Answer 24

Property Rights and Treaties

I’ve been seeing several emails concerning my book on “The United States Is Still A British Colony”. The main problem I have noticed is, it is obvious most of those in disagreement have not read the book, so they have responded based on preconceived ideas. I know now days we all have limited time to study any subject, much less one that appears to be so far removed from our present day situations. So most will not spend the time read all the information, because you don’t see the relevance. So in order, to cut though time of research; unless you find yourself seeing the relevance this subject makes to you and your family today, I have pulled just a few quotes out of my book, that will only take a minute for you to read. I chose these quotes based on the two main issues I see raised in disregard of the subject matter in question; one the 1783 Treaty of Paris, where a number of people say the Treaty proves they need not look any further; two, the understanding of taxation, and from whence it came. The below quotes are just a precursor of the facts in my book, I provide them to challenge preconceived ideas, of those that refuse to study the facts, or just don’t have time.

“But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from tenants who never held under it? MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70

“The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the sixth article of the treaty of peace of 1783, in the same manner as those of natural persons; and their title, thus protected, it confirmed by the ninth article of the treaty of 1794, so that is could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act, or other proceeding for the defect of alienage.” The Society for Propagating the Gospel, &c v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. (Footnote-annotated, Definitive Treaty of Peace)

“The capacity of private individuals (British subjects), or of corporations, created by the crown, in this country, or in Great Britain, to hold lands or other property in this country, WAS NOT affected by the revolution.

The proper courts in this country will-interfere to prevent an abuse of the trusts confided to British corporations holding lands here to charitable uses, and will aid in enforcing the due execution of the trusts; but neither those courts, nor the local legislature where the lands lie, can adjudge a forfeiture of the franchises of the foreign corporation, or of its property.

The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the 6th article of the treaty of peace of 1783 in the same manner as those of natural persona; and their title, thus protected, is confirmed by the 9th article of the treaty of 1794, so that it could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act, or other proceeding, for the defect of alienage.

The termination of a treaty, by war, DOES NOT divest rights of property already vested under it.

Nor do treaties, in general, become extinguished, ipso facto, by war between the two governments. Those stipulating for a permanent arrangement of territorial, and other national rights, are, at most, suspended during the war, and revive at the peace, unless they are waived by the parties, or new and repugnant stipulations are made.” The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.

“It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words. The most general words that can be devised (for example, any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights and interests. He may even take the benefit of any particular act, though not named. The rule thus settled respecting the British Crown is equally applicable to this government, and it has been applied frequently in the different states, and practically in the Federal courts. It may be considered as settled that so much of the royal prerogatives as belonged to the King in his capacity of parens patrioe, or universal trustee, enters as much into our political state as it does into the principles of the British Constitution.” U.S. v.

Chamberlin, 219 U.S. 250 (1911), “Dollar Sav. Bank v. United States, supra”

“….In Terrett v. Taylor, it was stated that the dissolution of the regal government, no more destroyed the rights of the church to possess and enjoy the property which belonged to it, than it did the right of any other corporation or individual to his or its own property. In the later case, the Chief Justice, in reference to the corporation of the college, observes that it is too clear to require the support of argument, that all contracts and rights respecting property remained unchanged by the revolution; and the same sentiment was enforce, more at length, by the other judge who noticed this point in the cause….”

The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.

“….His lordship observes that that was a case in which the old government existed under the King’s charter, and a revolution took place, though the new government was acknowledged by this country. Yet it was held, that the property, which belonged to a corporation existing under the King’s charter, was not transferred to a body which did not exist under his authority, and, therefore, the fund in this country was considered to be bona vacantia belonging to the crown….“The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.

“….The treaty of 1783 forbids all forfeitures on either side. That of 1794 provides that the citizens and subjects of both nations, holding lands (thereby strongly implying that there were no forfeitures by the revolution), shall continue to hold, according to the tenure of their estates; that they may sell and devise them; and shall not, so far as respects these lands and the legal remedies to obtain them, be considered as aliens. In the case Kelly v. Harrison, 2 Johns. cas 29., Mr. Chief Justice Kent says:” I admit the doctrine to be sound (Calvin’s case, 7 Co. 27 b.; Kirby’s Rep. 413), that the division of an empire works no forfeiture of a right previously acquired. The revolution left the demandant where she was before….” The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.

I remind America what Edmond Burke said: “….Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated

with you government-they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance. But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation - the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything hastens to decay and dissolution. As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces towards you. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have they may have it from Spain, they may have it from Prussia. But until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you. This commodity of price, of which you have the monopoly. This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the commerce of the -colonies, and through them secures to you the wealth of the world. Deny them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire….Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.” Edmund Burke, speech on conciliation with America, pages 71-72, March 22, 1775.

“But my idea of it is this; that an empire is the aggregate of many states under one common head, whether this head be a monarch or a presiding republic.”

Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775.

“If America gives you taxable objects on which you lay your duties here, and gives you, at the same time, a surplus by a foreign sale of her commodities to pay the duties on these objects which you tax at home, she has performed her part to the British revenue. But with regard to her own internal establishments, she may, I doubt not she will, contribute in moderation. I say in moderation, for she ought not to be permitted to exhaust herself. She ought to be reserved to a war, the weight of which, with the enemies that we are most likely to have, must be considerable in her quarter of the globe. There she may serve you, and serve you essentially.

For that service - for all service, whether of revenue, trade, or empire - my trust is in her interest in the British Constitution. My hold of the Colonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are ties which, through light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the Colonists always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government, they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance.”

Burke on Conciliation with the Colonies, March 22, 1775, pages 71,72, published by Allyn and Bacon

“Their wealth was considered as our wealth. Whatever money was sent out to them, it was said, came all back to us by the balance of trade, and we could never become a farthing the poorer by any expense which we could lay out upon them. They were our own in every respect, and it was an expense laid out upon the improvement of our own property and for the profitable employment of our own people.”

1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith

“It is not contrary to justice that both Ireland and America should contribute towards the discharge of the public debt of Great Britain. That debt has been contracted in support of the government established by the Revolution, a government to which the Protestants of Ireland owe, not only the whole authority which they at present enjoy in their own country, but every security which they possess for their liberty, their property, and their religion; a government to which several of the colonies of America owe their present charters, and consequently their present constitution, and to which all the colonies of America owe the liberty, security, and property which they have ever since enjoyed. That public debt has been contracted in the defence, not of Great Britain alone, but of all the different provinces of the empire; the immense debt contracted in the late war in particular, and a great part of that contracted in the war before, were both properly contracted in defence of America.”

1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith

“The expense of the peace establishment of the colonies was, before the commencement of the present disturbances, very considerable, and is an expense which may, and if no revenue can be drawn from them ought certainly to be saved altogether. This constant expense in time of peace, though very great, is insignificant in comparison with what the defence of the colonies has cost us in time of war. The last war, which was undertaken altogether on account of the colonies, cost Great Britain, it has already been observed, upwards of ninety millions. The Spanish war of 1739 was principally undertaken on their account, in which, and in the French war that was the consequence of it, Great Britain spent upwards of forty millions, a great part of which ought justly to be charged to the colonies. In those two wars the colonies cost Great Britain much more than double the sum which the national debt amounted to before the commencement of the first of them. Had it not been for those wars that debt might, and probably would by this time, have been completely paid; and had it not been for the colonies, the former of those wars might not, and the latter certainly would not have been undertaken. It was because the colonies were supposed to be provinces of the British empire that this expense was laid out upon them. But countries which contribute neither revenue nor military force towards the support of the empire cannot be considered as provinces. They may perhaps be considered as appendages, as a sort of splendid and showy equipage of the empire. But if the empire can no longer support the expense of keeping up this equipage, it ought certainly to lay it down; and if it cannot raise its revenue in proportion to its expense, it ought, at least, to accommodate its expense to its revenue. If the colonies, notwithstanding their refusal to submit to British taxes, are still to be considered as provinces of the British empire, their defence in some future war may cost Great Britain as great an expense as it ever has done in any former war. The rulers of Great Britain have, for more than a century past, amused the people with the imagination that they possessed a great empire on the west side of the Atlantic. This empire, however, has hitherto existed in imagination only. It has hitherto been, not an empire, but the project of an empire; not a gold mine, but the project of a gold mine; a project which has cost, which continues to cost, and which, if pursued in the same way as it has been hitherto, is likely to cost, immense expense, without being likely to bring any profit; for the effects of the monopoly of the colony trade, it has been shown, are, to the great body of the people, mere loss instead of profit.”

1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith

When you read the following Smith is arguing against the tax system we now have, because of its destructive nature, however, he argues for our taxation. Also, notice you are defined as a subject, look it up in Blacks, you will find it is synonymous with slave. You say you’re not a subject, you better, research the legal word, contribution, it defines out to tort feasor, which means wrong doer. We have allowed ourselves to be defined in these legal terms, FICA, federal insurance CONTRIBUTION act. According to the king’s main financial mind, a member of the exchequer which is synonymous with our federal reserve. In case you don’t know it the federal reserve act was written by the leaders of the bank of England. For you doubting Thomas’s go spend a few days in a federal depository library, and read some of the old Congressional Record of that time period up to 1934, it’s there.

“Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes, it is necessary to premise the four following maxims with regard to taxes in general.

I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation. Every tax, it must be observed once for all, which falls finally upon one only of the three sorts of revenue above mentioned, is necessarily unequal in so far as it does not affect the other two. In the following examination of different taxes I shall seldom take much further notice of this sort of inequality, but shall, in most cases, confine my observations to that inequality which is occasioned by a particular tax falling unequally even upon that particular sort of private revenue which is affected by it.

II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise, every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax-gathered, who can either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself. The uncertainty of taxation encourages the insolence and favors the corruption of an order of men who are naturally unpopular, even where they are neither insolent nor corrupt. The certainty of what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so great importance that a very considerable degree of inequality, it appears, I believe, from the experience of all nations, is not near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty.

III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it. A tax upon the rent of land or of houses, payable at the same term at which such rents are usually paid, is levied at the time when it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay; or, when he is most likely to have wherewithal to pay. Taxes upon such consumable goods as are articles of luxury are all finally paid by the consumer, and generally in a manner that is very convenient for him. He pays them by little and little, as he has occasion to buy the goods. As he is at liberty, too, either to buy, or not to buy, as he pleases, it must be his own fault if he ever suffers any considerable inconveniency from such taxes.

IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state. A tax may either take out or keep out of the pockets of the people a great deal more than it brings into the public treasury, in the four following ways. First, the levying of it may require a great number of officers, whose salaries may eat up the greater part of the produce of the tax, and whose perquisites may impose another additional tax upon the people. Secondly, it may obstruct the industry the people, and discourage them from applying to certain branches of business which might give maintenance and unemployment to great multitudes. While it obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so. Thirdly, by the forfeitures and other penalties which those unfortunate individuals incur who attempt unsuccessfully to evade the tax, it may frequently ruin them, and thereby put an end to the benefit which the community might have received from the employment of their capitals. An injudicious tax offers a great temptation to smuggling. But the penalties of smuggling must rise in proportion to the temptation. The law, contrary to all the ordinary principles of justice, first creates the temptation, and then punishes those who yield to it; and it commonly enhances the punishment, too, in proportion to the very circumstance which ought certainly to alleviate it, the temptation to commit the crime. Fourthly, by subjecting the people to the frequent visits and the odious examination of the tax-gatherers, it may expose them to much unnecessary trouble, vexation, and oppression; and though vexation is not, strictly speaking, expense, it is certainly equivalent to the expense at which every man would be willing to redeem himself from it. It is in some one or other of these four different ways that taxes are frequently so much more burdensome to the people than they are beneficial to the sovereign.”

1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith