of Dunmore, Governor Tryon, and Sir Henry Clinton, who were described as "persons holding or claiming property within this State," were attainted of high treason for adhering to His Britannic Majesty, and their estates, real and personal, declared to be forfeited and confiscated.1 The case of Bishop Inglis first came before the board for decisive action on three objections made by the agent of the United States: 1. That the claimant, having been attainted by an act of the legislature passed before the peace on account of his adherence to the King and being of that description of persons known as loyalists or refugees, did not possess a character entitling him to appear before the board. 2. That the debts due to him having been confiscated, he was not a creditor within the meaning of the fourth article of the treaty of peace, but came only within the recommenda tory provisions of the fifth article, of which the board had no cognizance. 3. That he was guilty of manifest negligence in not having proceeded for the recovery of his debts and was bound still to proceed at law for that purpose, having a remedy before the board only for what he should be unable to recover by ordinary legal process. On the 21st of May 1798 the commissioners unanimously decided the first and second points in favor of the claimant. The third point they reserved for further consideration. After several special arguments and much discussion it came up again on the 19th of February 1799, when the majority of the commissioners declared it to be clearly their opinion, from the evidence before the board, "that at, and before the date of the treaty of amity, the claimant could not have recovered in the ordinary course of justice, and had not therefore been guilty of negligence in not proceeding for that purpose;' that "from the terms of the sixth article, and the inconsistency of the contrary position (as it appeared to them) with the whole meaning and object of that article, the claimant was not now obliged to go through a course of judicial proceedings, for the purpose of trying the experiment, whether the courts would Laws of the State of New York (ed. 1886), I. 173. The act specifies among those attainted "Charles Inglis, of the said city [of New York], clerk, and Margaret his wife." 5627-19 decide differently from the decisions which had been given preceding the treaty of amity;" and that, by the provisions of that treaty, "a right to full and adequate' compensation from the United States vested in those individuals, whose cases were then within the description it contained; a right not contingent, or fluctuating on future circumstances, but perfect and entire; to be carried into effect, not according to the precarious result of different experimental proceedings, in their nature dilatory, and tending from the costs of litigation, and the protraction of dispute, to an increase of the evil; but, by one simple and definitive course of remedy, prescribed jointly by the two nations, in the spirit of friendship and peace, for the purpose of speedily putting an end to the only remaining cause of irritation and discontent; and to be exclusively administered by arbitrators, whom they have mutually chosen, and invested with ample powers, for that wise and amicable purpose." missioners. In order to prevent a vote on this resolution Withdrawal of Messrs. Fitzsimons and Sitgreaves withdrew, American Com- claiming that they were entitled to do so under the provision of the treaty which required the presence of "one of the commissioners on each side, and the fifth commissioner," to authorize the transaction of business. When the majority offered an explanatory resolution to the effect that the resolution which they had just offered "did not affect the case, where there was no satisfactory evidence, that the claimant could not at the date of the treaty of amity, recover a full and adequate compensation, in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings," Messrs. Fitzsimons and Sitgreaves again withdrew. They seceded again on the 26th of February, when the majority, with reference to the case of Bishop Inglis, offered a resolution that each of the five members of the board was "an arbitrator upon oath, to proceed diligently, and decide all questions, whether of interpretation or of fact, with perfect impartiality, and without any regard to his original appointment, or the manner in which the opinion he is bound in conscience to give, may affect the interest of the parties concerned." Thus, on the question of the duty of the claimant to pursue judicial remedies, there came about a complete deadlock. Case of Andrew Nevertheless, the board, in spite of several further interruptions, continued in session for two months longer, a few claims being allowed and some dismissed. But in July 1799 its meetings were finally suspended. On the 9th of that month the commissioners took up the claim of Andrew Allen, based on the operation of an act of the legislature of Pennsylvania of March 6, 1778, attainting him and certain other persons, as "subjects and inhabitants of the State of Pennsylvania," for the crime of high treason, in having, "contrary to the allegiance they owe to the said state, joined and adhered to the army of the King 2 of Great Britain." The agent of the United States objected to the claim, on the ground that, as the claimant was an inhabitant of the State of Pennsylvania at the date of the Declaration of Independence, he was a subject of that State; that "in fact, the United States were independent so early as 1775, and, on the ever glorious and memorable 4th of July 1776 they solemnly and formally declared to the world that they were independent;" that "the formal acknowledgment of his Britannic Majesty added nothing to their real Independence, and if the treaty of peace had never been made, the United States would have actually continued an independent nation, though at war with Great Britain at this moment;" and that, "though Andrew Allen, after being a subject of Pennsylvania, joined the British forces in December 1776 and returned to his natural allegiance, this did not dissolve the right of Pennsylvania to hold him as a subject, and as its subject to punish him.” The British commissioners maintained that Allen, being a natural-born British subject, and being found on the side of his native allegiance at the peace, had not been deprived of that character, and was entitled to appear before the board as a claimant; and they offered a resolution, drawn by Mr. Macdonald, to that effect. To prevent a vote on this resolution the American commissioners withdrew. On the 16th of July, the resolution being again under discussion, Mr. Macdonald expressed the opinion, in which Messrs. Rich and Guillemard are said to have concurred, that the United States stood, from the beginning of the Revolution down to the treaty of peace, in a state of rebellion toward Great Britain, whatever may have As stated in the act, Allen had been a "Member of the Congress of the thirteen United Colonies, now States, of America, for Pennsylvania." When the act was passed the British forces held Philadelphia, and it was recited that the persons attainted "yet remain with the said enemies in the city and county of Philadelphia, where they daily commit divers treasonable acts, without any sense of honour, virtue, liberty, or fidelity to this State." 2 Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dallas' ed., I. 751. been their relation toward other powers.' On the announcement of this declaration Mr. Sitgreaves withdrew from the board. Mr. Fitzsimons continued his attendance during the day, but on the following day did not return. On the 19th of July the two American commissioners addressed to Messrs. Macdonald, Rich, and Guillemard a brief communication, stating that on a review of what had occurred at the meetings and in the proceedings of the board, partly on a recent occasion, it was improper for them, under the existing circumstances, to give their further attendance. They promised in a future communication more fully to explain the motives upon which this determination had been taken. Final Meeting and On the 20th of July the three commissioners to whom the above communication was addressed made a reply, deprecating the withdrawal of the American commissioners, and adverting to the fact that Mr. Macdonald had lately given notice in the board of an intended motion in relation to an alleged improper publication of certain papers touching the case of Bishop Inglis. The American commissioners answered on the 22d of July, saying that the publication referred to was made in the first instance by the general agent for the claimant, and stated that they were willing to meet the board for the discussion of that subject, as well as for the additional purpose of concluding an award in another case, that of Hanbury. On the 23d of July Messrs. Macdonald, Rich, and Guillemard answered the American commissioners, charging the American agent with the publication in the Inglis case, and concluding as follows: "And now, gentlemen, we have only to say that, after what has passed on this and other occasions, you can not but perceive from the amicable tone and object of our correspondence and the suggestion which we have now in particular submitted to you, how little we suffer ourselves to be actuated by personal or national feelings against the straightforward course of our duty. We have but one object, and with that object we suffer no inferior considerations to interfere." An arrangement was made for the meeting of the commissioners on the 31st of July to consider the controversy respecting the publication in the case of Bishop Inglis, but, as might have been 1 Messrs. Fitzsimons and Sitgreaves to Messrs. Macdonald, Rich, and Guillemard, September 2, 1799. (MSS. Dept. of State.) anticipated from the character of the subject which they met to discuss, the bitterness of feeling was only intensified, and the sessions of the board were not resumed. On the 2d of September 1799 the American commissioners transmitted to Messrs. Macdonald, Rich, and Guillemard the promised explanation of the causes of their abstaining from attendance. This explanation was acknowledged by the three commissioners to whom it was addressed in a letter bearing date the 4th of September 1799, beginning as follows: "We had yesterday the honor of receiving your letter of 55 pages, dated the 2d instant," etc. On the 30th of the same month they addressed to the American commissioners a still further reply, beginning as follows: "Gentlemen, your suspension of our official business, having left us at leisure for inferior occupations, we have again perused your long letter of the 2d instant." These letters were both undoubtedly drawn by Mr. Macdonald, and were largely devoted to the vindication of his personal conduct at the board. In a similar vein Mr. Rich, in announcing his intention to return to England, in consequence of the conduct of the American commissioners, in a letter to his colleagues, said: "From the unceasing labor of Mr. Macdonald and the energetic exercise of his superior talents, the steady and warm support of the fifth commissioner, and the aid which my feeble talents allowed me to give, from the perfect harmony that subsisted between us resulting from habits of daily communication and mutual confidence, the great business we were charged with might have advanced near to its conclusion had the other gentlemen been actuated to an equal degree by motives of honour, candour, and impartiality." nations. On the 4th of September 1799 Mr. Picker Pickering's Expla- ing announced to Mr. King the dissolution of the board, and, observing that there was no probability that the business could ever be accomplished by the present members, said: "Independently of the opinions. strongly expressed, which it would not be easy to retract, there appears to be an incompatibility of temper; if I am rightly informed, it would be difficult for any set of American commissioners to act harmoniously with Mr. Macdonald unless they possessed such meek and yielding dispositions as to submit implicity to his dogmas. Such meekness is in his colleagues, Mr. Rich and Mr. Guillemard; who though they |