mistaken. If the party left the country and remained out of it until the close of the war, unless on business of an open, pacific nature, and if he failed to return to it, after being required to do so, these were taken as overt acts of hostility, sufficient to authorize sequestration and forfeiture. There could be but one rule prescribed, which must be broad enough to embrace the whole class of offenders, and while hostilities were being carried on, exceptions could not be applied, and when a state of war no longer existed and the country assumed regular and settled forms of government, it so happened that the individual states retained the whole power of remission, and these were not recognized in diplomatic relations, nor could they separately form treaties with foreign governments, or even enter into negotiations. There was no mode of remission or restitution except by individual application to the states; and here the fundamental rules of government had been settled with so much precision and exactness, as to prohibit the legislative department of the governments from granting restitution of the forfeited estates. The poverty of the states and the excited feelings of the people on the subject of the war, rendered any application for recompense entirely hopeless; and it would have been found very difficult to settle upon any rule for granting relief except that of mere grace and favor, and no refugee of that day could be found bold or craven enough to put his loyalty to that severe test. There were cases in which restitution, remission or recompense could not be asked for with even a remote prospect of success, and which, certainly, could not be granted without violating the plainest principles of justice.

The judicial tribunals of the country have always been open to appeals for legal redress, and the legislative department of the state governments has never interfered, and indeed it could not have done so with any effect, being prohibited by the fundamental law. The title to the lands in one county and part of another, in this state, held under the

commissioners of forfeitures, has within twenty years been declared invalid by the courts, on the ground of some informality or irregularity, and not because the law itself was unconstitutional. The constitutions of this state have uniformly recognized the grants made by the king of Great Britain, or persons acting under his authority before the 14th day of October, 1775; the constitution of the United States prohibits the state legislatures from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts.

By the 5th article of the treaty of 1783, the United States did not agree to recommend to the legislatures of the several states to provide for restitution of confiscated estates to those who had borne arms against them, but that treaty did provide that there should be no further confiscations or prosecutions against any one, and that instrument being the supreme law of the land, was of course binding on all subordinate authorities. No claim was set up in behalf of those who had borne arms, and this is enough to show that no violations of public faith had been committed in respect to that class of adherents to the interests of the British crown.

The treaty designated a class who should be recommended to the favorable consideration of the states, but as before remarked, the difficulty was this; the legislatures could not, or would not, discriminate between those who actually bore arms, and others who counseled, promoted, set on foot and directed a marauding expedition against their country, and humanity will justify the deed. That treaty, it is true, did secure to "persons of any other description," the right to go into any part of the United States and remain unmolested twelve months, to obtain restitution of their confiscated estates. The congress were bound by that treaty to recommend to the states a revision of all laws regarding the estates of British subjects, to render them consistent with justice and equity, and with that spirit of conciliation which ought to prevail on the return of peace, and also to urge upon the states to restore to those who had borne arms against the

colonies their properties and estates, on their refunding to the persons in possession the bona fide price paid on the purchase of the confiscated estates and lands. And it was further agreed that all persons having any interest in confiscated lands by debts, marriage settlements or otherwise, should meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights.

By the 9th article of the treaty of November 19th, 1794, commonly called Jay's treaty, American citizens and British subjects, holding lands in the territory of either party, were secured in the exercise of the rights appertaining to them in the same manner as if they were natives.

What just grounds can there be in view of all the facts involved in the case of these forfeited estates, to charge the state governments, and especially our own, with illiberality and a desire to profit by a contingency brought about by no act of its own seeking. The parties who abandoned their homes and properties, acted from choice and not compulsion, except that of duty and allegiance, which they may have thought was due to the king of Great Britain. They cast their bread upon the waters of strife; it returned not to them again. If the colonists had been crushed in the contest, these people would have returned to a wasted and depopulated country, enriched by the spoils of attainted rebels, and ennobled by a sovereign grateful for the service of preserving the brightest jewel in his crown. This was the fortune that awaited them in case of success, and they knew it. They thought this a prize worth contending for, but they misjudged in respect to the chances of success. They had not yet fully experienced the energies of the men whose motto was "one for all, and all for one," when banded together in the great struggle for life, for home, and for liberty. They did encounter those energies, and were overthrown; they grasped for the prize and lost it, and thereby forfeited all claims for. restitution to abandoned houses and estates.

The American congress fulfilled its treaty stipulations to the letter, but its messages met with a cold and silent reception from the several states when they spoke of surrendering up estates to those who had been active participators in what was deemed an unjust and cruel war of aggression. While the attainder act, before mentioned, was in full force in this state, and the commissioners of forfeitures were executing their office, the constitution of 1787 was ratified, which declares that "no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted."

CHAPTER VIII.

Biographical Sketches of the Palatine Families; Bell, Beerman, Bowman, Bellinger, Barse, Casler, Dackstader, Editch, Fulmer, Feller, Fox, Folts, Helmer, Herkimer, Herter, Hoss, Hess, Korsing, Kast, Koons, Kones, Landt, Miller, Mayer, Ohrendorff, Petri, Pouradt, Reelle, Rickert, Shoemaker, Smith, Spies, Spohn, Starring, Teymouth, Veldelent, Welleven, Weaver.

The descendants of the following Palatine families are yet extant in the county: Bowman, Dacksteder, under the name of Dockstader, Felmore, by that of Fulmer, Herter, Lant, now known as Landt, Mayor changed to Moyer, Orendros and Orendorf, now called Ohrendorff, Pears changed to Barse, and Pell to Bell, Reckert and Spoon.

I should not omit to mention the name of Miller, or neglect to say, in this place, that the descendants of Johannes, the patentee, have until the year 1854, retained the ownership of the whole or some portion of the lot granted to their ancestor. But the last proprietor of the name parted with the remnant of a patrimony held in the family more than one hundred and twenty-five years; where sire and grandsire had sported their youthful pastimes, and, when maturer years had cast the burthen on them, where they had toiled and endured in obedience to a high command. Earned by a long and tedious pilgrimage in search of a "haven of rest," and consecrated by the sufferings endured through two long and cruel wars, the title has now passed to a stranger, and the "home-farm" is now divested of all the interesting incidents that have been clustering around its hearth-stones through five generations.