.HvHs! 
 
 ^t!ft 
 
 i;,'t:!'i'i 
 
10 
 
 The Honourable the Senate and House of Representa;- 
 fives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania^ 
 
 THE MEMORIAL 
 
 Of Wilhem Willink, Hendrick Vollenhoven, and Rut- 
 gert Jan Schimmelpenninck, 
 
 RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH, 
 
 THAT previous to the year 1791, they associated 
 with Nicolaas Van Staphorst, Pieter Stadnitski, and 
 Christiaan Van Eghen, who are since dead, and were 
 known by the name of the Holland Company; this 
 was a friendly and private association of your memorial- 
 ists, then and yet being foreigners, citizens of Amster- 
 dam, in Holland. 
 
 Having acquired (we may presume to say, in a course 
 of honourable industry) considerable estates, and per- 
 ceiving great troubles about to come upon our country, 
 a natural sentiment inclined us to place a part, at least, 
 of our property, beyond the vicissitudes of civil dissen- 
 tions and revolutionary government. Attached as we 
 were to the cause of liberty in Holland, with this view 
 we turned our thoughts to America, confidently be- 
 lieving, that whatever was precious to us in interest or 
 affection, would be best secured among a virtuous peo- 
 ple, whose government was republican, and whose jus- 
 tice was fixed by a constitutional and supreme adminis- 
 tration of standing laws; a people too, whom we had 
 contributed to assist by pecuniary aid in their con- 
 test for freedom. Thus influenced, our then agent, 
 Mr, Cazenove, became the purchaser, for our ac- 
 count, of 11 62 warrants for land of 400 acres each, lying 
 north and west of the rivers Ohio and AUeghanv and 
 
 A 
 
 
2 Ml H^ 
 
 t nf the Conewans:o creek, and surveyed in districts 
 westoftheConewa g ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ 
 
 Nos. 1, 2, J, o, aiiu i. AuQ-ust 1793, 
 
 were all dated beUveen ApJ-'^^W and ^-^-^^J^ ^^ 
 
 %MoAesta« of Pennsylvania, from whom the pur- 
 I Umade the full consideration money, bemg 
 f9TfiO doCs and 82 cents: also the land-office lees. 
 amountiS to 4,802 dollars, and for patents the turther 
 Tm of 14,651 dollars and 31 cents: and between the 
 ve^s 79i and the 5th March 180:., we had expended 
 ^o^'^count ofthese tracts-for build.ngtnms .,d scores 
 
 opening roads, furnishing ^"PP''f ' '^^-^f d^,,,^^"^^^ 
 obiects of settlement, the sum of 330,755 dollars ana 
 f ients comnosini? a gross sum of actual cost to us m 
 money,' onTe5tlf of Wch 1802, of 443,169 dollars 
 
 and eighteen cents. .... , 
 
 Since which time to the present our additional ex- 
 penditure on account of those lands will increase the 
 mere principal in money paid by us, to a sum not iar 
 short of 500,000 dollars. This, however, does not pre- 
 sent the whole cost of the purchase and settlement; tor 
 of the 116-2 tracts thus purchased from the sUite and 
 paid for, we sustained a loss of no less than 086 or 
 154,400 acres of land out of the 464,800 contained in 
 
 the 1162 warrants. . ^^c anri 
 
 This resulted from prior occupancies, resurve>s, ana 
 lands we were obliged to give as bounties to procure 
 -settlers under the law of 1792. " 
 
 We have then left but .U0,400 acres to look to 
 for the reimbursement of near half a million ot dollars 
 taken from the very capital of our private -.ortunes. It 
 is added to this (what to say the best of it would be ai 
 poor remuneration for our money and trouble) the itgai 
 interest oi SIX percent, reckoned from the advances as 
 made, these lands now so reduced in quantity, and sunk 
 in value bv reason of injurious claims and intrusions, 
 will have cost us almost a million of doUars! 
 
 Ofthese 310,400 acres, ov/ir.g to the causes above al- 
 hided to, not more than 45,000 acres have been sold, 
 
and these at most reduced prices; and nigh all of the 
 consideration, even of these sales have for years remain- 
 ed unpaid, and the whole of its interest; the inability to 
 pay also arising out of the impoverishment of the coun- 
 try from disputes engendered by speculators under the 
 name of actual settlers, and other pretences affecting the 
 title of the warrantees and those holding under them. 
 
 1 hus have your memorialists, within seventeen years, 
 paid into the treasury and land-office of this state, up- 
 wards of 112,000 dollars, the full price of the land as 
 fixed by law; they have in the same time expended nigh 
 400,000 dollars upon the cultivation of a desert, having 
 never ceased from the moment of procuring their war- 
 rants to this day, by unremitting labours and unbound- 
 ed liberality, not merely to comply in form, but sub- 
 stantially to attain, and even exceed all that the policy 
 of the law of 1792, now so unkuidly meant to be turned 
 against them, had in view by its conditions of settlement. 
 
 What then, if it were true, that upon each tract and 
 within the exact time, our intentions and efforts had 
 failed of procuring a particular settlement, from causes 
 and circumstances too, not under our control; have we 
 not done more and better than the most sanguine cal- 
 culations ever foretold? A mere needy settler on each 
 tract would have been nothing to the state in compari- 
 son to the mass of our improvements, and the wealth 
 we poured into that country. In the place of the savage 
 and the beast, we have given to Pennsylvania an extend- 
 ed population, and a productive land: Useful citizens, 
 progressive arts, domestic comforts, and increasing 
 riches are diffused over nigh a million of acres; which, 
 but for the exhaustion of our fortunes and labours, and 
 those of the odier warrantees implicated in this bill, 
 would, at this moment, like the counties adjoining up- 
 on the east, have exhibited only a sterile wilderness. 
 During all this time it is our just right to aver, that we 
 have injured no man, nor violated intentionally the least 
 of our engagements; even those who, seizing on the pre- 
 text of forfeiture, and our condition as foreigners, in or- 
 der to speculate upon our fears or misfortunes, had in- 
 
vaded these possessions, so dearly bought, affecting to 
 call themselves actual settlers, because of our suppo- 
 sed non-settlement of certain tracts, even they acknow- 
 ledge not only our justice but our kindness: Your me- 
 moVialists indeed never could sanction their pretensions, 
 and often perceived that their motives merely pointed to 
 exaction; yet have we satisfied even their demands; 
 scarcely a single person, holding in opposition to our 
 rights, now resides upon the tracts purchased by your 
 memorialists; how many of these claims have been 
 quieted, how much it has cost us in the course of fourteen 
 years to extinguish them, it is unnecessary to ascertain: 
 suffice it to say that our great object has been peace, 
 and to arrive at that point where these pretensionis, how- 
 ever ill founded or unjust, as most assuredly they are, 
 should cease to keep our lands a longer burthen upon 
 • us, and even less useful to die community by suspended 
 litigation. Though foreigners, labouring under many 
 disadvantages from our unacquaintance with the laws, 
 customs and opinions which prevail in this country, yet 
 we confidently appeal to the common sentiment of 
 Pennsylvanians for the standard of our conduct, and 
 the rectitude of our dealings. The people of Pennsyl- 
 vania could have imputed to us no fault, unless it was 
 a crime to possess wealth, and to have lavished it with 
 unbounded profusion in continued efforts for nigh 20 
 years, to populate and improve their country. We say- 
 nothing in this place of the difficulties and anxieties sus- 
 tained by us, growing out of juridical perplexities, liti, 
 gious passions, and the secret method by which certain 
 persons of influence keep alive a spirit of discontent and 
 obstinacy among a few of the yet unsatisfied setders, — 
 persons who have bought up many of these pretended 
 rights, and are now at Lancaster, pretending to advo- 
 cate for settlers, and get a law favourable to their own 
 views. Hapj^y indeed would it be for Pennsylvania, and 
 greatly to the benefit of those who are fair settlers, and 
 are seeking, by state laws and coercion, to force from us 
 our possessions, if those they most depend upon, had 
 used their influence to heal instead of opening the 
 
wounds of controversy: instead of erecting jurisdictions 
 and laying out plans oi prosecution and force, had met 
 the warrantees in the spirit of accommodation: if this had 
 been their course, your memorialists can venture to as- 
 sert, that the country would at this moment have been in 
 peace, and the complaints of actual settlers (so called) 
 long ago removed. In regard however, to your memo- 
 rialists^ having well nigh extinguished every pretension 
 of whatever kind, and having, in 1805, obtained a con- 
 firmation of our title in the supreme court of the United 
 States, we had begun to console ourselves that no new 
 claims would be revived, but that we should be left un- 
 disturbed in future exertions to settle the country, and 
 convert the poor pittance of our remaining possessions 
 to some small account: we say small account, for with- 
 out another hindrance, and every cloud over our tide 
 removed, these lands which have cost us in principal 
 and interest, near a million of dollars, will not produce 
 to us, under the most favourable circumstances of sale, 
 one third of that amount. Cheerfully indeed would we 
 resign it after all our payments to the state, all our ex- 
 penditures and improvements, and all our cares and ex- 
 ertions, for only three-fifths of the neat 500,000 dol- 
 lars it has cost us, sinking thereby the w hole interest, 
 and two- fifths of the capital of our advances! 
 
 We thought it due to ourselves, and to the legislature 
 of Pennsylvania, to make this representation; we pledge 
 ourselves for its accuracy, and are ready to produce ex- 
 act and authentic vouchers for all these expenditures; 
 and yet this is the purchase which ignorance, misguided 
 by imposture, has denominated an " enormous specu- 
 lation," a monopoly by rich foreigners, to the exclusion 
 of poorer men who would have actually settled these 
 lands. We need not remark upon these unworthy 
 means to raise a prejudice to our rights: the facts^ as 
 they regard the profit of this contract with the state, are 
 now before the legislature and the people; it is easy to 
 decide, if that were the question, who is the meritorious 
 sufferer; he who purchased and has expended thou- 
 sands to people and improve a wilderness; or he who 
 
lies by for seventeen years after the toil and expense is 
 bestowed, and private fortune exhausted, comes to 
 wrest it from the proprietor, by an entry and claim un- 
 der pretext of a catching forfeiture. This statement, 
 and tliese remarks seemed to your memorialists a ne- 
 cessary introduction to the important purposes of this 
 address to your honourable body. 
 
 In these circumstances of our property, and just 
 beginning, as above remarked, to enjoy the hope of 
 some small reimbursement for such an immense cost, 
 by a quiet sale and settlement of what remains; we 
 casually learned that a bill is reported by an honoura- 
 ble committee of the legislature, intended, not only to 
 flZG^ persons who had settled on particular tracts^ upon 
 the ground, that the title of the warrantee was devest- 
 ed by some original conditions of settlement; but 
 also organizing a court, and making provisions, where- 
 by the state of Pennsylvania itself is to become our 
 adversary, and to lay claim, under this new preten- 
 sion, to all those tracts not yet entered upon or held 
 against us by particular settlers. 
 
 We had, indeed, considered our grievances on the 
 score of defending ourselves against the individuals 
 coming in upon us, under an idea of forfeiture and 
 vacancy of the land, as sufficiently afflicting. With 
 most of them, settlements have been made, not in- 
 deed, on the score of right or justice, (for they came 
 knowing our claims, and choosing controversy) but 
 to buy peace ^ as the cheaper course: those particu- 
 lar claimants are reduced to a small number, even 
 throughout the whole district; and a short bill pass- 
 ed by your honourable house, enabling compromises, 
 and confirming the title of the warrantees, as against 
 the state (if indeed it is necessary,) would, as your 
 memorialists confidently believe, lead to a satisfactory 
 adjustment of remaining controversies between origi- 
 nal warrantees, and persons who claim by vacating 
 warrants or otherwise: and thus in the course of six 
 months, justice be done, tranquillity restored, and 
 
prosperity once more smile upon this extensive coun- 
 
 That a bill of this kind, to compromise remaining 
 controversies, should have been introduced by the 
 friends of those who profess to support actual settlers, 
 (though surely every step they take to further involve 
 the warrantees in controversy must prove fatal to the 
 hopes of such settlers,) would not have been unex- 
 pected, nor the principle disapproved of by your me- 
 morialists; they indeed wish it, and in that respect are 
 the true friends of such settlers. But to perceive a bill 
 brought forward, the leading provisions of which go 
 not to enable compromises, and establish peace, 
 but to mature a court, in which the state is to 
 take the ground of settlers, and set up in their own 
 rights a reclamation of the property purchased by the 
 warrantees seventeen years ago, under " an opinion 
 entertained^'' as is expressed in the preamble, that they 
 have not performed the conditions of settlement, is a 
 measure so unlooked for, and tends so directly to de- 
 stroy every hope of selling and settling our lands for 
 years to come, as well as all further compromises with 
 settlers, that your memorialists have not terms to ex- 
 press their surprise and sorrov/. 
 
 We beg to disavow all intention to offend; or to 
 impute to your honourable committee, or to any mem- 
 ber of your house, any desire to do us wrong: se- 
 cret and interested views unknown to you have sug- 
 gested this bill: but surely, you will hear your memo- 
 rialists with candour, and think it more honourable to 
 retract an erroneous and ruinous measure, if you shall 
 perceive it to be so, or even of doubtful consequence, 
 than to persist in its further prosecution. 
 
 What then, is the object of this part of the bill? It 
 goes upon the supposition, that your memorialists and 
 other warrantees, not having exactly fulfilled, in all 
 respects, the settlement of their land according (to say 
 no more of it) to an obscure passage in the act of 1792, 
 that therefore it is fit and just for the state, after a 
 lapse of so many years, receiving our labour, monev 
 
8 
 
 and taxes; now to scrutinize the language of the con- 
 ditions, and if possible, to exact a forfeiture of our es- 
 tates for mere nonconformity; to take it from us under 
 some expected new judicial construction of those 
 dubious expressions, and sell it over again to a future 
 applicant, who may reap (if he can hold it against us) 
 the fruit of our toil and improvements. 
 
 To carry into effect this object, the standing courts 
 of justice are put aside, and a particular court is 
 organized with most extraordinary powers; an agent is 
 to be appointed by the governor, no doubt to look after 
 forfeitures, and the attorney general in the mwie of the 
 state is from time to time to bring ejectments against 
 all persons holding under the particular warrantees 
 mentioned in the preamble, where in his opinion, they 
 are on a tract forfeited to the state, leaving othe'r 
 companies and warrantees free from such prosecu- 
 tions. What a scene doesthis open of ruinous litigation 
 to your memorialists, and hundreds of tenants and 
 purchasers under them, and other landholders spread 
 over eight hundred thousand acres of country, and re- 
 posing under a belief, that all disputes had ceased from 
 • lo^r'i^'x?^^^'^ supreme court of the United States 
 m 1805^ We forbear in this place to indulge reflections 
 upon the evident consequences both to us, to the 
 state, and to its treasury, by the prosecution of the 
 objects contemplated in the bill. The state is to have 
 not only from time to time, special courts at Sun- 
 bury but even to pledge itself to maintain the suits- 
 ot all settlers who may prosecute in the same court. 
 Uur paramount wish is to save ourselves from a 
 conflict so dreadful, from effects so disastrous: not 
 that your memorialists doubt their title, or that thev 
 look with apprehension to t\,^ final issue of le^al co- 
 ercion: surely we ought to have no fears on that ac. 
 count: but, it is plain to us, if once the contest is be- 
 gun in the manner which the bill has proposed, it 
 will be long and ruinous: what remains to us, indeed, 
 we must in that case defend, and we would trust in 
 Cxod, and to the laws for final success: but we relv, in 
 
the first instance, for protection from a majority of 
 the represtiUatives of Pennsylvania: it is not for us to 
 realize, until this measure so fatal to us and the tran- 
 quillity of the state is consummated, an apprehension 
 of its adoption: though our bounden duty and inte- 
 rest demand, that we should with earnestness and 
 candour lay before you our reasons against it: for 
 un( oubtedly we have more to apprehend from misre- 
 presentation, and misunderstanding of this case, than 
 all beside. 
 
 It must be in the recollection of your honourable 
 body, that this bill goes to put suits in prosecution, and 
 if possible, to effect a recov^ery of our land by the state 
 of Pennsylvania; because it may not have been settled 
 by us, within the time mentioned in the act of 1792. 
 
 Admitting for a moment, that noiv^ upon a close and 
 strict interpretation of those conditions, the state had -a. 
 reasonable prospect of securing a forfeiture of our land 
 on that account, in the court organised in this bill; is it 
 consistent with equity and justice and policy, (princi- 
 ples which will always govern legislative bodies,) that 
 a law should be passed to enable the state to infiict the 
 forfeiture uponyour memorialists and other warrantees, 
 and those holding under them? Whatever particular 
 settlers, actuated by self-interest, might choose to do, 
 under that law; — enter upon us, and insist for a for- 
 feiture or vacancy, so far as regarded their vacating 
 warrants or intention to settle in opposition to us; — 
 it becomes a mere question of choice, with the repre-^ 
 sentatives of the people, whether they will pursue the 
 same course, by enacting a particular law to give form 
 to their proceedings, or refrain from a measure so ri- 
 gid, and leading to evils so certain and extensive. 
 
 No duty is imposed upon any private man to insist 
 on 2i penalty oy forfeiture, and courts of equity where 
 they exist, release from them: muchless isagreat and en- 
 lightened people called upon, as a matter of right and 
 duty, to hunt up obsolete laws, and search out for for- 
 feitures under them, to be inflicted bv state prosecu- 
 
 B 
 
* 10 
 
 cutions on individual citizens; and even make Jtexv laws 
 
 expressly to get at them. 
 
 What' it' it were believed that we had not in the time 
 prescribed settled our land: and what (to carry it fur- 
 ther) if avc could say nothing' of the obscurity of the 
 law, or urge circumstances in palliation, such as we 
 have before referred to, and all Pennsylvania knows 
 their truth: would it be requisite for the state to adopt 
 suckmcasurcs against us; and thus, because perhaps of 
 a little variation in time or circumstances, to punish us 
 with the loss of our whole estate. 
 
 1^ indeed it were admitted that we ought to suffer 
 for this supposed delay or omission in regard to some 
 or e^'en all of the lands, have not your memorialists 
 been punished enough: ought a generous and just peo- 
 ple, even if we had been somewhat negligent {though in 
 truth no human eftbrts could have done more wuth our 
 means), to desire to carry our punishment beyond its 
 present degree: is it not enough, that we paid to the 
 state above 100,000 dollars, for this property, seven- 
 teen years ago, then its full value; and have from that 
 time to this lost the iiiterest of so much capital, and 
 the state enjoyed it. Is it nothing that we suftered in 
 the outset a loss of 127 tracts, being 50,800 acres, by 
 want of title in the state to that quantity discovered 
 on resurvey, and in consequence of prior occupancies, 
 for which the state has made us no return. And be- 
 side this, will it avail nothing, to excuse us from fur- 
 ther loss by forfeiture, that we were compelled in or- - 
 der to procure settlers, (wishing to conform to the law) 
 to ^/l'^? away in bounties 103,600 acres beside: — mak- 
 ing a clear deduction in the whole, of above one third 
 part of our purchase from the state. 
 
 Ought it not to shield us in some measure from the 
 rigour o^ forfeiture, that we h.ive expended in capital 
 beyond the purchase monies and lees of office, above 
 400,000 dollars, in populating and improving that part. 
 of Pennsylvania, from our private fortunes, which 
 is w/iolUj lost to us, with all its interest, amounting to 
 as much more. 
 
11 
 
 Bevond all this, we have paid thousands of dollars 
 into the trej;sury for taxes, the state theieby admit- 
 ting our riiiht to these lands; have compronnsed nu- 
 merous vexatious claims, and undergone for seven- 
 teen yeai's, a series of trouble and dissappointment. 
 If it ivere so then, that in regard to a part or the most 
 of these lands, a state informer should be able, alter 
 due investigation, to prove they were not settled in 
 time; and therefore, might be seized by the state as a 
 forfeit: will the state of Pennsylvania, can a great and 
 just people, as a matter of choice^ organize a tribunal 
 to receive such informations; and under such circum- 
 stances as we have stated, bring down upon us, a few 
 private citizens, the penalt}^ of our whole property: 
 After having received from us, the price in money and 
 improvements twice over, go on to sweep back into 
 its treasury as a forfeiture the remnant of our losses: 
 In the event of succeeding in these prosecutions, is it 
 proposed by the promoters ol such a bill to retain 
 the purchase money, office fees and taxes we have 
 paid, and to make us no satisfaction for interest and 
 improvements. 
 
 But your memorialists forbear these suspicions; 
 enemies or criminals could not expect such injustice, 
 much less a lew foreigners, who respecting 3'our go- 
 vernment and confiding in your clemency and justice, 
 only ask, that the legislature of Pennsylvania may 
 not choose measures of rigour, which it is in their power 
 to refrain from; in a case too, where, if there has been 
 a fault or omission, your memorialists have surely 
 suffered enough, and the state received a sufficient sa- 
 tisfaction. 
 
 Let it not be said that the court will do us no harm; 
 that the agent and attorney-general may not be rigor- 
 ous in their prosecutions, or that v*^e can probably ward 
 oiFthe blow, if aimed at us; that the judges and juries 
 will be merciful, and that it is proper to organize the 
 law to reach other warrantees* Your memorialists have 
 stated before, what it is ^\^y fear. It is cost, trouble, 
 litigation, and the sure effect of involving their proper- 
 
12 
 
 t}- ill dispute; rendering it, while the law exists, and 
 even perhaps for half a century, of no value to them or 
 their heirs. 
 
 In regard to other warrantees, we believe that sub- 
 stantially they stand upon the same ground, and that a 
 general law will, as perhaps it ought, be generally exe- 
 cuted. Nor ought it to influence your honourable body 
 to pass this bill, that thereby a state construction may 
 be given to the law of 1792, merely to bring on a con- 
 troversy with the federal jurisdiction: that party men 
 or lawyers, or judges have not agreed upon itb mean- 
 ing, can furnish no ground for the bill in question; 
 but rather the contrary. The legislature of Pennsyl- 
 vania will not expose warrantees and their absigi.s to 
 state prosecutions for forfeitures, and put all their hopes 
 and the peace of society in jeopardy, merely to settle^ 
 as it is called, a problematical question in a state court: 
 The only great question which presents itself here is, 
 ought these forfeitures, if they exist, to be insisted upon? 
 If they ought not, thtn indeed would it be a strange 
 resolution to organize the court in question. We trust, 
 • after duly weighing what has been offered under thil 
 head of our memorial, if we could urge nothing else, 
 your honourable body would reject the idea of state 
 prosecutions -^^ixmsi warrantees, to effect forfeitures for 
 nonsettlement. Surely it is rather better to encourage 
 and quiet them, after what they have done for the sta'te 
 and suffered themselves, than to open upon them an 
 mdiscnminate warfare, under the hard pretext of some 
 failure in the time of making setdements. 
 
 We have so far appealed against the institution of 
 these penal prosecutions, because of their extreme in- 
 justice. Allowing it as CERTAIN that the forfeiture had 
 occurred; we believe a wise and just legislature, huvin^ 
 the power to call for forfeitures or not, will neve. Mn 
 der these circumstances, choose the side of riifour 
 Between man and man, the case your memorUists 
 have stated, would have shielded the oiie from the 
 other m any court of equi y: how much more then is 
 this remission to be looked for from the magnanimity. 
 
13 
 
 ol a state, deciding upon the abstract justice and pro- 
 priety of exposing its citizens and foreigners to heavy 
 and undeserved penalties. 
 
 But should there be any, who might yet desire to 
 pursue the warrantees on the ground of forfeiture, we 
 be£^ the patience of your body, to the suggestion of 
 some considerations, of a very different, but no less 
 important nature. 
 
 And first, where there is so much foundation to 
 question the justice of these measures, should it not be 
 well considered before such a flood of prosecutions are 
 authorised, and even required, whether there be a solid 
 ground to suppose the forfeitures can be established. 
 
 Your memorialists have hitherto only admitted their 
 possible liability, in order to avert, if it might be, these 
 prosecutions, by showing that were it certain they must 
 lose their land in the course of them, still a just peo- 
 ple and legislature should not, in the circumstances of 
 the case, claim the penalty, and especially that they 
 should not create a special court for that very purpose. 
 
 But w^ill these courts or the legislature (if it has the 
 wish) be able to recover and hold the lands of youf 
 memorialists and other warrantees? We cannot be- 
 lieve it is desired; yet if such an intention should any- 
 w^here exist, we would submit these ideas for the can- 
 did reflection of those we address: 
 
 The charge against us and our assigns is, that we 
 did not according to the precise letter of the 9th sec- 
 tion of the law of April 3, 1792, make ^settlement on 
 all or some of the tracts granted to us within two years 
 from the date of our warrants, and that we have na 
 excuse for this omission under the proviso of that act; 
 and therefore our warrants gave no title: If this be the 
 case, your memorialists humbly submit, that the same 
 act v/hich contains the po^ver to grant, and declares 
 the conditions, also prescrV'Cs the manner in which the 
 conditions shall be taken advantage q/* against the war- 
 rantee; namely, that in default of such actual settlement, 
 a new warrant is to issue to some actucd settler^ reciting 
 the original warrant, and that actual settlement and 
 
14 
 
 residence have noi been made in pursuance thereof; 
 and so often as defaults shall be made for the time and 
 in the manner aforesaid: 
 
 The bill now before your honourable body departs 
 from this course of entry and eviction, varies the me- 
 thod ol shownig a title against the warrantee, namely, 
 an actual settlement and new warrant: it essentially 
 changes the proceeding and parties to the question of 
 forleiture, as contemplated by the law of 1792. In these 
 and many other respects the bill appears to your me- 
 morialists to be ex post facto^ contemplating a strict 
 exaction of the forfeiture, and so far pursuing the terms 
 of the law of 1792; but wholly and essentially depart- 
 ing from its terms and intent in regard to the 7Day and 
 majiner and person who should take advantage ot the 
 nonperiormance of the warrantee: 
 
 And while on this head, your memorialists cannot 
 but deem it a peculiar hardship, as the bill professes to^ 
 be made to settle the title to these lands, that the court \> 
 should be composed of judges who have formed decided 
 sentiments and even delivered judicial opinions upon 
 the very matter in question; one of them also, having 
 been the advocate against us, and for years an able and 
 zealous counsel for persons who had entered upon our 
 lands under the idea of forfeiture, and paid by the state. 
 
 Surely we need not express our private respect for 
 gentlemen of their dignity and character: to the sincerity 
 ot their minds and consistency of conduct, we pay due 
 honour; but that these should be selected to decide on 
 the question of law between us and the state, so far ibrth as 
 we may become parties or interested in these prosecu- 
 tions, fills us with no ordinary apprehension, and affords 
 to us but a slender hope, that decisions under that bill, if 
 against your memorialists, would settle their rights. That 
 the state too should make a law in their own case, choose 
 their own courts for trial, and be made plaintiffs, and yet 
 be excused from showing title, and jurors appointed to 
 be taken in the way proposed, and a general legislative 
 power vested in die judges by the ninth section of the 
 bill, are matters of which we have reason to complain, 
 
15 
 
 seeing that xve are expressly named in the preamble of 
 
 the law, as persons against whom these proceedings 
 are designed. 
 
 If, however, this court shall be competent, and the 
 method proposed proper; alter all, the question recurs: 
 ought the legislature to bring the matter ot forfeiture 
 again into revisio?i after tlie solemn and satisfactory 
 manner in which it has been settled in the supreme and 
 circuit courts of the United States? 
 
 Your memorialists know no party; they are foreign- 
 ers; and unhappy will it be for them and the state, if any 
 feeling or passions of that complexion mingle their in- 
 fluence in this question of their private property. 
 
 We beg to inform your honourable body, that our 
 warrants issued prior to August 1793, and that general 
 Wa} lie's treaty u ith the Indians was ratified in January 
 1796. In all the judicial discussions on the subject of 
 ;:his proviso, it had been I'uily assented to, that iiom the 
 opening the land office to the conclusion of that treaty 
 warjpnt- holders were excused Irom settlement, under 
 the proviso of the act. Your memorialists made every 
 possible effort, short of actual settlement, before that war 
 ended; but they could effect none while it lasted: it 
 continued, however, more than two years after our 
 warrants issued, so that the time for settlement elapsed 
 during the war, and then the proviso, excusing the war- 
 rantee during such trvo years^ it became a question, 
 whether after the w. r ended, he was bound within tw o 
 years from that period, to settle his tract, the proviso 
 not so declaring: the act was somewhat obscure, and 
 differences of opinion existed among the state judges: 
 your memorialists, wearied and harassed with entries 
 b} persons who pretended to enter under vacating war- 
 rants, upon the ground of forfeiture for not settling 
 some tracts within two years after the Indian war, caused 
 this question to be brought into the circuit court of the 
 United States in April 1805, and there a case was stated 
 for the determination of all the judges of the supreme 
 court. In February term 1805, the questions embracing 
 the construction of this law were argued at Washington 
 
16 
 
 in the supreme court, by Messrs. E. Tilghman and 
 others for the warrantees, and M'Kean, the attorney ge- 
 neral, and VV. Tilghman for the state and those who held 
 that the warrantees were bound to settle after January 
 1796. The judges of the supreme court solemnly deter- 
 mined "That a warrantee, who from April 179i3 to the 
 '■'jirst of January 1796, was prevented by the enemies of 
 " the United States from making such setdement as the 
 " law required; but who, during #A«f/;mo(/ persisted in 
 *' his endeavours to make such settlement, i% entitled to 
 '* hold his land in fee simple, dXihongh of terih^ prevention 
 *' ceased he made no attempt to make such settlement.'* 
 
 This decision settled the point that the warrantee 
 was excused, during the war, using his endeavours; and 
 if it lasted two years, he was not bound afterwards as 
 a matter of compulsion, to settle each tract. Never was 
 a case more solemnly or ably argued, nor decided by 
 judges of greater impartiality and eminence: it was ac- 
 quiesced in by all parties and their counsel; and the 
 stJite has not since interfered. The settlers let judg- 
 ment go by default; and for five years since that deci- 
 sion was delivered, the country has been at peace, and 
 its wish is to be so; except that some few settlers who 
 wei e evicted are petitioning the state for relief. See 4 
 Dall. Rep. 393. 
 
 Ir is only now for the first time since then that the 
 question is revived; and revived too not merely for 
 a single settler upon your memorialists, whose claim 
 might be of no great consequence; but if determined 
 otherw^ise in the court which this bill contemplates, it 
 is designed to sweep from us our property in the face 
 of that decision, which we as foreigners, having a right 
 to trial in that court, considered as the law of the land. 
 
 Your memorialists most surely may suggest without 
 offetice, that the supreme court of the United States, 
 strangers to both parties, and under no kind of influ- 
 ence, possessed of the highest judicial talents and hav- 
 ing the case fully and solemnly argued, compose a 
 tribunalevery way qualified, from disinterestedness and 
 
17 
 
 ability, to settle this question. Can it be conceived that 
 a more satisfactory decision will take place in the court 
 designated in the bill, and who are to revise that de- 
 termination? 
 
 Your memorialists will have good reason to fear 
 their titles must ever remain unsettled, if your hon- 
 ourable body, under all the circumstances stated in 
 this memorial, shall see fit to create a jurisdiction, 
 and even command its officers to prosecute for for- 
 feitures against us. Though it is well known, such 
 prosecutions can only succeed by disregarding the 
 law as held by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States; and hereafter when that court may be applied 
 to by warrantees resisting its executions. 
 
 Your memorialists conceived it their duty to make 
 the legislative body acquainted with these judicial pro- 
 'Ceedings, if it might only be an inducement^ with other 
 considerations, to reject the bill in question, as far at 
 least as goes to authorise and direct prosecutions for the 
 state;! against warrantees, on the ground of nonper- 
 (ormance of conditions. 
 
 But apart from every consideration of what may be 
 the true meaning of the law of 1792, and even if it 
 were granted that, in strictness, the land should ha^ e 
 been settled before, yet as it is most undoubtedly in 
 your choice to exact a penalty or not, we believe your 
 honourable body will upon general reasons of equity 
 and consideration for the great losses of your memori- 
 alists, and of the great benefits the state has derived 
 from their exertions, most cheerfully refuse your aid 
 to any attempt upon the residue of our purchase: 
 surely we and the people in that country should be 
 at rest. 
 
 Other considerations of a still more serious nature 
 will naturally press themselves upon the attention of 
 an enlightened assembly, apart from all distinctions, 
 and subtilties, and rigid constructions of laws in their 
 nature penal. 
 
 What if after a series of litigation, the state of 
 Pennsylvania should succeed in reaching a part or the 
 Mhole of our property, notwithstanding the protection 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 wc seem to have under the United States, and which 
 most certainly we can never resign, and what is more 
 to honourable minds, notwithstanding the appeal we 
 make, and the facts we tender, calculated to engage 
 generous and just men in our behalf; would not the 
 voice of mankind still be with us? — We will press this 
 idea no further. Your memorialists believe they ad- 
 dress men who will preserve the state of Pennsylva- 
 nia from the adoption of measures ^vhich in regard to 
 us, the world would pronounce most severe. 
 
 But other and higher consequences will be obvious 
 to } our honourable body, if in the course of years, af- 
 ter long and ruinous conflicts, (for surely we cannot 
 yield what we hold by ties so strong,) much, or even 
 all of our land should become revested in the state; 
 will its value, after defraying the costs, compensate 
 for the public evils the contest must produce? It i 
 evident the moment this bill passes, near 800,000 
 acres of your country, now peaceably possessed, and 
 held by warrantees, and which just emerged froi% the 
 agitation produced by the settlers, would soon be- 
 come the general scene of sale and improvement — 
 .will suddenly be turned to a melancholy scene of dis- 
 may and confusion. The forfeiture, if it exists, reaches 
 not only to the warrantee but his assigns, and honest 
 purchasers, who have depended upon his title, more es- 
 pecially after the decision of the supreme court of the 
 United States. Ejectments are to be brought from time 
 to time, and successive courts held at Sunbury, of 
 which this state has had some former experience. Can 
 any human foresight 1 * ok to the termination of these 
 contioversies, or count the evils they must produce 
 upon the temper of the state, its social order, its cha- 
 racter at home and abroad? Can it be that Pennsylva- 
 nia, upon grounds at least so unimportant to its interest, 
 and so- questionable in its justice, seek a collision with 
 the general goverimient? 
 
 It is in vain that the title of your act and its preamble 
 jnu'ports to be for the settlement of certain disputed 
 titles; it is an act, however intended, which will unsettle 
 
19' 
 
 titles now at rest; no questions remain but with a few 
 persons who desire to close their ciiH'erences by com- 
 promise; but if this act passes, scenes of htigation are to 
 arise between the state and warrantees and their assigns, 
 which in duration and all the evil consequences of law- 
 suits, will far exceed the miseries which that country 
 has felt from disputes between the warrantee and set- 
 tler. Your memorialists will be excused, in the minds of 
 your honourable body, from hinting at consequences so 
 obvious; no man should flatter himself that a bill, such as 
 that now before your honourable house can compose dif- 
 ferences: alternate and varying verdicts and judgments in 
 the different courts of the state and United States, will 
 only cease to keep alive hope and prolong controversy, 
 when your memorialists shall cease to believe in the 
 justice of their claims. And in the interim^ how fatal 
 must such a state of things be to the interests and hap- 
 piness of the land where they exist. 
 
 To say the state will recover and sell again to some 
 new settler, what is it but to prejudge events: — and if 
 recoveries should happen and new^ purchasers can be 
 got for land thus circumstanced, \vhich is not likely; 
 will they not be in turn liable to dispossession in the 
 state or federal courts at the option of the warrantee. 
 We intreal your honourable body to reject this bill, 
 becaust it would be unjust, if it could be done, to 
 take the property of warrantees on the ground of for- 
 feiture: our reasons are before you, and let the world 
 judge if we should be so punished. 
 
 We pray you to reject this bill because there is 
 really no ground in law to dispossess, but tlie law is 
 in our favour. 
 
 We'intreat vou to reject it, because its adoption will 
 tbring more injury w'ith it to Pennsylvania in ten yefir's ' 
 than all our property could benefit its treasury, if 
 yielded without a struarsrle: Pennsylvania wants not 
 more laiid: Less doe's it want a fthh tracts^ Of va-cant 
 country wrung from the remains of a ruinous pur- 
 chase toyour memorialists. Pennsylvania wants peace 
 and population. ' 
 
20 
 
 Ther'- is as your memorialists believe, but one pru- 
 dent and just course: it is simple, honest, and will be 
 embraced by all parties. . . 
 
 This bill has sprung from some remaining claims, 
 carryin- an appearance of justice with them in regard 
 to coicml settlers, or those not yet evicted. A law that 
 shall provide for a settlement with those who have not 
 received satisfaction by compromise can take the place 
 of the one now proposed. 
 
 If your honourable body, instead of passing an act 
 to open anevv the floodgates of contention, would rather 
 publicly relinquish your rights, whatever they may be, 
 when the warrantees shall have agreed with the settlers, 
 u happy turn would be given to this bill: the vyestern 
 representatives then, instead of carrying back with 
 them a law which would spread consternation and 
 discord, will be the acceptable bearers ot a pledge 
 securing to the settler, in or out of possession, his 
 long expected recompense; a boon never to be attained 
 whilst these pretensions to our titles are kept in hostile 
 array and all compromise thereby rendered impossi- 
 ble."' In conclusion, your memorialists in a case so im- 
 portant to their extended interests, and combining so 
 many questions of law, justice and policy, pray that 
 time may be given, by suspending the pasra of a 
 law on the subject, to enable all concerned to bd heard, 
 and every matter be fully understood, before ^ step 
 is taken which may not be easily retraced. Your 
 honourable body will please to pardon any imperfec- 
 tions in this our memorial, drav^ in the utmost haste, 
 l^ut under every feeling of respett and confidence.