DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PEACE Between- the United States if America and his Britannia Majesty. (cz) Sept. 3, 1783. In the name of the Most; Holy and Uudivided Trinity. """""‘ Ir having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince Gaosca the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great-Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of. the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, &.c. and of the Unxwan S1·A·rt—:s or Ammms, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore; and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse between the two_countries, upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience, as may promote and (a) The decisions of the Courts of the United States in cases arising under the Definitive Treaty of Peace with Great Britain of September 3, 1783, have been: _ _ The fifth article of the treaty of peace of 1783, between the United States and Great Britain, concludin with this clause: "And it is agreed, that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, cidier by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the proseoution of theirjust righte;" applies to those cases where an actual confiscation has taken place; and sti ulates, that in sutdr cases, the interest of all persons having a lien upon such lands shall be preserved. Tliat clause of the treaty preserved the lien of a. morégagee of confiscated lands, which, at the time of the treaty, remained unso d. _Higgimtm v. Mein, 4 ranch, 415; 2 Cond. Rep._155. _ The treaties with Great Britain, of 1783 and 1794, only dprovide for titles exisnnfg at the time those treaties were made, and not for titles subsequently acquire . Actual possession o property is not ne-
$0 give the party the benetit of the treaty. Bltghfs Lessee v. Rochester, 7 Wheat. 535; 5 Cond.
ep. . Where I. D., an alien and British subject, came into the United States subseguent to the treatly of 17§3, and, before the treaty of 1794 was signed, died seised of lands, it was hel that the title o his hetrs to the land was not protected by the treaty of 1794. Ibid. Thomas Scott, a native of South Carolina, died in 1782, intestate, seised of land on James Island, having two daughters, Ann and Sarah, both born in South Carolina before the declaration of independence. Sarah married D. P. a citizen of South Carolina and died in 1802, entitled to one half of the estate. The British tcokdpossession of James Island and Charleston in February and Iilsg, 1780; and in 1781 Ann Scott marrie Joseph Shanks, a British officer; and at the evacuation of harleston in 17§2. she we¤t_to England with her husband, where she remained until her death in 1801. She left five children, born in Eng and. They claimed the other moiety of the real estate of Thomas Scott, in right of their mother, under the ninth article of the treaty of peace between this country and Great Britain of the 19th of November, 1794. Held, that they were entitled to recover and hcl the same. Shanks ct d. v. Qupont et al. 3 Peters, 242. All Bntish_born subjects, whose allegiance Great Britain has never renounced, ought, upon general principles of tntenuretation, to be held within the intent, as they certainly are within the words, of the treaty of 1794. bid. 250. The treaty of 17:33, acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually ebsolved from all alleviance to the British crown; all those who then adhered to the British crown were deemed and held suhjects of that crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between states and the inhabitants thereof Ibid. 274. The several states which complose this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entttled,from the time w en_ they declared themselves independent, to all the rig ts and powers of sovereign states; and dtd not denve them from concessions of the British king. The treaty of peace contains s recognition of the independence of these states, not a grant of it. The laws of the several state gpvernments, passed after the declaration of independence, were the laws of sovereign states, and as saic Rwerzgbligatory upon tho people of each state. 1\1’Ilvaine v. Cozz’s Lessee, 4 Cranch, 209 ; 2 on . ep. . The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the sixth article of the treaty of Hence of 1783, in the same manner as those of natural persons; and their title, thus protected, is conrrned hy the ninth article of the treaty of 1794, so that it could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act, or othwroceeding for the defect of alienage. The Society Gfor Propagating the Gospel. th:. v. New Haven, 8 heat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. See also, post, p. 11 , n. (80)