c. 150, the defendant is liable for imprisonment as in actions

for wrong, if he be sued and judgment pass against him in actions on contracts for moneys received by him (and it applies to all male persons) in a fiduciary character. The legislature of Massachusetts, in 1834 and 1842, essentially abolished arrest and imprisonment for debt, unless on proof that the debtor was about to abscond. As early as 1790, the constitution of Pennsylvania established, as a fundamental principle, that debtors should not be continued in prison after surrender of their estates in the mode to be prescribed by law, unless in cases of a strong presumption of fraud. In February, 1819, the legislature of that state exempted women from arrest and imprisonment for debt; and this provision as to women was afterwards applied in New York to all civil actions founded upon contract. ... Females were first exempted from imprisonment for debt in Louisiana and Mississippi; and imprisonment for debt, in all cases free from fraud, is now abolished in each of those states. The commissioners in Pennsylvania, in their report on the Civil Code, in January, 1835, recommended that there be no arrest of the body of the debtor on mesne process, without an affidavit of the debt, and that the defendant was a non-resident, or about to depart without leaving sufficient property, except in cases of force, fraud, or deceit, verified by affidavit. This suggestion was carried into effect by the act of the legislature of Pennsylvania of July 12th, 1842, entitled 'An Act to abolish imprisonment for debt, and to punish fraudulent debtors.' In New Hampshire, imprisonment on mesne process and execution for debt existed under certain qualifications, until December 23, 1840, when it was abolished by statute, in cases of contract and debts accruing after the first of March, 1841. In Vermont, imprisonment for debt, on contracts made after first January, 1839, is abolished, as to resident citizens, unless there be evidence that they are about to abscond with their property; so, also, the exception in Mississippi applies to cases of torts, frauds, and meditated concealment, or fraudulent disposition of property."

_J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law; edited by O. W. Holmes, Jr., volume 2 (foot-note)._

"In many states the Constitution provides (A) that there shall be no imprisonment for debt: Indiana. C. 1, 22; Minnesota. C. I, 12; Kansas. C. B. Rts. 16; Maryland. C. 3, 38; North Carolina. C. 1, 16; Missouri. C. 2. 16; Texas. C. 1, 18; Oregon. C. 1, 19; Nevada. C. 1, 14; South Carolina. C. 1, 20; Georgia. C. 1, 1, 21; Alabama. C. 1, 21; Mississippi. C. 1, 11; Florida. C. Decl'n Rts. 15.

(B) That there shall be no imprisonment for debt (1) in any civil action on mesne or final process, in seven states: Ohio. C. 1, 15; Iowa. C. 1, 19; Nebraska. C. 1, 20; Tennessee. C. 1, 18; Arkansas. C. 2, 16; California. C. 1, 15; Oregon. C. 1, 15; Arizona. B. Uts. 18.

(2) In any action or judgment founded upon contract, in three states: New Jersey. C. 1, 17; Michigan. C. 6, 33; Wisconsin. C. 1, 16.

(C) In six, that there shall be no person imprisoned for debt in any civil action when he has delivered up his property for the benefit of his creditors in the manner prescribed by law; Vermont. C. 2, 33; Rhode Island. C. 1, 11; Pennsylvania. C. 1, 16; Illinois. C. 2, 12; Kentucky. C. 13, 19; Colorado. C. 2, 12.

... But the above principles are subject to the following exceptions in the several states respectively:

(1) a debtor may be imprisoned in criminal actions: Tennessee.

So (2) for the non-payment of fines or penalties imposed by law: Missouri.

So (3) generally, in civil or criminal actions, for fraud: Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas, California, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, South Carolina, Florida, Arizona.

And so, in two, the legislature has power to provide for the punishment of fraud and for reaching property of the debtor concealed from his creditors: Georgia. C. 1, 2, 6; Louisiana. C. 223.

So (4) absconding debtors may be imprisoned: Oregon. Or debtors (5) in cases of libel or slander: Nevada. (6) In civil cases of tort generally: California, Colorado. (7) In cases of malicious mischief: California. (8) Or of breach of trust: Michigan, Arizona. (9) Or of moneys collected by public officers, or in any professional employment: Michigan, Arizona."

_F. J. Stimson, American Statute Law: Digest of Constitutions and Civil Public Statutes of all the States and Territories relating to Persons and Property, in force January 1, 1886, art. 8._

DEBT: End----------

DÉCADI OF THE FRENCH REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER). The new republican calendar.

DECAMISADOS, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

DECATUR, Commodore Stephen. Burning of the "Philadelphia."

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1803-1805.

In the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813; 1814.

DECCAN, The.

See INDIA: THE NAME; and IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

DECELIAN WAR, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 413.

DECEMVIRS, The.

See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

DECIUS: Roman Emperor. A. D. 249-251.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (American).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE), and (JULY); also, INDEPENDENCE HALL.

{653}

DECLARATION OF PARIS, The.

"At the Congress of Paris in 1856, subsequently to the conclusion of the treaty, which ended the Crimean war [see RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856], a declaration of principles was signed on April 16th, by the plenipotentiaries of all the powers represented there, which contained four articles: 'First. Privateering is and remains abolished. Second, The neutral flag covers enemies' goods, with the exception of contraband of war. Third, Neutral goods, except of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag. Fourth, Blockades, to be binding, must be effective--that is to say, maintained by a force really sufficient to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.' The adherence of other powers was requested to these principles," and all joined in signing it except the United States, Spain, and Mexico. The objection on the part of the United States was stated in a circular letter by Mr. Marcy, then Secretary of State, who "maintained that the right to resort to privateers is as incontestable as any other right appertaining to belligerents; and reasoned that the effect of the declaration would be to increase the maritime preponderance of Great Britain and France, without even benefiting the general cause of civilization; while, if public ships retained the right of capturing private property, the United States, which had at that time a large mercantile marine and a comparatively small navy, would be deprived of all means of retaliation. ... The President proposes, therefore [wrote Mr. Marcy] to add to the first proposition contained in the declaration of the Congress of Paris the following words: 'and that the private property of the subjects and citizens of a belligerent on the high seas shall be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of the other belligerent, except it be contraband.' ... Among the minor states of Europe there was complete unanimity and a general readiness to accept our amendment to the rules"; but England opposed, and the offered amendment was subsequently withdrawn. "Events ... have shown that ... our refusal to accept the Declaration of Paris has brought the world nearer to the principles which we proposed, which became known as the 'Marcy amendment for the abolition of war against private property on the seas.'"

_E. Schuyler. American Diplomacy, chapter 7._

ALSO IN: _F. Wharton, Digest of the International law of the United States, chapter 17, section 342 (volume 3)._

_H. Adams, Historical Essays, chapter 6._

See, also, PRIVATEERS.

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN, French Revolutionary.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

DECLARATORY ACT, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.

DECRETA, Roman imperial.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

DECRETALS, The False.

See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

DECUMÆ.

See VECTIGAL.

DECUMATES LAND.

See AGRI DECUMATES, also ALEMANNI; and SUEVI.

DECURIONES.

See CURIA, MUNICIPAL, OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.

DEDITITIUS.--COLONUS.--SERVUS.

"The poor Provincial [of the provinces of the Roman empire at the time of the breaking up in the fifth century] who could not fly to the Goths because his whole property was in land, hunted to despair by the tax-gatherer, would transfer that land to some wealthy neighbour, apparently on condition of receiving a small life annuity out of it. He was then called the Dedititius (or Surrenderer) of the new owner, towards whom he stood in a position of a certain degree of dependence. Not yet, however, were his sorrows or those of his family at an end, for the tax-gatherer still regarded him as responsible for his land. ... On his death his sons, who had utterly lost their paternal inheritance, and still found themselves confronted with the claim for taxes, were obviously without resource. The next stage of the process accordingly was that they abdicated the position of free citizens and implored the great man to accept them as Coloni, a class of labourers, half-free, half-enslaved, who may perhaps with sufficient accuracy be compared to the serfs 'adscripti glebæ' of the middle ages. ... Before long they became mere slaves (Servi) without a shadow of right or claim against their new lords."

_T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, book 1, chapter 10._

With the "increase of great estates and simultaneous increase in the number of slaves (so many Goths were made slaves by Claudius [A. D. 268-270], to give one instance, that there was not a district without them), the small proprietors could no longer maintain the fruitless struggle, and, as a class, wholly disappeared. Some, no doubt, became soldiers; others crowded into the already overflowing towns; while others voluntarily resigned their freedom, attached themselves to the land of some rich proprietor, and became his villeins, or coloni. But this was not the chief means by which this class was formed and increased. ... After a successful war these serfs were given ... to landed proprietors without payment; and in this way not only was the class of free peasants diminished or altogether destroyed--a happier result--the slave system was directly attacked. The coloni themselves were not slaves. The codes directly distinguish them from slaves, and in several imperial constitutions they are caned 'ingenui.' They could contract a legal marriage and could hold property. ... On the other hand, the coloni were like slaves in that they were liable to personal punishment. ... A colonus was indissolubly attached to the land, and could not get quit of the tie, even by enlisting as a soldier. The proprietor could sell him with the estate, but had no power whatever of selling him without it; and if he sold the estate, he was compelled to sell the coloni along with it. ... The position of these villeins was a very miserable one. ... These coloni in Gaul, combined together, were joined by the free peasants still left [A. D. 287], whose lot was not less wretched than their own, and forming into numerous bands, spread themselves over the country to pillage and destroy. They were called Bagaudæ, from a Celtic word meaning a mob or riotous assembly; and under this name recur often in the course of the next century both in Gaul and Spain."

_W. T. Arnold, The Roman System of Provincial Administration, ch.4._

DEEMSTERS.

See MANX KINGDOM, THE.

DEFENDERS.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1784.

DEFENESTRATION AT PRAGUE, The.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618.

DEFTERDARS.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

DEICOLÆ, The.

See CULDEES.

DEIRA, The kingdom of.

One of the kingdoms of the Angles, covering what is now called the East Riding of Yorkshire, with some territory beyond it. Sometimes it was united with the kingdom of Bernicia, north of it, to form the greater kingdom of Northumbria.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

{654}

DEKARCHIES.

See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

DEKELEIA.--DEKELEIAN WAR.

See GREECE: B. C. 413.

DELATION.--DELATORS.

Under the empire, there was soon bred at Rome an infamous class of men who bore a certain resemblance--with significant contrasts likewise--to the sycophants of Athens. They were known as delators, and their occupation was delation. "The delator was properly one who gave notice to the fiscal officers of moneys that had become due to the treasury of the state, or more strictly to the emperor's fiscus." But the title was extended to informers generally, who dragged their fellow-citizens before the tribunals for alleged violations of law. Augustus made delation a profession by attaching rewards to the information given against transgressors of his marriage laws. Under the successor of Augustus, the sullen and suspicious Tiberius, delation received its greatest encouragement and development. "According to the spirit of Roman criminal procedure, the informer and the pleader were one and the same person. There was no public accuser, ... but the spy who discovered the delinquency was himself the man to demand of the senate, the prætor or the judge, an opportunity of proving it by his own eloquence and ingenuity. The odium of prosecution was thus removed from the government to the private delator."

_C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 44._

See, also, ROME: A. D. 14-37.

DELAWARE BAY: A. D. 1609. Discovered by Henry Hudson.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

DELAWARE BAY: The error perpetuated in its name.

"Almost every writer on American history that I have met with appears to have taken pains to perpetuate the stereotyped error that 'Lord Delawarr touched at this bay in his passage to Virginia in 1610.' ... Lord Delawarr himself, in his letter of the 7th of July, 1610, giving an account of his voyage to Virginia, not only makes no mention of that bay, or of his approaching it, but expressly speaks of his first reaching the American coast on the '6th of June, at what time we made land to the southward of our harbor, the Chesiopiock Bay.' The first European who is really known to have entered the bay, after Hudson, was Capt. Samuel Argall [July 1610]. ... The name of Lord Delawarr, however, seems to have been given to the bay soon afterwards by the Virginians."

_J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York, volume 1, appendix, note D._

DELAWARE BAY: End----------

DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631. The Dutch occupancy and first settlement.

The first attempt at settlement on the Delaware was made by the Dutch, who claimed the country in right of Hudson's discovery and Mey's exploration of the Bay, notwithstanding the broad English claim, which covered the whole of it as part of an indefinite Virginia. In 1629, pursuant to the patroon ordinance of the Dutch West India Company, which opened New Netherland territory to private purchasers, "Samuel Godyn and Samuel Blommaert, both directors of the Amsterdam Chamber, bargained with the natives for the soil from Cape Henlopen to the mouth of Delaware river; in July, 1630, this purchase of an estate more than thirty miles long was ratified at Fort Amsterdam by Minuit [then Governor of New Netherland] and his council. It is the oldest deed for land in Delaware, and comprises the water-line of the two southern counties of that state. ... A company was soon formed to colonize the tract acquired by Godyn and Blommaert. The first settlement in Delaware, older than any in Pennsylvania, was undertaken by a company, of which Godyn, Van Rensselaer, Blommaert, the historian De Laet, and a new partner, David Petersen de Vries, were members. By joint enterprise, in December, 1630, a ship of 18 guns, commanded by Pieter Heyes, and laden with emigrants, store of seeds, cattle and agricultural implements, embarked from the Texel, partly to cover the southern shore of Delaware Bay with fields of wheat and tobacco, and partly for a whale fishery on the coast. ... Early in the spring of 1631, the ... vessel reached its destination, and just within Cape Henlopen, on Lewes Creek, planted a colony of more than thirty souls. The superintendence of the settlement was intrusted to Gillis Hosset. A little fort was built and well beset with palisades: the arms of Holland were affixed to a pillar; the country received the name Swaanendael; the water that of Godyn's Bay. The voyage of Heyes was the cradling of a state. That Delaware exists as a separate commonwealth is due to this colony. According to English rule, occupancy was necessary to complete a title to the wilderness; and the Dutch now occupied Delaware. On the 5th of May, Heyes and Hosset, in behalf of Godyn and Blommaert, made a further purchase from Indian chiefs of the opposite coast of Cape May, for twelve miles on the bay, on the sea, and in the interior; and, in June, this sale of a tract twelve miles square was formally attested at Manhattan. Animated by the courage of Godyn, the patroons of Swaanendael fitted out a second expedition under the command of De Vries. But, before he set sail, news was received of the destruction of the fort, and the murder of its people. Hasset, the commandant, had caused the death of an Indian chief; and the revenge of the savages was not appeased till not one of the emigrants remained alive. De Vries, on his arrival, found only the ruins of the house and its palisades, half consumed by fire, and here and there the bones of the colonists."

_G. Bancroft, History of the United States,