With regard to those inhabitants of the States who, adhering to the British crown, had abandoned the country, and left property behind them, it cannot so clearly be affirmed that the States should not have dealt with their persons or property. Congress, as we have seen, at an early period of the war, committed the whole subject of restraining the persons of the Tories to the Colonies or States; and as Congress never assumed or exercised any jurisdiction over their property, it was of course left to be dealt with by the legislatures of the States, to whom Congress had declared that their several inhabitants owed allegiance[243]. But as these persons, by adhering to the crown, might claim of the crown the rights and protection of British subjects, the propriety of confiscating or withholding their property would remain for solution, at the negotiation of the Treaty of Peace, as a question of general justice and equity, rather than of public law. The interests of both of these classes of persons were too important to be overlooked. Three millions sterling were due from the inhabitants of the Colonies to merchants in Great Britain, at the commencement of the war. At the return of peace, the laws of five of the States were found either to prohibit the recovery of the principal, or to suspend its collection, or to prohibit the recovery of interest, or to make land a good payment in place of money.[244] The purpose of the Treaty was to declare, that all _bona fide_ debts, contracted before the date of the Treaty, and due to citizens of either country, remained unextinguished by the war; and consequently, that interest, when agreed to be paid, or payable by the custom, or demandable as damages for delay of payment, was justly due. Over this whole subject of foreign debts, the national sovereignty, of right, had exclusive control; for confiscation of the property of a national enemy belongs exclusively to the power exercising the rights of war; and therefore whatever State laws might have been passed during the war, exercising rights which belonged to the national sovereign, they could have no validity when that sovereign came to resume its control over the subject, and to stipulate that the right of confiscation, if it ever existed, should not be exercised. The State laws, however, existed, and remained in conflict with the Treaty, for several years, producing consequences to which we shall presently advert. The fifth article of the Treaty was infringed by an act passed by the State of New York, authorizing actions for rent to be brought by persons who had been compelled to leave their lands and houses by the enemy, against those who had occupied them while the enemy were in possession, and declaring that no military order or command of the enemy should be pleaded in justification of such occupation.[245]