Holmes, (The United States v.) [LAW OF NATIONS.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.]

J

The Josefa Segunda, [PRIZE AND INSTANCE COURT.]

K

Klintock, (The United States v.) [LAW OF NATIONS.]

The London Packet, [PRIZE.]

L

Loughborough v. Blake, [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.]
La Amistad de Rues, [PRIZE.]

412

338

144

Lyle v. Rodgers, [COMMON LAW.]

Lancaster, (The United States v.) [PRACTICE.]

132

317

385

394

433

Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria v. The Bank of Co-

Smith, (The United States v.) [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.]

Stevenson's Heirs v. Sullivant, [CHANCERY. LOCAL LAW.]

Speed, (Owings v.) [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.]

U

The United States v. Wiltberger, [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.]

The United States v. Klintock, [LAW OF NATIONS.]

The United States v. Smith, [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.]

The United States v. Furlong, [LAW OF NATIONS. CON-

STITUTIONAL LAW.]

158

201

420

76

144

153

18,4

The United States v. Griffin and Brailsford, [Law of
NATIONS. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.]

The United States v. Bowers and Mathews, [LAW OF
NATIONS. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.]

The United States v. Holmes, [LAW OF NATIONS. CON-
STITUTIONAL LAW.]

The United States v. Lancaster, [PRACTICE.]

184.

184

412

433

Wiltberger (The United States v.) [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.] 76

Welch, (Mandeville v.) [COMMON LAW.]

Wallace v. Anderson, [PRACTICE.]

Wendell, (Polk's Lessee v.) [LOCAL LAW.]

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 ar-
gued at this Term by the Attorney-General, Mr. Pinkney, and
Mr. Wheaton, for the captors, and by Mr. Harper and Mr. Gas-
'ton for the claimant, and continued to the next Term for ad-
visement.

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 appear-
ing 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

1820.

Houston

V.

Moore.

State, on the ground of its repugnancy to the constitution and laws of the United States, and the decision was in favour of its validity. The statute which formed the ground of controversy in the State court, was passed on the 28th of March, 1814, and enacts, among other things, (sec. 21.) that every non-commissioned officer and private of the militia who shall have neglected or refused 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 the Congress of the United States, passed on the 28th of February, 1795; and then proceeds to enumerate them, and to each clause adds-" or shall be liable to any penalty which may have been prescribed since the date of the passing of the said act, or which may hereafter be prescribed by any law of the United States." The statute then further provides that, "within one month after the expiration of the time for which any detachment of militia shall have been called into the service of the United States, by or in pursuance of orders from the President of the United States, the proper brigade inspector shall summon a general or a regimental Court Martial, as the case may be, for the trial of such person or persons belonging to the detachment called out, who shall have refused or neglected to march therewith, or to furnish a sufficient substitute; or who, after having marched therewith, shall have returned, without leave from his commanding officer, of which delinquents the proper brigade inspector shall furnish to the said Court