A TABLE OF THE NAMES OF THE CASES REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME. A Anderson, (Wallace v.) [PRACTICE.] Anthony, (Handly's Lessee v.) [LOCAL LAW.] B Bowers and Mathews, (The United States v.) [Law · Beverley, (Marshall v.) [CHANCERY.] 291 374 385 184 313 317 359 Blake, (Loughborough v.) [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.] C Columbia, The Bank of, (Mechanics' Bank of Alexan Furlong, (The United States v.) [LAW OF NATIONS. G Griffin and Brailsford, (The United States v.) [LAW OF H Houston v. Moore, [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.] 326 424 429 1 359 184 184 1 374 Holmes, (The United States v.) [LAW OF NATIONS. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.] The Josefa Segunda, [PRIZE AND INSTANCE COURT.] K Klintock, (The United States v.) [LAW OF NATIONS.] Ꮮ Lancaster, (The United States v.) [PRACTICE.] M Moore, (Houston v.) [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.] 412 338 144 433 1 Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria v. The Bank of Co- Smith, (The United States v.) [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.] The United States v. Wiltberger, [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.] The United States v. Klintock, [LAW OF NATIONS.] 153 207 420 The United States v. Griffin and Brailsford, [LAW OF The United States v. Bowers and Mathews, [Law of The United States v. Holmes, [LAW OF NATIONS. CON STITUTIONAL LAW.] The United States v. Lancaster, [PRACTICE.] 184 184 412 433 The Venus, [PRIZE.] V W 127 Wiltberger (The United States v.) [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.] 76 Welch, (Mandeville v.) [COMMON LAW.] Wallace v. Anderson, [PRACTICE.] Wendell, (Polk's Lessee 7.) [LOCAL LAW.] 27'7 291 293 MEMORANDA, The case of Bullard v. Bell, the decision of which in the Court below is reported in the first volume of Mr. Mason's Reports, p. 243, was argued at February Term, 1819, by Mr. Pinkney for the plaintiff, and by Mr. Webster for the defendant in error, in the absence of Mr. Justice TODD. The Judges then present being equally divided in opinion, the Court, at this Term, directed a new argument, and the cause was continued to the next Term, by consent of counsel, for that purpose. The case of the Amiable Isabella, Munos, Claimant, was argued at this Term by the Attorney-General, Mr. Pinkney, and Mr. Wheaton, for the captors, and by Mr. Harper and Mr. Gaston for the claimant, and continued to the next Term for advisement. The cases of Love et al. v. Simm's Lessee, argued by Mr. Jones for the plaintiff, and by the Attorney-General and Mr. Harper for the defendant in error, and of Green v. Biddle, argued by Mr. B. Hardin for the plaintiff, no counsel appearing for the defendant in error, were also continued to the next Term for advisement. ADVERTISEMENT. THE Editor of these Reports is engaged in preparing for the press an Analytical Digest of the Decisions of this Court, from its establishment in 1789, to the last Term, including the Decisions in the Continental Court of Appeals in Prize Causes, during the war of the revolution, which will be published during the present vacation. REPORTS OF THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. FEBRUARY TERM, 1820. (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.) HOUSTON V. MOORE. The act of the State of Pennsylvania, of the 28th of March, 1814, (providing, (sec. 21.) that the officers and privates of the militia of that State, neglecting or refusing to serve, when called into actual service, in pursuance of any order or requisition of the President of the United States, shall be liable to the penalties defined in the act of Congress of the 28th of February, 1795, c. 277., or to any penalty which may have been prescribed since the date of that act, or which may hereafter be prescribed by any law of the United States, and also providing for the trial of such delinquents by a State Court Martial, and that a list of the delinquents fined by such Court should be furnished to the Marshal of the United States, &c. and also to the Comptroller of the Treasury of the United States, in order that the further proceedings directed to be had thereon by the laws of the United States might be completed,) is not repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States. THIS was a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania, in a case where was drawn in question the validity of a statute of that |