THE STORY OF THE GRANVILLE GRANT II
By HI GH LEFLER
Confiscation Catches
Up with Crookedness
Tryon’s successor. Josiah Marlin,
shared Tryon’s distaste for ihc Gran¬
ville mess. In 1772 he wrote Lord
Dartmouth that in the Granville Dis¬
trict "there was not wanting evidence
of most extravagent licentiousness and
criminal violence on the part of the
wretched people." He said that the
district was "profitless to the proprie¬
tor, and a nuisance to the colony, by
affording an asylum to outcasts and
fugitives of other provinces who set
down on the land anywhere, communi¬
cating their vices and corruptions to
the other inhabitants, whose barbarous
ignorance makes them but too obnoxi¬
ous to the baneful contagion."
In 1773, Granville selected Martin
as his agent, but this did not alter the
governor’s ideas regarding the district.
Shortly after Marlin's appointment as
land agent, he wrote the Secretary of
State for the Colonies, Lord Hills¬
borough. that the Granville District was
‘a very principal cause of the discon¬
tents that have so long prevailed in
this country. ... It seems here a uni¬
versally acknowledged principal that
this country will never enjoy perfect
peace, until that proprietary, which
erects a kind of interests in its bowels,
is vested in the Crown."
The Assembly endorsed the views of
Governor Martin — a most unusual
procedure and, in 1773, it petitioned
the King to purchase the Granville
District, in order "that the said land
may be held of him as other lands are
held of his Majesty."
• War Settles It
But the Granville District was not
purchased — despite the fact that such a
policy had been advocated by all
parties concerned. The Revolution
broke out in 1775 and within a few
years the independent state of North
Carolina acquired this extensive prop¬
erly — by the simple method of con¬
fiscation. By the Confiscation Act of
November, 1777. "All lands to which
any person had title on July 4. 1776.
and, whi* on that day, was absent from
the United States, and still is absent, or
hath attached himself to the enemy, or
since that day hath removed from the
United States and remains absent, shall
be and are confiscated unless, at the
first Assembly to be held after the first
of October. I77S. he shall appear and
become a citizen."
Acts of 1779 and I7S2 repeated this
same principle, and also specified the
estates of sixty-eight persons whose
property was to be confiscated. Gran¬
ville’s name is not mentioned in either
of these laws, but it seems obvious that
the North Carolina lawmakers and
general public considered his property
as having been confiscated by the state.
The Granville heirs did not intend to
lose their vast holdings without a fight.
According to the terms of the Treaty of
Paris (1783). Congress was to "earn¬
estly recommend" to the states the
restitution of confiscated Loyalist prop¬
erty. and in 1784, the Granville heirs
presented their claims to the United
States Minister at Paris and demanded
restitution of their lands. No immediate
action was taken. Finally, in 1801. ac¬
tion of ejectment was brought by
George William Coventry, successor,
by devise, to the title of Earl of Gran¬
ville. against Nathaniel Allen. Josiah
Collins, and William R. Davie, who
had made entry in 1788 upon lands
granted by the state, but which former¬
ly belonged to Granville.
A Significant Case
This particular case involved only a
small amount of land, but in a larger
sense it involved title to over one-half
of the stale, and thirteen of its largest
and most populous counties. Governor
David L. Swain later said that it was a
ease "involving most intricate legal
questions, and the title to property of
( This is the Iasi of two articles on
ilu • Granville Gram.)
greater value than any other ever liti¬
gated before an American tribunal."
The case was brought to trial in the
United States Circuit Court at Raleigh
in June. 1805. Chief Justice John
Marshall was the presiding judge, as¬
sisted by District Judge Henry Potter.
William Gaston and Edward Harris
were counsel for the Granville heirs,
and Judge Duncan Cameron and sev¬
eral other outstanding lawyers for the
defendants. Marshall took no active
part in the hearing, "utterly declining
to give any opinion thereon."
Gaston argued that the Granville
heirs "had an indisputable title to the
land now sued for" and that they
should be awarded it "on the principles
of right reason and natural equity." He
contended that "private rights may be
suspended but not extinguished by
civil wars or revolution or Govern¬
ment." And he made the interesting
observation that "it had been urged out
of doors that one of the objects of the
Revolution was to get rid of the Gran¬
ville claim."
Case Appealed
Duncan Cameron, leading spokes¬
man for the defense, maintained that
the title of the Granville heirs was ex¬
tinguished by the Revolution; that it
was vested in the people of North
Carolina by the 25th section of the
Bill of Rights; that it had been con¬
fiscated by the laws of 1777, 1779. and
1782; that the Granville heirs were
aliens and thus incapable of taking and
holding lands in the state, and that
their action was barred by the statute of
limitations.
A demurrer was discharged at the
June term of court, but in the follow¬
ing December, a jury was empanelled
and. under the instruction of Judge
Potter, returned a verdict for the de¬
fendants. Shortly thereafter the Gran¬
ville heirs, through legal counsel,
obtained a writ of error and the case
was carried to the Supreme Court of
the United States, where it remained
on the docket without a serious effort
to bring it to a hearing. The writ of er¬
ror was finally dismissed February 4.
1817. Thus the case ended, and the
Granville heirs failed to recover any
acreage of the great domain which
they had once owned.
Governor David Stone probably cx-
( Continued on page 19)
THE STATE. January 9. 1954
