318 SKETCHES OF THE
1776, the government of the British monarch in this countr}' was dissolved, and the co-allegiance of the par- ties severed; whereby the plea contends, that the debt in the declaration mentioned was annulled.
To the second plea the plaintiff replied, insisting on the treaty of peace of 1 783, whereby it was stipulated that creditors on either side should meet with no lawful impediment to the recoveiy of the full value, in sterling money, of all bona fide debts, theretofore contracted; and also on the constitution of the United States of 1787, by which it had been expressly declared, that treaties which were tJwn made, or which should there- after be made, under the authority of the United States, should be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution, or the laws of any state to the contrary notwithsta nding.
The defendant rejoined, that the treaty had been annulled by the infractions of it on the part of Great Britain, and so could not aid the cause of the plaintiff; — and farther, that the debt in the declaration mentioned w^as not bona fide due, and owing to the plaintiff at the date of the treaty, in so much as the same (or at least 21 5U. iSs. of it) had been discharged by the payment set forth in the second plea; and hence that it was not a subsisting debt, within the terms and provisions of the treaty.
To this rejoinder, as also to the third, fourth, and fifth pleas of the defendant, the plaintiff demurred; and the cause came on to be argued, on these demurrers, at Richmond on the 24th of November 1791.
The Virginian reader will readily estimate the splen- dour and power of the discussion in this case, when he learns the names of the counsel engaged in it: on the part of the plaintiff then, were Mr. Ronald, Mr. Baker,
�� �
