Your secretary does not experience much difficulty in forming a judgment of what is right relative to the payments made into some of the state treasuries, by debtors to British creditors, in pursuance of certain state acts requiring or authorizing the same.

From the principles stated in the preceding part of this report your secretary infers, that the treaty of peace does consider the debts mentioned in the fourth article as being exactly in their original state of obligation and extent, leaving the contracts on which they depend, to be executed according to the tenor, true intent and meaning of them. If so, British creditors have no sort of concern with any payments (made on account of the debts due to them) other than such as they either accepted, directed or approved; for in relation to the creditor, all such payments are as if they had never been made, and he is justifiable in proceeding against his debtor accordingly. But between the debtor so paying into a state treasury, and the state directing, inviting or authorizing him to do it, an account should be opened; and the state is, in your secretary's opinion, bound in justice to repay him the then real value of such money as he so put into the treasury, together with lawful interest for the use of it.

But violations of the fourth article are not the only ones alleged in the list of grievances. It expressly charges, that as little respect has in certain instances been paid to the fifth and sixth articles. Of these in their order.

The fifth article is in these words: "It is agreed, "that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states, to provide for

66

"the restitution of all estates, rights and properties, "which have been confiscated, belonging to real Bri"tish subjects, and also of the estates, rights and pro"perties of persons resident in districts in possession "of his majesty's arms, and who have not borne arms "against the said United States; and that persons of any "other description shall have free liberty to go to any "part or parts of the thirteen United States, and therein "to remain twelve months unmolested in their endea. "vours to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights and properties, as may have been "confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly "recommend to the several states, a reconsideration "and revision of all acts or laws respecting the pre"mises, so as to render the said acts or laws perfectly "consistent, not only with justice and equity, but with "that spirit of conciliation, which, on the return of the "blessings of peace, should universally prevail; and "that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the "several states, that the estates, rights and properties of "such last mentioned persons shall be restored to them, "they refunding to any persons who may now be in possession, the bona fide price (where any has been

66

66

given) which such persons may have paid on pur"chasing any of the said lands, rights or properties, "since the confiscation. And it is agreed, that all per"sons who may have any interest in confiscated lands, "either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights."

The complainants insist that South Carolina has violated this article, and in the following instances, viz.

1. That certain persons were permitted to go there to obtain the restitution of their rights and properties, and that the purposes for which they went were frustrated by a suspension of the courts of justice. That they were compelled to depart by a publick notification from the governour, after having been at considerable expense of time and money in a delusive pursuit. That during their stay they experienced great personal insult and abuse.

Who these persons were, may be conjectured from the purposes for which they went to South Carolina. They went to obtain the restitution of their rights and properties, and were probably of the number of those who were objects of a certain act passed there the 26th February, 1782, entitled "An act for disposing of "certain estates, and banishing certain persons therein "mentioned."

It should be remembered that this act was passed during the war. An examination of it and of some subsequent acts will tend to show how far the complaint of these persons is well founded.

This act divides the persons intended to be affected by it into classes.

The first class was composed of persons who were known to be subjects of his Britannick majesty. Their names are mentioned in a schedule annexed to the act, which is distinguished by list No. 1. No personal offences are imputed to them, and national reasons are assigned for divesting them of their property

real and personal, " debts excepted," for the use of the

state.

The second class was composed of persons who, owing allegiance to the state, refused to take an oath professing the same.

The third class consisted of persons who, owing allegiance to the state, had in 1779 taken up arms with the enemy, and having by proclamation been required by name to surrender themselves by a given time, did not obey. The act divests them of their estates, with exception however of such as had returned and borne arms in defence of the state, before the 27th September, 1781.

The fourth class (named in list No. 2.) had withdrawn themselves from their allegiance, and congratulated the enemy's leaders on the reduction of Charleston.

The fifth class (named in list No. 3.) had withdrawn from their allegiance, and requested to be embodied and to be permitted to serve as royal militia.

The sixth class (named in list. No. 4.) had, in violation of their duty to the state, and with circumstances aggravating the impropriety of such conduct, congratulated earl Cornwallis on his success, and gloried in the blood of their countrymen shed by the enemy.

The seventh class (named in list No. 5.) held, or had held, commissions in the enemy's service, in defiance of an act of the state declaring such offences to be capital.

The eighth class (named in list No. 6.) had manifested their attachment to the British government, and their inveteracy to the state.

The act divested these seven last mentioned classes of their estates, and banished all those whose names are mentioned in lists No. 2, 3, 4 and 5.

From this act, compared with the case of the com. plainants as stated by themselves, it may fairly be inferred that they are not British subjects, for none of that character are banished by the act.

66

During the course of the same session, viz. 1782, an act was passed entitled, "An act for pardoning the "persons therein described, on the conditions therein "mentioned." The preamble is in these words: "Whereas many persons, inhabitants of and owing "allegiance to this state, some of them having signed congratulatory addresses to sir Henry Clinton, and "Mariot Aburthnot, esquire, and to the earl Cornwallis, "on the successes of his Britannick majesty's arms in "this country, and others having borue commissions un"der the British government, are excepted by the go"vernour's proclamation, bearing date on or about the "27th September last, from pardon for those offences: "And whereas some of the said persons have surren"dered to the justice, and submitted themselves to the "mercy of their country: And whereas many persons "who would have been entitled to the benefit of the "said proclamation, had they returned to their allegi "ance before the expiration of the time limited for the "same, did neglect to surrender themselves, but have "since the 17th day of December withdrawn from the "enemy and borne arms in defence of this state, and "the legislature moved with compassion, are willing to "grant them pardon on conditions which may in some degree atone for those offences."

แ