law, as well in relation to her own citizens, as to the parties who were citizens of South Carolina.—In support of these several propositions the following authorities were cited: 1. H. Bl. 149. Vatt. B. 3. c. 77. Lee on Capt. Bynk. B. 1. c. 7. Vatt. B. 3. c. 18. s. 295. Jenk. 121. Sir T. Park. 121. Plow. 243, 324. 1 H. Bl. 413. 2 Bl. Com. 405, 409. 2 Wood. 130. 4 Bl. Com. 386. Hal. P. C. 413. 3 Inst. 55. 1 Hawk. 68. 3 Bl. Com. 259. 3 T. Rep. 731,2,3,4. 1 Woodes 146. Cro. Car. 460. 16 Vin. Abr. 85, 6. 3 Bl. Com. 260. Park. 267. 1 P. Wm. 307. 1 Dall. Rep. 393. Hind. ch. 129. 1 Vern. 58.
2. On the second point, it was urged, that although the word "sequestration" was used in the Georgia law, yet that the law directed the debt to be collected, in the same manner as debts confiscated, and to be put into the treasury, for the use of the state, until it should be otherwise appropriated; and that the state had never made any other appropriation; but, on the first opportunity, claimed it as a forfeiture. The election, therefore, to condider it as a confiscation, was reserved by the state to herself; and her subsequent conduct makes the reservation absolute. The exception of debts in the South-Carolina law cannot govern the case as to Powell & Hopton; for that law is only referred to for the manner and form, not for the subjects of confiscation. It only remains, therefore, to enquire, whether, independent of Georgia, the operation and existence of her law can be, and has been, defeated and annulled. The peace merely does not effect the right of the state, for, the condition of things at the conclusion of the war is legitimate; and all things not mentioned in the treaty, are to remaln as at the conclusion of it. The treaty of 1783 does not affect the right of the state; for, though it provides, generally, in the 4th article, that creditors, on either side, shall meet with no lawful impediment, in recovering their debts, this ought be understood merely as a provision that the war, abstractedly considered, shall make no difference in the remedy, for the recovery of subsisting debts; that the remedy shall not be perplexed by instalment laws, pine-barren laws, bull laws, paper money laws, &c; but it does not decide, what are subsisting debts, which can only, indeed, be decided on the general principle of the law of nations. Laws of sequestration and confiscation, are not, however, the object of the 4th article of the treaty of peace; but of a subsequent article, in which Congress only promise (all, indeed, they could do) to recommend to the states, revision and restitution. Debts discharged by law. where they originated, are every where discharged. Such
is not only the doctrine of Georgia, but of the British Statesmen and Judges wherever the question has arisen. The Federal Constitution does not affect the right of the state; for, though
