WILKESBARRE.

DRAUGHT of a Tract of Land, situate in Wilkesbarre, one of the seventeen Townships in Luzerne County, being Numbers Fourteen and Fifteen in the Third Division of that Township and containing 432 Ac's. 157 P., and the usual allowance of Six per Cent for Roads, resurveyed for Thomas Wright, the Eighteenth day of August, 1802, by order of the Commissioners appointed to put in execution an act of the General Assembly of the State of Pennsylvania, entitled "An Act for offering compensation to the Pennsylvania Claimants of certain Lands within the seventeen Townships in the County of Luzerne, and for other purposes therein mentioned.” December 1st, 1902.

THOS. SAMBOURNE, Surveyor to the said Commissioners.

WE the undersigned Commissioners, duly appointed for putting in execution an Act of the General Assembly of the State of Pennsylvania, entitled "An Act for offering compensation to the Pennsylvania Claimants of certain Lands within the seventeen Townships in the County of Luzerne, and for other purposes therein mentioned,” passed the 4th day of April 1799, and the Supplement thereto passed the 15th day of March, 1800, and the further Supplement thereto passed the 6th day of April, 1802, DO CERTIFY, That Thomas Wright is the Owner as a Connecticut Claimant of Four hundred and Thirty-two Acres and One hundred and fifty-seven perches of Land in the Township of WILKESBARRE, one of the before mentioned seventeen Townships; being Lots Number Fourteen and Fifteen, in the Third Division in the said Township; WHICH Lots Number Fourteen and Fifteen were severally occupied and acquired by a Connecticut Claimant, an actual Settler there before the time of the Decree of Trenton, and was particularly assigned to such actual Settler, prior to the said Decree, agreeably to the regulations then in force among such Settlers. The said Land (a Draught of Survey whereof is hereto annexed) is included in the application of Thomas Wecks, under the provisions of the acts aforesaid: of which application an official transcript has been transmitted to us from the Land Office of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. No. 215, Of the said Tract, one hundred and sixty-five Acres, part thereof are of the third Class, and the residue thereof is of the fourth Class. THOMAS COOPER, JNO, M. TAYLOR

November 10th, 1803.

It will be apparent that the question has its origin in a controversy between sovereign States: That the certificate has its foundation in the benign and politic principle of compromise-to arrest bloodshed and put an end to civil war. It involves high matter of State policy, and should be decided, after a full view of the case in all its aspects, (not by the complex fettered rules of special pleading,) but on the broad ground of its own peculiar merits. He therefore, who examines it through the microscope of mere legal technicalities, must necessarily grope in darkness; the broad expanse can only be embraced by the telescope which sweeps from the zenith to the horizon. It is a vast State question of mingled equity and law.

We mean to be studiously brief, both because I feel myself to be a trespasser, and because generally, an intimation of the point or principle being given, legal gentlemen can follow it out with a force and clearness I could make no pretensions to.

The historical part of the origin of the Connecticut claim has already been set forth, and is presumed to be too well known and familiar to be here repeated at length, all important as it is regarded in considering the equity of title under the compromise.

The First point I propose to establish is this:

That the decree of Trenton, adjudging the jurisdiction to Pennsylvania, was a decision of policy and not of right. That it could not and did not affect the right of soil.

But a page of recapitulation is deemed proper. In the exhibit of claims by the Connecticut commissioners before the court at Trenton, it is set forth that the Susquehanna Company in its purchase and settlement of these lands acted" under countenance of the authority of said colony." And that "the Legislature of the colony of Connecticut have approved of the purchases and settlements of the adventurers aforesaid, and have actually exerted and exercised jurisdiction in and over said territory, as part and parcel of said colony." In fact in 1773, resolutions were passed declaring the intention to support their claim west of New York, and in January 1774, the jurisdiction and laws of Connecticut were, by formal enactment, extended to Wyoming, a town called Westmoreland was erected, and attached to the county of Litchfield, civil officers were appointed, taxes were levied and paid into the treasury of Connecticut, and representatives chosen to her Assembly. The power of State authority was as perfect here as at Hartford or New Haven; and thus it continued through the Revolutionary war, until the decree of Trenton in December 1782.

After the surrender of Lord Cornwallis it was obvious that the British power in America was broken, independence secure, and peace near at hand. Immediately all the States began to look with increased anxiety to the settlement of disputed points among themselves of boundaries, jurisdiction and soil.

By the second and third sections of the ninth article of confedera. tion, provision was made for raising two separate courts; one to try questions of jurisdiction between contending States; the other to try the right of soil between persons claiming lands under grants from different States. Thus clearly and distinctly admitting-that jurisdiction might be awarded to one State, and the soil to claimants under grants from another State. That is, that the right of jurisdiction and the right of soil did not necessarily go together. My impressions are clear that these sections were introduced having particular reference to the dispute existing between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York. It must have been manifest to the sagacious heads then on the stage of action, from the relative position of the parties, and the land claimed, that however just the title of Connecticut and Massachusetts, to the soil west of the Hudson, policy should award the jurisdiction relatively to Pennsylvania and New York. The application of nice technical and legal rules to the settlement of these controversies would have led to endless litigation, heart burnings, and most probably to civil war. Charter claims lapped on to each other-these were met by Indian deeds, rights of possession, and various equitable and political considerations, which ought not, and which could not be disregarded. Wisdom uttered her voice with emphatic solemnity, urging an adjustment upon broad and liberal grounds of State policy and equitable compromise. Chesterfield, in a letter to his son, says: "Where a variety of concurring incidents, and a chain of circumstantial evidence, all combine to support a proposition, he would believe it sooner than the most direct human testimony."

The reason of the thing, and concurring circumstances, lead strongly to the conclusion, that policy and not law governed the decision of this great cause at Trenton.

To give my impressions in familiar language, and make them more easily comprehended, I will suppose the great men in Congress in social chat, talking over the subject of these perplexing contro

versies.

South Carolina.-"Well, gentlemen, the power of Britain is broken-we shall now have a release from foreign war-shall we

be able to preserve domestic peace? What do you say, Mr. Wolcott, for Connecticut, will you maintain jurisdiction to your Wyoming lands, in defiance of my friend Clymer here, and the good State of Pennsylvania? Come, come, you are both ready to speak up very short-both for war! So, too, with my friends Floyd, from New York, and Osgood, from Massachusetts. They are ready for a battle for the rich lake and Genesee lands! But this is all nonsense, gentlemen. Wisdom, prudence, policy, these must come in and adjust the matter. There are twenty millions acres of unseated land in New York, claimed by that State and Massachusetts; you must divide these. There is enough for both. The jurisdiction should of course remain in New York-what does Massachusetts want to do with jurisdiction beyond the North River. She has plenty to attend to at home, and besides has the province of Maine to take care of."

Pennsylvania." Very well, you have settled the dispute of those States: give us a plan for Pennsylvania and Connecticut."

South Carolina.-"O, easy-leave Pennsylvania to herself-she is just large enough, as bounded by her charter-nothing to want and nothing to spare. Take off the degree of latitude claimed by Connecticut, all along her longitudinal limits, and you leave her razeed down to a fourth rate State. You deprive her of nearly all unseated lands, and she has no pretence of claim elsewhere. It will never, never answer."

Connecticut." But what is Connecticut to do?"

South Carolina.-" All easy and practicable. Connecticut must take a good slice out of her chartered limits west of Pennsylvaniathe beautiful Ohio lands, at present neither adversely settled nor claimed; enough, an hundred miles or more, if she please. Jurisdiction west of the Hudson cannot be an object of desire to her. And then all the States whose charters extend far west, must release the remainder of their claims to the United States, according to the resolves of Congress. And thus the whole matter may be satisfactorily adjusted."

Connecticut."Upon my word, you reason well. But what shall be done with the Wyoming settlers?"

South Carolina.-"O there can be no question about them. Their rights cannot be affected by any relinquishment the State may now make. Besides it will be the manifest policy of all parties to quiet the actual settlers. Land is plenty. All the States want good, contented, industrious citizens, to subdue the wilderness. And

moreover, the Wyoming people have fairly bought these lands of Pennsylvania by their blood and sufferings, standing as a frontier against the cruel savage, as they have done."

Pennsylvania.-"Certainly, certainly. If Connecticut will be satisfied with that arrangement, we pledge ourselves, give us all the rest within our charter peaceably, there shall be no difficulty in respect to the Wyoming settlers."

Connecticut." It seems rational; but the thing must be done in a legal way. The grant to Pennsylvania must pass by decision of court; for it would cut out so many of our people at home, who have claims in the Susquehanna country, there would be great dissatisfaction-the Wyoming settlers too, would be extremely offended if we give it up without a trial."

Pennsylvania.-"We understand you. You shall have a trial. An application shall be made forthwith to raise a court to decide the matter."

Fifteen days after Cornwallis surrendered, to wit:-November 3d, "A petition from the Supreme Executive Council was read" in Congress, stating the matter of dispute between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, praying a hearing in the premises, agreeable to the 9th article of confederation.

[See Journal of that date.]

A court was accordingly raised, composed of the Hon. William Whipple, of New Hampshire; Welcome Arnold, Rhode Island; David Brearly and William Churchill Houston, of New Jersey; Cyrus Griffin, Joseph Jones and Thomas Nelson, of Virginia. The two latter did not attend. The five first named convened at Trenton Nov. 12, 1782.

William Bradford, jr., Joseph Reed, James Wilson and Jonathan D. Sergeant, attended as counsel and agents, on the part of Pennsylvania.

Eliphalet Dyer, William S. Johnson and Jesse Root, appeared as counsel and agents, on behalf of Connecticut.

Early in the proceedings, to wit: November 19, a motion was made as follows: "The agents of the State of Connecticut, saving to themselves all advantages of other and further defence in said cause, beg leave to suggest, inform, and give the court to understand, that there are many persons who are tenants, in possession of the lands in controversy, holding, improving and claiming large quantities of said lands, under titles from the States of Pennsylvania and Connecticut, respectively, particularly the two large companies of