Time: Thu Dec 04 04:45:39 1997
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: America's subjection to Britain, in a nut shell - includes new information (fwd)
Bcc: sls

>not properly be represented in the British Parliament, they are
>entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their
>several provincial legislatures, where their right of
>representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation
>and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their
>sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and
>accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to
>the mutual interest of both countries, WE CHEERFULLY CONSENT TO
>FIDE, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce,
>OF ITS RESPECTIVE MEMBERS; excluding every idea of taxation,
>internal or ETERNAL, for raising a revenue on the SUBJECTS IN
>AMERICA, without their consent." Declaration of Rights, from
>September 5, 1774 (The forefathers wanted the commercial benefits
>without paying the taxes that go hand in hand, it does not work
>that way Patriots.)
>"Resolved, 7. That these, His Majesty's colonies, are likewise
>confirmed to them by ROYAL CHARTERS, or secured by their several
>codes of provincial laws." Declaration of Rights, from September
>5, 1774
>     "Need I say more, I have been ridiculed by some for what I
>have said, in respect to our continued subjection to England, and
>I am sure Al has to.  The above quote is further evidence that
>the king did not relinquish his contract/Charters and land
>grants/patents to the United States. Instead he preserved his
>ability to receive gain through his taxes for his investment.  
>     The below quotes will make you realize that the present tax
>system was put in place by the king and is completely British,
>and the way they chose to continue to receive the king's profit
>from his investment, as declared in his Charters."  
>(quote from my email response)
>    "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 favours 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."
>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."
>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."
>NATIONS by Adam Smith
>Exchequer: "The English department of revenue.  A very ancient
>court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of
>the aula regia, and intended principally to order the revenues of
>the crown, and to recover the king's debts and duties.  It was
>called exchequer, "scaccharium," from the checked cloth,
>resembling a chessboard, which covers the table."  Ballentine's
>Law Dictionary
>Exchequer: "That department of the English government which has
>charge of the collection of the national revenue; the treasury
>department."  Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed.
>Exchequer: "In  English Law.  A department of the government
>which has  the management of the collection of the king's
>revenue."  Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.
>Court of Exchequer: "56.The court of exchequer is inferior in
>rank not only to the court of king's bench, but to the common
>pleas also: but I have chosen to consider it in this order, on
>account of its double capacity, as a court of law and a court of
>equity [44] also.  It is a very ancient court of record, set up
>by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, through
>regulated and reduced to its present order by King Edward I; and
>intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to
>recover the king's debts and duties.  It is called the exchequer,
>scaccharium, from the chequed cloth, resembling a chess-board,
>which covers the table there; and on which, when certain of the
>king's accounts are made up, the sums are marked and scored with
>counters.  It consists of two divisions; the receipt of the
>exchequer, which manages to royal revenue, and with which these
>Commentaries have no concern; and the court or judicial part of
>it, which is again subdivided into a court of equity, and a court
>of common law."
>Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554
>Court of Exchequer: "An English superior court with jurisdiction
>of matter of law and matters involving government revenue." 
>Ballentine's Law Dictionary
>Court of Exchequer: "A court for the correction and prevention of
>errors of law in the three superior common-law courts of the
>     A court of exchequer chamber was first erected by statute 31
>Edw. III. C. 12, to determine causes upon writs of error from the
>common-law side of the exchequer court.  It consisted of the
>chancellor, treasurer, and the "justices and other sage persons
>as to them seemeth."  The judges were merely assistants.  A
>second court of exchequer chamber was instituted by statute 27
>Eliz. C. 8, consisting of the justices of the common pleas and
>the exchequer, or any six of them, which had jurisdiction in
>error of cases in the king's bench.  In exchequer chamber
>substituted in their place as an intermediate court of appeal
>between the three common-law courts and Parliament.  It consisted
>of the judges of the two courts which had not rendered the
>judgement in the court below.  It is now merged in the High Court
>of Justice."  Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.
>The equity court of the exchequer: "57. The court of equity is
>held in the exchequer chamber before the lord treasurer, the
>chancellor of the exchequer, the chief baron, and three puisne'
>ones.  These Mr. Selden conjectures to have been anciently made
>out of such as were barons of the kingdom, or parliamentary
>barons; and thence to have derived their name: which conjecture
>receives great strength form Bracton's explanation of magna
>carta, c.14, which directs that the earls and barons be amerced
>by their peers; that is, says he, by the barons of the exchequer. 
>The primary and original business  of this court is to call the
>king's debtors to account, by bill filed by the attorney general;
>and to recover any lands, tenements, or hereitaments, any goods,
>chattels, or other profits or benefits, belonging to the crown. 
>So that by their original constitution the jurisdiction of the
>courts of common pleas, king's bench, and exchequer, was entirely
>separate and distinct; the common pleas being intended to decide
>all controversies between subject and subject; the king's bench
>to correct all crimes and misdemeanors that amount to a breach of
>the peace, the king being then the plaintiff, as such offenses
>are in open derogation of the jura regalia (regal rights) of his
>crown; and the exchequer to adjust [45] and recover his revenue,
>wherein the king also is plaintiff, as the withholding and
>nonpayment thereof is an injury to his jura fiscalia (fisical
>rights).  But, as by a fiction almost all sorts of civil actions
>are now allowed to be brought in the king's bench, in like manner
>by another fiction all kinds of personal suits may be prosecuted
>in the court of exchequer.  For as all the officers and ministers
>of this court have, like those of other superior courts, the
>privilege of suing and being sued only in their own court; so
>exchequer, are privileged to sue and implead all manner of
>persons in the same court of equity that they themselves are
>called into.  They have likewise privilege to sue and implead one
>another, or any stranger, in the same kind of common-law actions
>(where the personalty only is concerned) as are prosecuted in the
>court of common pleas."
>Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554
>The common-law court of the exchequer: "58. This gives original
>to the common-law part of their jurisdiction, which was
>established merely for the benefit of the king's accountants, and
>is exercised by the barons only of the exchequer, and not the
>treasurer or chancellor.  The writ upon which the plaintiff
>suggests that he is the king's farmer or debtor, and that the
>defendant hath done him the injury or damage complained of; quo
>minus sufficient exist, by which he is the less able, to pay the
>king his debt or rent.  And these suits are expressly directed,
>by what is called the statute of Rutland, to be confined to such
>matters only as specially concern the king or his ministers of
>the exchequer.  And by the articuli super cartas it is enacted
>that no common pleas be thenceforth holden in the exchequer,
>contrary to the form of the great charter.  But not, by the
>suggestion of privilege, any person may be admitted to sue in the
>exchequer as well as the king's accountant.  The surmise of being
>debtor to the king  is therefore become matter of form and mere
>words of course, and the court is open to all the nation equally. 
>The same holds with regard to the equity side of the court: for
>there any person may file [46] a bill against another upon a bare
>suggestion that he is the king's accountant; but whether he is so
>or not is never controverted.  In this court, on the nonpayment
>of titles; in which case the surmise of being the king's debtor
>is no fiction, they being bound to pay him their first-fruits,
>and annual tenths.  But the chancery has of late years obtained a
>large share in this business."
>Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1555
>     Definition of a legal fiction: For a discussion of fictions
>in law, see chapter II of Maine's Ancient Law, and Pollock's note
>D in his edition of the Ancient Law.  Blackstone gives
>illustrations of legal fictions on pages 43, 45, 153, 203 of this
>book.  Mr Justice Curtis (Jurisdiction of United States Courts,
>2d ed., 148) gives the following instance of a fiction in our
>     "A suit by or against a corporation in its corporate name
>may be presumed to be a suit by or against citizens of the state
>which created the corporate body, and no averment or denial to
>the contrary is admissible for the purpose of withdrawing the
>suit from the jurisdiction of a court of the United States. 
>     There is the Roman fiction: The court first decides the law,
>presumes all the members are citizens of the state which created
>the corporation, and then says, `you shall not traverse that
>presumption'; and that is the law now.  (Authors note-by your
>residence you are incorporated) Under it, the courts of the
>United States constantly entertain suits by or against
>corporations. (Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444, 24 L. Ed. 207.)  It
>has been so frequently settled, that there is not the slightest
>reason to suppose  that it will ever be departed from by the
>court.  It has been repeated over and over again in subsequent
>decisions; and the supreme court seem entirely satisfied that it
>is the right ground to stand upon; and, as I am now going to
>state to you, they have applied it in some cases which go beyond,
>much beyond, these decisions to which I have referred.  So that
>when a suit is to be brought in a court of the United States by
>or against a corporation, by reason of the character of the
>parties, you have only to say that this corporation (after naming
>it correctly) was created by a law of the state; and that is
>exactly the same in its consequences as if you could allege, and
>did allege, that the corporation was a citizen of that state. 
>According to the present decisions, it is not necessary you
>should say that the members of that corporation are citizens of
>Massachusetts.  They have passed beyond that.  You have only to
>say that the corporation was created by a law of the state of
>Massachusetts, and has its principal place of business in that
>state; and that makes it, for the purposes of jurisdiction, the
>same as if it were a citizen of that state"  See Pound, Readings
>in Roman Law, 95n.
>Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1553
>Statue of 32. Hen. VIII c. 84. (1540)
>    "You will have to read the below statute many times to
>understand what the king is saying.  It was obviously made to be
>vague and ambiguous, it contains two sentences, the first is 658
>words long, the second is 166 words long, not counting
>punctuation.  I have included the following commentary to help
>your understanding of the below statute.
>     The king is saying that some of the representatives of the
>Catholic Church and some of his subjects have received grants of
>land from the king.  The king is also saying they are in
>violation of certain provisions contained in the grants and land
>patents.  Portions of these grants and land patents were granted
>to 3rd party entities by his 1st party grantees, through the
>kings grants and charters, having been granted to them.  Because
>of contractual provisions contained in the grants and land
>patents being violated, the land was declared to revert back to
>the original grantees who received grants from the king.  
>     As stated in section 1, this statute deals with land twice
>removed from the king; to preserve the clarity of his grants and
>land patents, in conjunction with the law of mortmain.  You will
>see that the 1st party grantors, included ecclesiastical and
>religious persons, as well as secular.  This statute does not
>change grants between the king, and the 1st party grantees and
>land patentees.
>     #7, section I should make you think.  If any tax or rent
>due, (as declared in #5, section I), under the kings grants or
>Charters, are not paid, the land reverts back to the king, as if
>the Grants and Charters were never written.  This is the same
>language of intent, used in the 1689 Declaration of Rights, third
>section, and the 25 section, in the 1776 North Carolina Bill of
>Rights, of the North Carolina 1776 Constitution, which
>established the North Carolina Corporation.  
>     In section II, the king extends this statue to all grants
>made by him, now or in the future.  The key and purpose to this
>statute is contained in #2, section I, no stranger is to enjoy a
>benefit of any Grant or Charter, if they are not a grantee and
>benefactor, without paying a rent or tax, see #5, section I.  The
>main target of this statute was the Catholic Church, because they
>were not paying the tax due under the grants made to them. 
>However, as shown in previous email the Vatican owned the land
>they were being taxed for, under the 1213 Charter.  I am sure
>this is why the Vatican refused to pay a tax, because the owner
>of the land does not tax himself.  
>     Since the states were the benefactors from the 1783 Peace
>Treaty, not the inhabitants, and they later transferred their
>original Grant from the king to the United States
>Constitution/Corporation, making the inhabitants of the states
>strangers, maybe now you know how and why we are taxed, and when
>the tax is not paid, the land reverts back to the benefactor of
>the of the kings original land grants, the United States
>Corporation, the trustee administering the
>trust/Constitution/Charter." (quote from my email response) 
>Under The Statues of 32. Hen. VIII c. 84. (1540)
>(a) Parties
>St. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 84,--Where before this time divers, as well
>temporal as ecclesiastical and religious persons, have made
>sundry leases, demises and grants to divers other persons, of
>sundry manors, lordships, forms, meases, lands, tenements,
>meadows, pastures, or other hereditaments, for term of life or
>lives, or for term of years, by writing under their seal or
>seals, containing certain conditions, covenants and agreements to
>be performed, as well on the part and behalf of the said lessees
>and grantees, their executors and assigns, as on the behalf of
>the said lessors and grantors, their heirs and successors; (2)
>and forasmuch as by the common law of this realm, no stranger to
>any covenant, action or condition, shall take any advantage or
>benefit of the same, by any means or ways in the law, but only
>such as be parties or privies thereunto, by the reason whereof,
>as well all grantee of reversions, as also all grantees and
>patentees of the King our sovereign lord, of sundry manors,
>lordships, granges, forms, meases, lands tenements, meadows,
>pastures, or other hereditaments late belonging to monasteries,
>and other religious and ecclesiastical houses dissolved,
>suppressed, renounced, relinquished, forfeited, given up, or by
>other means come to the hands and possession of the King's
>majesty since the fourth day of February the seven and twentieth
>year of his most noble reign, be excluded to have any entry or
>action against the said lessees and grantees, their executors or
>assigns, which the lessors for the breach of any condition,
>covenant or agreement comprised in the indentures of their said
>leases, demises and grants: (3) be it therefore enacted by the
>King our sovereign lord, the lords spiritual and temporal, and
>the commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by
>authority of the same, That as well all and every person and
>persons, and bodies politic, their heirs, successors and assigns,
>which have or shall have any gift or grant of our said sovereign
>lord by his letters patents of any lordships, manors, lands,
>tenements, rents, parsonages, tithes, portions, or any other
>hereditaments, or of any reversion or reversions of the same,
>which did belong or appertain to any of the said monasteries, and
>other religious and ecclesiastical houses, dissolved, suppressed,
>relinquished, forfeited, or by any other means come to the King's
>hands since the said fourth day of February the seven and
>twentieth year of his most noble reign, or which at any time
>heretofore did belong or appertain to any other person or
>persons, and after came to the hands of our said sovereign lord,
>(4) as also all other persons being grantees or assignees to or
>by our said sovereign lord the King, or to or by any other person
>or persons than the King's highness, and the heirs, executors,
>successors and assigns of every of them, (5) shall and may have
>and enjoy like advantage against the lessees, there executors,
>administrators and assigns, by entry for non-payment of the rent,
>or for doing of waste or other forfeiture; (6) and also shall and
>may have and enjoy all and every such like, and the same
>advantage, benefit and remedies by action only, for not
>performing of the other conditions, covenants or agreements
>contained and expressed in the indentures of their said lesses,
>demises or grants, against all and every the said lessees and
>farmers and grantees, their executors, administrators and
>assigns, as the said lessors or grantors themselves, or their
>heirs or successors, ought, should, or might have had and enjoyed
>at any time or times, (7) in like manner and form as if the
>reversion of such lands, tenements or hereditaments had not come
>to the hands of our said sovereign lord, or as our said sovereign
>lord, his heirs and successors, should or might have had and
>enjoyed in certain cases, by virtue of the act made at the first
>session of this present parliament, if no such grant by letters
>patent had been made by His Highness.
>     II. Moreover be it enacted by authority aforesaid, That all
>farmers, lessees and grantees of lordships, manors, lands,
>tenements, rents, parsonages, tithes, portions, or any other
>hereditaments for term of years, life or lives, their executors,
>administrators and assigns, shall and may have like action,
>advantage and remedy against all and every person and persons and
>bodies politic, their heirs, successors and assigns, which have
>or shall have any gift or grant of the King our sovereign lord,
>or of any other person or persons, of the reversion of the same
>manors, lands, tenements, and other hereitaments so letten, or
>any parcel thereof, for any condition, covenant or agreement
>contained or expressed in the indentures of their lesse or
>leases, as the same lessees, or any of them might and should have
>had against the said lessors and grantors, their heirs and
>successors; (2) all benefits and advantages of recoveries in
>value by reason of any warranty in deed or in law by voucher or
>otherwise only excepted.Fn#1
>     Footnote #1 "The Statute deals only with actions by the
>assignee of the reversion against the lessee or his assignee, and
>actions by the lessee or his assignee against the assignee of the
>reversion; and not with actions by the lessor against the
>assignee of the lessee, or e contra, which actions seem therefore
>to be governed by the common law." 1 Smith, L. C. (10th ed.) 74
>This statute, by King Edward I, was aimed at preventing land
>passing to the hands of immortal institutions, and thus out of
>the control and taxation system operated by the state. The Church
>was the main target.
>(Stubbs' "Charters," p. 457.)
>The king to his Justices of the Bench, greeting. Where as of late
>it was provided that religious men should not enter into the fees
>of any without the will and licence of the lords in chief of whom
>these fees are held immediately; and such religious men have,
>notwithstanding, later entered as well into their own fees as
>into those of others, appropriated, them to themselves, and
>buying them, and sometimes receiving them from the gift of
>others, whereby the services which are due of such fees, and
>which at the beginning, were provided for the defence of the
>realm, are unduly withdrawn, and the lords in chief do lose their
>escheats of the same; we, therefore, to the profit of our realm,
>wishing to provide a fit remedy in this matter, by advice of our
>prelates, counts and other subjects of our realm who are of our
>council, have provided, established, and ordained, that no
>person, religious or other, whatsoever presume to buy or sell any
>lands or tenements, , or under colour of gift or lease, or of any
>other term or title whatever to receive them from any one, or in
>any other craft or by wile to appropriate them to himself,
>whereby such lands and tenements may come into mortmain under
>pain of forfeiture of the same. We have provided also that if any
>person, religious or other, do presume either by craft or wile to
>offend against this statute it shall be lawful for us and for
>other immediate lords in chief of the fee so alienated, to enter
>it within a year from the time of such alienation and to hold it
>in fee as an inheritance. And if the immediate lord in chief
>shall -be negligent and be not willing to enter into such fee
>within the year, then it shall be lawful for the next mediate
>lord in chief, within the half year following, to enter that fee
>and to hold it, as has been said; and thus each mediate lord
>may do if the next lord be negligent in entering such fee as has
>been said. And if all such chief lords of such fee, who shall be
>of full age, and within the four seas and out of prison, shall be
>for one year negligent or remiss in this matter, we, straightway
>after the year is completed from the time when such purchases,
>gifts, or appropriations of another kind happen to have been
>made, shall take such lands and tenements into our hand, and
>shall enfeoff others therein by certain services to be rendered
>thence to us for the defence of our kingdom ; saving to the lords
>in chief of the same fees their wards, escheats and other things
>which pertain to them, and the services therefrom due and
>accustomed. And therefore we command you to cause the aforesaid
>statute to be read before you, and from henceforth firmly kept
>and observed. Witness myself at Westminster, the 15th day of
>November, the 7h year of our reign.
>>From Ernest F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the
>Middle Ages,
>(London: George Bell and Sons, 1910), 148-149
>     "The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among
>other things: 
>1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.
>2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants
>of land; and so far is against the laws of mortmain.
>3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far
>is against the laws of alienage.
>4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a
>certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of
>5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat;
>and so far is against the laws of forfeiture and escheat.
>6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line;
>and so far is against the laws of distribution.
>7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the
>national authority; and so far is against the laws of monopoly.
>8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the
>laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the
>institutions from the control of the State legislatures; and so,
>probably, they will be construed.
>     I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on
>this ground; That "all powers not delegated to the United States,
>by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
>reserved to the States or to the people."    To take a single
>step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers
>of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power,
>no longer susceptible of any definition.
>     The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this
>bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United
>States, by the Constitution.
>     Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a
>shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congress should be
>authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of
>the several States; such as those against mortmain, the laws of
>alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the
>laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly?"
>WORDS THAT MADE AMERICAN HISTORY, p. 184, quoted in "A Country
>Defeated In Victory" part I
>     Thomas Jefferson argued against a United States Bank being
>chartered in this country, one reason was, it violated the laws
>of Mortmain.  Which proves Jefferson believed we were sovereigns
>equal to the king.  However, in one of the few court cases in
>this Country on Mortmain, the judge declares that the law of
>Mortmain never existed in this country.  The judge was saying by
>his decision, that, no sovereigns ever existed in this country,
>countering Jefferson's beliefs.  Jefferson makes it clear that to
>allow this Bank and those that control it (Rothchilds/England),
>will impoverish the American people and transfer the Lands of
>America into Banks hands, never to be obtained again by the
>American people, thus Jefferson's argument of Mortmain.  Was
>Jefferson right about the plight of the American people, read the
>below quote?  Also read "A Country Defeated In Victory", I prove
>that England was behind the United States Bank, also Englands
>involvment continued during the thirties, the time period of the
>below quote.  
>Congressman Lemke: "....This nation is bankrupt; every State in
>this Union is bankrupt; the people of the United States, as a
>whole, are bankrupt.  The public and private debts of this
>Nation, which are evidenced by bonds, mortgages, notes, or other
>written instruments about to about $250,000,000,000, and it is
>estimated that there is about $50,000,000,000 of which there is
>no record, making in all about $300,000,000,000 of public and
>private debts.  The total physical cash value of all the property
>in the United States is now estimated at about $70,000,000,000. 
>That is more than it would bring if sold at public auction.  In
>this we do not include debts or the evidence of debts, such as
>bonds, mortgages, and so fourth.  These are not physical
>property.  They will have to be paid out of the physical
>property.  How are we going to pay $300,000,000,000 with only
>$70,000,000,000?" Congressional Record, March 3, 1934
>     "The lawful de jure united States government which was
>created by the 1787 Constitution/Treaty, between the States, was
>made null and void by the fraudulent Congress, that passed the
>Fourteenth Amendment.  This is a bold and broad statement, but I
>will prove it." (The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)
>     "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she
>entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of
>perpetual union, and all the guarantees of republican government
>in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which
>consummated her admission into the Union was something more than
>a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the
>political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the
>other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble
>as the union between the original States. There was no place for
>reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or
>through consent of the States." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @
>269, 20 U2d 403
>     "Considered therefore as transactions under the
>Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the
>convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas,
>and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to
>that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without
>operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of
>the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the
>United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly
>follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her
>citizens to be citizens of the Union.  If this were otherwise,
>the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners.
>The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of
>rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest of
>subjugation." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
>     "December 8, 1863 President Lincoln declared by
>proclamation, amnesty and reconstruction for the southerners so
>they could be readmitted into the Union.  This action along with
>what Lincoln was doing with the money is why Lincoln had to be
>killed.  The South could not be allowed back into the Union
>without their enfranchisement.  Compare the readmittance oath in
>President Lincoln's proclamation of 1863, to the following oath
>requirement required by Congress, under the Reconstruction Acts."
>(The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)
>     "An Act to provide for the more efficient government of the
>rebel States, passed March second, eighteen hundred and
>sixty-seven, shall cause a registration to be made of the male
>citizens of the United States, twenty-one years of age and
>upwards, resident in each county or parish in the State or States
>included in his district, which registration shall include only
>those persons who are qualified to vote for delegates by the act
>aforesaid, and who shall have taken and subscribed the following
>oath or affirmation: "I, _____, do solemnly swear, (or affirm,)
>in the presence of Almighty God, that I am a citizen of the State
>of _____; that I have resided in said State for _____ months next
>preceding this day, and now reside in the county of _____, or the
>parish of _____, in said State, (as the case may be;) that I am
>twenty-one years old; that I have not been disfranchised for
>participation in any  rebellion or civil war against the United
>States, nor for felony committed against the laws of any State or
>of the United States; that I have never been a member of any
>State legislature, nor held any executive or judicial office in
>any State and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion
>against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
>thereof; that I have never taken an oath as a member of Congress
>of the United States, or as an officer of the United States, or
>as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or
>judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the
>United States, and afterwards engaged in insurrection or
>rebellion against the United States or given aid or comfort to
>the enemies thereof; that I will faithfully support the
>Constitution and obey the laws of the United States, and will, to
>the best of my ability, encourage others so to do, so help me
>God;" which oath or affirmation may be administered by any
>registering officer." Reconstruction Act of March 23, 1867,
>supplement to Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867.
>     "You will note that in the above oath Congress creates legal
>residence for anyone taking the oath and that this is done by
>registering to vote, and made a requirement in order to vote. 
>The same legal disability still takes place today when you
>register to vote.  Today you still have voting districts in every
>county in the America.
>     You will also notice that, the oath makes you declare that
>you were not disenfranchised, by taking part in the Civil War. 
>Which means that, before the Civil War Americans were franchised
>citizens, incorporated.  I covered this in part 1; by the States
>adoption of the Constitution, those that lived in the States
>became legal residents, incorporated/enfranchised, instead of Sui
>Juris freemen.  Which was granted to them by the Declaration of
>Independence, and in North Carolina, for North Carolinians this
>was reaffirmed by the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, see
>British Colony part 2."
>(The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)
>     The following is the oath given to those that wanted to
>serve in the United States government.
>An act to prescribe an oath of office. July 2, 1862
>     "Be it enacted, That hereafter every person elected or
>appointed to any office of honor or profit under the Government
>of the United States either in the civil, military, or naval
>departments of the public service, excepting the President of the
>United States, shall, before entering upon the duties of such
>office, and before being entitled to any of the salary or other
>emoluments thereof, take and subscribe the following oath or
>affirmation: "I, A B, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have
>never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I
>have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no
>aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in
>armed hostility thereto; that I have never sought nor accepted
>nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever,
>under any authority or pretended authority, in hostility to the
>United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any
>pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within
>the United States, hostile or inimical thereto; and I do further
>swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability,
>I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States,
>against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear 
>true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
>obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
>evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties
>of the office on which I am about to enter; so help me God;"
>which said oath, so taken and signed, shall be preserved among
>the files of the Court, House of Congress, or Department to which
>the said office may appertain. And any person who shall falsely
>take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury, and on conviction,
>in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense,
>shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever
>after, of holding any office or place under the United States."
>     When the war was over President Johnson declared the States
>readmitted to the Union and hostilities to be over.
>Furthermore; on April 2, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued
>a "Proclamation" that:
>     "The insurrection which heretofore existed in the States of
>Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee,
>Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Florida is at an
>end, and is henceforth to be so regarded."
>Presidential Proclamation No. 153,
>General Records of the United States,
>G.S.A. National Archives and Records Service.
>     On August 20, 1866 (14 Stat. 814); the President proclaimed
>that the insurrection in the State of Texas had been completely
>ended and his "Proclamation"continued:
>     "The insurrection which heretofore existed in the State of
>Texas is at an end, and is to be henceforth so regarded in that
>State, as in the other States before named in which the said
>insurrection was proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid
>proclamation of the second day of April, one thousand, eight
>hundred and sixty-six.
>     And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at
>an end, and that peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority
>now exist, in and throughout the whole of the united States of
>President Johnson vetoed the Acts because they were
>unconstitutional.  Below are some excerpts from his veto message.
>     "It is plain that the authority here given to the military
>officer amounts to absolute despotism.  But to make it still more
>unendurable, the bill provides that it may be delegated to as
>many subordinates as he chooses to appoint, for it declares that
>he shall 'punish or cause to be punished'.  Such a power has not
>been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than five hundred

[continued ...]

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail