Is it not preposterous to say that the title of the settler is to be dated as beginning with the date of the certificate? The thousand warrants of '93-4, were perfectly known to have been laid on these lands. Was it expected that after some years the two claims would come into Court, to be decided which was the oldest, and therefore, which was best? Did the State so understand it? Did the settlers so understand it? Did those warrant holders, who have suffered the matter to sleep forty years, so understand it? No, the legal Pennsylvania title must be dated as beginning at the passage of the confirming law, or the right of pre-emption, Dec. 30, 1786; the equitable claim having existed from or before the decree of Trenton. It is here proper to say, that to Thomas Cooper, Esq., one of the commissioners under the compromising law, in 1803 and 1804, the settlers within the seventeen townships, and the Commonwealth at large, are deeply indebted. He gave to the subject the most devoted attention of a mind remarkably sagacious, vigorous, and clear. He unraveled with unexceeded patience and perspicuity, the mazes of this most intricate subject; aided by the practical good sense and dignity of character of Gen. Steele of Lancaster County, and Mr. Wilson of Lycoming; afterwards assisted by John M. Taylor, Esq., of Philadelphia. all On obtaining certificates the settlers were required to give up deeds or evidence of Connecticut title, so that, very properly, thereafter, they should rest solely on the pledged faith of the Commonwealth. In point of fact, however, the certificate is of itself the best possible evidence of Connecticut title, adjudicated and decided to be perfect by a Pennsylvania Court. I submit the remark here, that all the laws tending to confirm titles to the settlers ought to be taken and construed, not as separate, independent acts, but as parts and parcel of a system, as bricks of one edifice, constituting together one whole and perfect structure of compromise. It is a striking fact, that the certificate issued under the compromising law of '99, makes use of almost the literal words to designate Connecticut claimants, employed by the confirming act; thereby referring to and recognizing that act, to which in truth the compro Connecticut claimants were to pay for lands of the first class, 2.00 mising law is a mere supplement. The certificate reads: "Which number was 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 words of the confirming law are-" which were occupied or acquired by Connecticut claimants, who were actual settlers there before the decree aforesaid, and which rights or lots, were particularly assigned to the said settlers prior to the said decree, agreeably to the regulations then in force among them." If the confirming law did not convey the State title to the settler, it recognized in him and legalized a peculiar settlement made, or claim acquired "before the decree of Trenton." And to such and such only, could certificates issue. The fact of such settlement or acquisition was to be proved, and the commissioners under the compromising law were constituted a competent tribunal to decide upon it. Their certificate is complete proof of the fact. The holder may go into court, and produce his certificate: 1st. As evidence of title under the compromising law, or 2d. as proof positive of settlement or acquired claim, before December 30, 1782, recognized and legalized by the confirming act. The compromising law went fully into operation. Peace and harmony have since prevailed. Those claims under Connecticut, within townships on which settlement had been made after the Trenton decree, already numerous and rapidly increasing, threatening wide extended and serious mischief, forthwith fell before this act of mingled policy and justice. Separated from the old settlers, who had borne the hardships of early emigration, and the crimsoned severities of savage war, the new grants plausibly urged for awhile, now found little favour, and soon sunk to oblivion. DISSENTIENT from the vote adopting the report of the committee in favour of repealing the act entitled "An act for ascertaining and confirming to certain persons called Connecticut claimants, the lands by them claimed within the county of Luzerne, and for other purposes therein mentioned. 1st. Because we consider the act which the resolution adopted by the House, proposes to repeal, to be either in the nature of an absolute, or a conditional grant to the Connecticut settlers. If the latter, it has not yet been proved to our satisfaction, that the insurrection at Wyoming, which occasioned the commissioners to fly, proceeded from a general determination to resist the authority, and reject the bounties of this State, or from the turbulent dispositions of some of the adherents of John Franklin, who were incensed at his sudden and secret arrest; few of whom could derive any benefit from the law which the commissioners were then carrying into execution, and consequently, it has not appeared with that clearness which the importance of the subject requires, that there has been any breach of the implied condition of the law, viz: that the Connecticut settlers would submit to the authority of the State. 2d. Because if the grant is absolute, it is obligatory upon the State, and can only be revoked upon the terms mentioned hereafter. We conceive that a law vesting an interest conveys the most (authentic) and (solemn) title that can be annexed to property, after which the State has not the same power over the law which it most unquestionably possesses over its own acts of another nature. But in no instance can the power of repealing laws affect their obligations while in force, and consequently, if the effect of the law while in force is permanent and perpetual upon the subject to which it relates, a repeal, although it may destroy the law, cannot diminish the effect it has already produced. 3d. Because, although it is universally conceded that private property may at any time be taken for public uses, yet it can only be so taken on condition of making full and adequate compensation to the private proprietor; and hence it may follow that the State, from whatever motives, having conveyed the title to the lands in dispute, under certain terms and modifications to the Connecticut settlers, will at a future day be liable to make a more expensive compensation to those settlers, than the whole amount of the demands of the Pennsylvania claimants. 4th. Because it is introducing a most dangerous principle to repeal a law of any kind from an impression, however strong, that the Legislature was deceived at the time of passing the law. A law contrary to the constitution, may and ought to be repealed; for in that instance there is a certain guide, which although it may be disobeyed, cannot be misunderstood. But to pass our own judgment in a legislative manner, upon the sufficiency of the motives which induced a former Assembly to enact a law of the nature of that which it is now proposed to repeal, and to collect those motives from other sources than the law itself, appears to us to endanger the authority even of our own proceedings, by rendering them liable at a future day, to be subverted in the same manner, with perhaps still less evidence, than we have to proceed upon. And it will directly tend to destroy the order, safety and happiness, derived from civil society; for as the obligation of the laws is rendered less solemn and conclusive, the Legislature will naturally become less impressed with their importance, and the people will gradually learn to disregard their authority. Signed, WILLIAM RAWLE, JACOB HILTSHeimer, [Would it be too presuming to doubt whether the Philadelphia Bar, at all times distinguished for ability, but sixty years ago pre-eminent for the talents which adorned it, has often exhibited a paper of superior merit? The historical exposition in the third point taken, is remarkable for clearness, force and eloquence.] DISSENTIENT from the vote for enacting the law entitled, an act to repeal an act, entitled an "Act for ascertaining and confirming to certain persons, called Connecticut claimants, the lands by them claimed within the county of Luzerne, and for other purposes therein mentioned." 1st. Because the passing of the bill into a law in the same session in which it origi nated, and within eight days after it was first read to the House, is beyond all example heretofore furnished by the rage or folly of party, a flagrant violation of the constitution, which declares, that "to the end that laws before they are enacted may be more maturely considered, and the inconvenience of hasty determination as much as possible prevented, all bills of a public nature shall be printed for the consideration of the people, before they are read in General Assembly, the last time for debate, and except on occasions of sudden necessity, shall not be passed into laws until the next session of Assembly." That this bill was of "a public nature," all who have understanding to comprehend, and candour to acknowledge the obvious meaning of words, must confess; inasmuch as the compensation to be made to the Pennsylvania claimants related to the whole State, and affected all its members; and no one will have the effrontery to say, that any “occasion of sudden necessity" had occurred for dispensing with the express provision of the constitution. This wanton precipitation in passing the bill, is inconsistent with its preamble, in which one motive assigned for the repeal of the confirming law is, that it was passed hastily, and without due consideration had, and another contradiction equally glaring is, that after stating that the said act divested many citizens of this State of their lands, without their consent, and without making them any just compensation, it assigns as a reason for the repeal, that the carrying said act into effect would impose a grievous burthen on the good citizens of this State, to make compensation to those who would thereby be divested of their property. The constitution further declares that "for the more perfect satisfaction of the public the reasons and motives for making laws shall be fully and clearly expressed in the preambles." Whatever might be the reasons and motives for passing the bill, the facts assumed in the preamble, but which were neither proved nor admitted, seem to have been intended to give colour to a proceeding which stood in need of it, if not to bring reproach on a former House, equally respectable at least with the present one for wisdom and virtue. ⚫ 2d. Because the House had no proper evidence in support of the allegations contained in the preamble, and refused to inquire either in the House or in committee of the whole House, whether they were true or not. In a measure highly interesting to the honour dignity and justice of the State, in a measure consigning to misery and ruin many hundred families, who had trusted to its good faith; and calculated to bring severe and merited reproach on a former Assembly, a decent regard for the opinions of men should have induced the House to have heard the evidence which was called for, so as to give some semblance of justice to their proceedings. This was nevertheless refused, and an example set for preferring rumour to facts, assertions to proof, and conjecture to full and complete infor mation. A solemn vote precluded probing inquiry, and then the House assuming facts, as signed them as grounds for repealing a law founded in wisdom, justice and sound policy. If this proceeding is not a mockery of justice, and satire on the House, it must be admitted to be of the most dangerous example. 3d. Because the confirming act was founded in wisdom and sound policy, and the allega. tions in the preamble to the bill repealing it, that "it was unconstitutional, and of the most dangerous consequences;" and that "the reasons set forth in the preamble of the said act, do not appear sufficient to warrant any legislative interference," are without foundation. The salus populi or safety of the people, is the supreme law of the land, to which all inferior rights and regulations must yield. They originate from and are auxiliary to society, and may, on reasonable compensation made, be lawfully resumed, whenever the great ends thereof require it, for the accomplishment of some great good, or to arrest an impending eril. These important truths result from the very nature of society, and the first principles of government. They are sanctioned by the principles of individuals, and the practice of nations. They are confirmed in abundant instances by our municipal laws, and recognized by our bill of rights. The Legislature who enacted that law were neither so weak nor so wicked, as men less informed and not more virtuous, have supposed them to have beenThe state of the Commonwealth called for the system which they adopted, and had a policy equally just and wise been since pursued, the faith of Pennsylvania would not have been broken, or her honour tainted by her own sons. If the House had designed to inquire for themselves of witnesses at the bar, or in committee of the whole, instead of trusting to others, the truth might have appeared on our journals, and a curious spectacle would have been exhibited by contrasting it with the preamble of the bill. But the hurry with which they charged a former House with proceeding "hastily and without due consideration had," not admitting of the necessary inquiries, has exposed them to that censure which has been wrongfully imputed to others. The conduct of the Legislature in November 1787, when the same business came before them, was very different. Instead of listening to idle rumours, they called witnesses to their bar, and examined for themselves. They had written documents laid before them, and became well acquainted with all the facts which led to the quieting act, as well as with its effects. The charter boundaries of Pennsylvania and Connecticut were supposed to clash, and had long been contested before and since the revolution. Each asserted her claim to the country at and about Wyoming, and manifested a resolution to maintain them at every hazard. The Connecticut claimants settled themselves on the lands, under grants from the Susquehanna Company, and the patronage of Connecticut. They maintained and cultivated their lands, until the decree of Trenton in 1782. That decree settled the rights of soil and territory, as between the contending States, in favour of Pennsylvania, but it neither did nor possibly could affect the private rights of individuals. The judges who pronounced that decree, nevertheless became well acquainted with the nature of the settlements, and the equity resulting from them. Under the impressions made thereby, they wrote a letter to the Executive authority of Pennsylvania, which is perhaps lost, but the following account of it has been given by one of the same judges in a subsequent letter. "We had many strong reasons for writing the letter to the President of Pennsylvania We were fully acquainted with the circumstances of the New England settlers. We knew that many of them had honestly paid for their possessions; that they verily believed the title under which they claimed to be perfectly good; that they had cleared, built upon, and improved the land; that in doing this they had encountered many dangers, and suffered innumerable hardships; and beyond all these things, and what cannot be estimated, many of their nearest connexions had spilt their blood in defence of their possessions. "Thus circumstanced it was manifest that they had become enthusiastic for the land; that the reasoning of legislators and statesmen would have but little weight with them; that if the State should attempt to dispossess them, they would become desperate, and a civil war would be the consequence. On the contrary, if the State should quiet them in their possessions, they would become peaceable good citizens, and that the State could compensate those who held the Pennsylvania title, by giving them an equivalent in lands or money, at a less expense than that of dispossessing the New England settlers. That therefore the interest, the humanity, and the policy of the State, would lead them to adopt the measures that we recommended. The letter bore no official authority. We subscribed it as private citizens. Nevertheless we did conceive that it would have some weight, as it must be apparent that our means of information have been better than those of any other persons who were disinterested." A different policy from that which had been so warmly recommended was adopted by Pennsylvania. She levied troops, and marched them into the hapless country, dispossessed the settlers without any trial of their rights. The horrors of war were renewed, and from the supposed inclemency of our measures, or some other cause, a dangerous confederacy was forming against us. The Connecticut claimants were a bold and hardy race of men, inured to toils and trained to arms. Their enrolled militia, between the ages of eighteen and fiftyeight, amounted to 685, exclusive of those of some townships, whose returns had not come to hand. Besides these, it appears that there were many able bodied men among them, not between those ages, but who were capable of being brought into action to great advantage, as occasion might call for it. Many fruitless efforts had been made by Pennsylvania, at the expense of some blood and much treasure, to subdue the country, and establish her authority within it; but experience had evinced that the inhabitants, when assailed by a superior force, only retreated to the fastnesses of a rugged country, till that force was removed. Thus situated, they had for many years there kept Pennsylvania at bay, or made momentary re |
