gents, the further time mentioned in the Kentucky act, as foresaid, to make such appointments, respectively; and ereby to save their lands, otherwise forfeited. Whether, or not, these acts passed subsequent to the comact of separation, the one by Virginia, the other by Kentucky, e valid, or otherwise, will depend upon the result of the vestigation of the question: Do they, or not, infringe and pair the aforesaid third article of the compact? For it is pressly against a clause in the first paragraph of the tenth ction of the constitution of the United States, for any state to ss ang las impairing the obligation of contracts. The singular cituation of claims to land in Kentucky at the ne of entering into the compact; the course of legislation Lce; and a recent decision of the supreme court of the United ates, have remièred this a subject of inexpressible interest the people of this country: who, it is believed, would be eased to see the whole matter elucidated in some permanent m, in a manner to do justice, and maintain right, upon conFutional principles. Without intending at this place to antiate a more important view of the subject than this act preats, it may be observed, that the sole difficulty arises out of e interference of adverse claims; some of which had been Rented, or surveyed; or at least, agents had been appointed them on the one side, under laws prior to the compact-ile, on the other side, the adversary claim stood unsurveyed, a good, and prior entry; or conflicted with a bad, if an older Ery, at that time. In every such case according to the course decisions, if the mere entry was surveyed, or the agent apinted, within the time prescribed by law; and the claims me to be litigated, the better entry, so saved by protracting ne, would ultimately hold the land. But if these protracting vs, were null and void, then the entries surveyed in virtue them, and claiming them for their support, of necessity must 1 with them: inasmuch, as, if the foundation be taken away e superstructure will tumble.

To determine whether any law, by which conflicting rights lands, derived from the laws of Virginia, is applicable,

obtained under the law of Kentucky, would be in such case, as effectual against the state, and her subsequent grantees, as if the compact had never been made.

The subsequent acts of the kind, and they were repeated, or changed into positive permission to survey, and obtain title, until 1798,-demand no further notice, as it is thought, at this time; because they all rest on the same principle, as to their validity.

This subject will, however, be resumed, and treated more at large, in connexion with the occupying claimant laws; when it will be shewn that they, are not laws of title, and have nothing to do with the compact.

An act of some singularity was passed early in the session, calling on the attorney general to attend the present and future sessions, for the purpose of drafting bills, conformable to resolutions of either house. It is believed, that this act had but little effect; and was repealed in the next year.

The act of this session, declaring that all persons holding any legislative, executive, judicial, or lucrative, office whatever under the authority of the United States, should be disqualified for, and incapable of holding, or exercising, any office either, executive, judicial, or lucrative, whatever, under the Commonwealth, and ineligible to either house of the legislaure; is a strong indication of the general feeling towards the government of the United States.

At the session of 1794, the foregoing act was explained not o extend to affect persons called on to act as officers on volunary expeditions under the authority of the United States: but, Dersons receiving commissions in the standing army of the United States, and those who should be called into service for more than four months, were exempted from the benefit of the oregoing amelioration, and left under the full rigour of the original law; which subjected the offender to a fine of two hundred pounds. Again, in 1798, a new act was made, and fine of ten dollars per month imposed on each offender, gainst the law; to the use of any one who would sue-And urthermore, grand juries were required to present all such