secretary of State. Philadelphia, May 6, 1792. SIR, A WRITTEN request from you was some days since presented to me as one of the delegation in Congress for the State of Virginia, to communicate to you such information respecting the present state of debts due to British subjects in that State, as had come to my knowledge; in compliance with which request, I now furnish you with the following state of facts.

Previously to my election to Congress, I had been engaged for several years in the practice of law in the State of Virginia.