recognised by the Federal Government; and thirdly, where they were called out by, and served under the requisition of the President of the United States, or of any officer thereof. SECT. 2. And be it further enacted, That the sum of four hundred and thirty thousand seven hundred and fortyeight dollars and twentysix cents, if so much be necessary, be applied to the foregoing purposes, out of any moneys in the Treasury, not otherwise appropriated. CHAP. 236. An Act for the relief of sundry Citizens of the United States who have lost property by the depredations of certain Indian tribes. Approved May 31, 1830. Approved Dec. 29, 1829. 2. Resolution, granting the use of the books in the Library of Congress, to the Heads of Departments, to certain officers of Congress, and to ExPresidents of the United States. Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives, for the time being, be, and they are hereby authorized to grant the use of the books in the Library of Congress, to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, the Postmaster General, the Secretary of the Senate, and Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Chaplains of Congress, and any individual when in the District of Colum bia, who may have been President of the United States; at the times, and on the same terms, conditions, and restrictions, as members of Congress are allow ed to use said books. Approved Jan. 13, 1830. No. 3. A Resolution authorizing the transmission of papers, by mail, relating to the fifth Census. Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That so much of the thirteenth section of the act of the third of March, one thousand eight hundred and twentyfive, as restricts the weight of packages by mail, shall not apply to the transmission of papers relating to the fifth census, or enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States. Approved April 30, 1830. No. 4. Resolution for obtaining the aggregate returns of former enumerations of the population of the United States. Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Clerks of the several District and Superior Courts of the United States be, and they are hereby directed to transmit to the Secretary of State, the several returns of the enumeration of the Inhabitants of the United States, filed in their respective offices by direction of the several acts of Congress, passed the first of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety; the twentyeighth of February, one thousand eight hundred; the twentysixth of March one thousand eight hundred and ten; and the fourteenth of March, one thousand eight hundred and twenty. Approved May 28, 1830. No.5. Resolution to suspend proceedings against the Corporation of the House of Refuge in New York. Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and is hereby directed to suspend all proceedings for the collection of a debt due to the United States from the Society or Corporation of the House of Refuge in the State of New York, until the end of the next session of Congress. No. 6. Resolution in relation to the Compensation of officers of the Marine Corps. Representatives of the United States of Resolved, by the Senate and House of America in Congress assembled, That lowances received by the officers of the the pay, subsistence, emoluments and alMarine Corps, previous to the first of April, eighteen hundred and twentynine, be, and the same is hereby directed to be continued to them from that date up to the twentyeighth of February one thousand eight hundred and thirty one. No. 7. Resolution requiring annual Re ports to be made to Congress, in relation to applications for Pensions. Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Heads of Department, who may severally [be] charged with the administration of the pension laws of the United States of America, be, and they hereby are, respectively, directed and required, as soon as may be after the opening of each Session of Congress, to present to the Senate and House of Representatives, a several list of such persons, whether Revolutionary, invalid, or otherwise, as shall have made application for a pension, or an increase of pen 21 TRIALS AND LEGAL DECISIONS. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY TERM, 1830. James Jackson ex. dem Harman V. Hart vs. Elias Lamphire. THIS case was brought by writ of Error, from the court of errors, for the State of New York. It arose out of a conflicting claim to a military tract in Dryden, Tompkins County, and formerly part of Onondaga County. The title of the plaintiff was derived from a patent issued to John Cornelius, July 17th, 1790, and a conveyance in fee from the patentee, to Henry Hart, ancestor of the plaintiff, dated, January 17th, 1784, and proved and recorded, April 25th, 1795. Defendant's title was derived from the same patent, and a deed from the patentee to Samuel Broom, executed June 23d, 1784, proved Oct. 31st, 1791, and recorded April 3d, 1795. S. Brewer conveyed by deed to W. J. Vredenburgh, by whom the lot was conveyed to defendant. On the 24th of March, 1797, an act was passed by the legislature of New York, to settle disputes concerning titles to lands in the County of Onondaga. Under this act the land in dispute was awarded to defendant. An action of ejectment was brought for its recovery, and under the directions of the Judge, the jury found a verdict for the defendant. That decision having been confirmed, the cause was brought up on the following points: that the letters patent created a contract —that the patentee should not be deprived of his land by any law inconsistent with the State Constitution - that the act was in violation of the State Constitution that it impaired the obligation of contracts-that the commission created by it was an arbitrary court, whose decisions were not binding-not being in conformity with the laws of the land. Mr Storrs argued the cause in behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr Hoffman for the defendant. Justice Baldwin delivered the opinion of the court. Both parties claim the premises in question, under John Cornelius, to whom the State of New York granted them by patent, dated the 17th of July, 1790, in consideration of his military services in the revolutionary war. Six years before the date of the patent, and while the title of Cornelius was imperfect, he conveyed the premises to Henry Hart, the father of the plaintiff's lessor, by deed, dated January 17th, 1784, proved and deposited in the office of the clerk of the County of Albany, according to law, on the 25th of April, 1795. Henry Hart died in 1788, leaving the plaintiff, his only child and heir at law, who was born the 21st of September, 1784, removed to Canada in 1791, and remained there till 1807, or 1808, when he returned to Albany, where he resided till the commencement of this suit of May Term, 1825: he claims as heir at law to his father. On the 23d of June, 1784, John Cornelius conveyed the same premises to Samuel Broom by deed, duly proved and deposited as aforesaid on the 3d of April, 1795. The title of Broom, by sundry mesne conveyances, became vested in William J. Vredenburgh, who conveyed to the defendant. The premises were vacant till 1808, when possession was taken under Vredenburgh, who then held the title of Broom. The defendant did not question the original validity of the deed to Henry Hart, but rested his defence on an act of assembly of the State of New York, passed the 24th of March, 1797, to settle disputes concerning titles to lands in the County of Onondaga, the provisions of which are set forth in the case. The defendant offered in evidence, an award made by two of the commissioners appointed by this act, awarding the land in controversy to William J. Vredenburgh, and John Patterson, (to whom Broom had conveyed,) the award was dated December 17th, 1799, and no dissent was entered by the plaintiff. The court admitted the award to be read in evidence, and gave in charge to the jury, that it was competent and conclusive to defeat the title of the plaintiff. Judgment was rendered for the defendant in the Supreme Court, and affirmed in the court of Errors, and the case comes before us, by writ of error, under the twentyfifth section of the judiciary act. The plaintiff contends, that the act of the 24th of March, 1797, and all proceed ings under it, are void; being a violation both of that part of the Constitution of the United States which declares, that no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts; and of the Constitution of the State of New York, which declares that the legislature shall at no time institute any new court but such as shall proceed according to the course of the common law, and that trial by jury in all cases in which it hath heretofore been used, shall be established, and remain inviolate forever. This court has no authority, on a writ of error from a State court, to declare a State law void, on account of its collision with a State Constitution; it not being a case embraced in the judiciary act, which alone gives power to issue a writ of error in this case, and will therefore refrain from expressing any opinion on the points made by the plaintiff's counsel, in relation to the Constitution of New York. The plaintiff insists that the patent to John Cornelius creates a contract with the grantee, his heirs and assigns, that they should enjoy the land therein granted, free from any legislative regulations to be made in violation of the Constitution of the State; that the act in question does violate some of its provisions; and therefore impairs the obligation of a contract. The court are not inclined to adopt this reasoning, or to consider this as a case coming fairly within the clause of the Constitution of the United States, relied on by the plaintiff. The only contract made by the State is a grant to John Cornelius, his heirs and assigns, of the land in question; the patent contains no covenant to do or not to do any further act in relation to the land; and we do not in this case feel at liberty to create one by implication. The State has not by this act impaired the force of the grant, it does not profess or attempt to take the land from the assigns of Cornelius, and give it to one not claiming under him; neither does the award produce that effect; the grant remains in full force, the property conveyed is held by his grantee, and the State asserts no claims to it. The question between the parties is, which of the deeds from Cornelius carries the title. Presuming that the laws of New York authorized a soldier to convey his bounty land before receiving a patent, and that at the date of the deeds, there was no law compelling the grantees to record them, they would take priority from their date. This is the legal result of the deeds, but there is no contract on the part of the State, that the priority of title shall depend solely on the principles of the common law, or that the State shall pass no law imposing on a grantee the performance of acts which were not necessary to the legal operation of his deed at the time it was delivered. It is within the undoubted power of State legislatures to pass recording acts, by which the elder grantee shall be postponed to a younger; if the prior deed is not recorded within the limited time; and the power is the same, whether the deed is dated before or after the passage of the recording act. Though the effect of such a law is to render the prior deed fraudulent and void against a subsequent purchaser, it is not a law impairing the obligation of contracts; such too is the power to pass acts of limitations, and their effect. Reasons of sound policy have led to the general adoption of laws of both descriptions, and their validity cannot be questioned. The time and manner of their operation, the exceptions to them, and the acts from which the time limited shall begin to run, will generally depend on the sound discretion of the legislature, according to the nature of the titles, the situation of the countries, and the emergency which leads to their enactment. Cases may occur when the provisions of a law on those subjects may be as unreasonable as to amount to a denial of a right, and call for the interposition of the court; but the present is not one. The State of New York, in 1794, had felt the necessity of legislating on these |