they believed the statement made by the party who called them; and even this was found so uncertain that the trial by combat was preferred by the men of that period, as a better mode of determining the fact. So it is reasonable to infer by analogy that the cruelty exhibited in the early laws of the Athenians, and in the Roman law of the 12 tables, was founded upon the trick. ery and dishonesty which prevailed at Athens and Rome. It was, however, a barbarism to involve the innocent as well as the guilty in an undiscriminating condemnation. The right of the creditor to sell the debtor as a slave was abolished by Solon. The decemvirs of Rome, who professed to follow his legislation, did not conform to it in this particular, but enacted a law more oppressive than the Athenian, or indeed than any other law of which we have an authentic record, whereby the debtor was subject to be taken by the creditor to his own house, and to be dealt with in the most cruel manner for 60 days, after which he could be sold into foreign slavery. The atrocious conduct of a usurer who undertook to gratify his lust upon a young man who had surrendered himself for a debt of his father, and in consequence of the resistance of the prisoner to his attempt, scourged and otherwise maltreated him, led to an outbreak of the people and the passage of a law by the senate, A. U. C. 428, by which creditors were prohibited from taking debtors into their own custody, but the right of selling them into slavery still remained. This power of the creditor over the debtor seems to have become practically obsolete, and a milder mode of treatment grew up, under the emperors. According to the Institutes of Justinian, a debtor was subject only to loss of property for payment of his debts. The same practice prevailed in England at an early period. Suits were commenced by a summons, and if the defendant failed to appear, process was issued for the attachment of his property; but in actions upon contract no further remedy was given, either at the commencement of the suit or after judgment. In actions for injuries accompanied with force, it was, however, permitted to issue process for the arrest of the person. By various statutes the same remedy was extended to other actions in which there was no force, as actions of account, debt, detinue, and actions on the case. In the court of king's bench, however, the defendant was, without the aid of these statutes, liable to arrest upon process issued for an alleged trespass, and when arrested he was made to answer for any other cause of action. In the court of exchequer jurisdiction was obtained by a similar fiction. Upon recovery of judgment in any action in which an arrest was allowed upon mesne process, a writ could be issued called a capias ad satisfaciendum, whereby the defendant could be arrested and committed to close custody (in arcta custodia); in which respect the proceeding was more rigid than it was upon mesne process, for in the latter the defendant could be discharged upon giving bail for

his appearance, whereas upon final process he could not be allowed to be at large; and if he was suffered by the sheriff to be outside of the gaol, it was deemed an escape, for which he was made liable for the whole amount of the debt. In the United States the same forms of proceeding were introduced, but were gradually modified in advance of the changes which were made in the English practice, which will be presently adverted to. Thus, in the state of New York it was provided that a capias ad satisfaciendum should not be issued till after an execution against the property (called a fieri facias) had been first issued and returned unsatisfied. In 1831 imprisonment for debt upon contract, except in certain cases, was abolished in that state. The excepted cases were where fraud had been committed or was intended, in which cases an arrest could be ordered by a judge, to which exception was added, by statute of 1846, the case of money received in a fiduciary capacity; and by a subsequent statute imprisonment for interlocutory costs was abolished. The principle embraced in these laws was adopted in the code of procedure of 1849. Arrest is thereby prohibited in all civil actions, except in certain specified cases, viz.: in actions for injury to the person or character, or for injuring or wrongfully taking or detaining property; in cases of embezzlement by public officers, or persons acting in a private fiduciary capacity; for misconduct in office or any professional employment; in actions to recover the possession of personal property where it is concealed or kept out of the reach of the sheriff; and in cases where the defendant has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or in avoiding the payment of it. In the excepted cases there may be an arrest by an order of a judge, in which order the amount for which the defendant shall be held to bail is specified; and when there has been arrest upon mesne process the like remedy in all cases is given upon final process. No provision is made by the code for a discharge from an arrest under such order. Females are exempted from arrest in all cases except actions for wilful injury to person, character, or property. The legislation of the state of New York has been followed in several other states, and may be assumed in its general features as the prevalent system throughout the United States, in respect to the coercive remedy for the collection of debts by process against the person.-In England important modifications have been recently made in the laws relating. to the collection of debts. In 1838 (by stat. I and 2 Victoria, c. 110), arrest upon mesne process for debts exceeding £20 was abolished, except in cases where proof was made of the intention of the defendant to leave England. Provision was also made for discharge from liability to imprisonment upon final process, upon the surrender by the debtor of all his property for the payment of his debts. In 1842 (by stat. 5 and 6 Victoria, c. 116), similar provision was made for discharge from imprisonment for debts under £20; and in 1844 (7 and 8 Victoria, c. 96),

arrest upon final process in an action for a debt not exceeding £20 was abolished, except where there was fraud in the contracting of the debt, or a fraudulent attempt to avoid payment, leaving it to the discretion of a judge to order an arrest upon proof of any such fraud. A great amelioration was effected by these statutes. The relief under the previously existing bankrupt laws applied only to a class designated as traders, leaving a large proportion of debtors entirely unprovided for; and the relief itself, even in cases to which it was applicable, was harsh to the debtor, wasteful of the assets devoted to the creditors, and not unfrequently all beneficial effect was defeated by the technical stringency of the statutes, and the extreme severity of the courts. (See BANKRUPT.) Then as to the relief of insolvents, under the act of 32 George II., c. 28 (commonly called the lords act, from the circumstance of its having originated in the house of lords), it was limited to debtors actually in custody upon execution for debts under £100 (afterward extended to £300); and notwithstanding the surrender of the debtor's property as provided by the act, the creditor could still if he chose detain the debtor in prison, subject only to the condition that he was to allow 28. 4d. per week for his support.-The insolvent laws of the state of New York are of a twofold character. By one mode of proceeding, the debtor obtains a discharge from imprisonment on account of debts upon the surrender of his property, the application for this purpose being made by the debtor upon notice to all his creditors; by another mode of proceeding, upon the application of the debtor in concurrence with creditors to the amount of two-thirds of the entire indebtment, he obtains a discharge from all future obligation on account of his debts, or in other words, from the obligation of his debts. In both these cases the discharge is withheld when the debtor, knowing his insolvency, has made disposition of any part of his property with the view of giving a preference to one creditor over others. The practical effect of this provision has been to restrict the benefit of the statute within too narrow limits, as there are few cases where a discharge could be obtained if the restriction should be rigidly enforced. In the struggle to avoid a failure, peculiar obligations are to a greater or less extent almost always incurred, which have a claim upon the debtor superior to that of his ordinary indebtment, although in law all are placed upon the same footing. Preferences will accordingly be given by the debtor in such cases, even at the peril of having to depend upon the gratuitous consent of the rest of his creditors for release from his debts. Individual hardship will thus sometimes occur, but generally relief can be had by compromise with the creditors upon fair terms when the case is free from fraud. Greater liberality in this respect is perhaps to be found in this country than in any other. In both of these insolvent proceedings, the discharge is only from debts upon

319

contract; yet a judgment for a cause of action arising ex delicto is deemed to have merged the original nature of the debt, and is included. A 3d form of insolvent proceedings is where the debtor is in custody upon execution, in which case he may obtain a discharge in the particular suit by a surrender of his property, without being precluded by having given preferences in payment of debts; nor is it prescribed by statute that the judgment upon which such execution has issued must have been recovered upon contract. It has now no other value except as it may be available for a discharge in actions for tort and other cases in which arrest is still allowed by the code. A similar insolvent procedure has been adopted in most of the states, so far as respects relief from imprisonment, but the experiment made in the state of New York of releasing the obligation of debts has not been generally acted upon in other states. An interesting question in respect to the validity of insolvent laws of the latter description has been brought into discussion in the U. S. courts, under the provision of the federal constitution prohibiting the passage of a state law impairing the obligation of contracts (Constitution, art. 1, § 10), and the following propositions have been settled: 1, that an insolvent law is inoperative to discharge a debt existing at the time of the passage of the law; 2, that it has no validity for the discharge of debts due to citizens of other states, or rather that such discharge is no bar to an action brought by citizens of other states for the recovery of such debts in the courts of the United States, or of any other state than that where the insolvent discharge was granted; 3, that the validity of such discharge is not sustained by the fact that the contract was made in the state where it is discharged, as against citizens of other states; 4, that in the courts of the state whose insolvent law is in question, as between citizens of such state, it is not to be held a law impairing the obligation of contracts, and a discharge under it may be properly held valid; 5, that a citizen of another state who sues in the courts of the state where the discharge is granted, is subject to the same rule as a citizen of such state. (Ogden vs. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213; Boyle vs. Zacharie, 6 Peters, 648.) The last proposition was not necessarily involved in the decision of either of the above cited cases, and seems scarcely consistent with the harmony of the courts of the different states and of the United States. Another proposition was left untouched, viz.: what is the rule where the question is between parties who were both citizens of the state where such an insolvent law exists, and the contract was made in such state, but the creditor has become a citizen of another state and sues in the courts of the United States or of such other state. Two principles combine to make the discharge valid, viz.: the lex loci contractus, and the subjection or supposed consent of both parties to the law of the state of which they were citizens. The former was

repudiated by the supreme court in the cases above cited, but the latter was maintained and much insisted upon as the basis upon which alone the law of the state could be held not to impair the obligation of contracts.-By the laws of most countries of Europe, the cession of the property of an insolvent to his creditors for the payment of debts is not a ground for releasing his future acquisitions from liability for his debts, but only for discharging the debtor from process against his person. In France, the law respecting imprisonment (contrainte par corps) for debt has recently undergone great modification. For commercial debts, imprisonment is limited to 3 months when the amount does not exceed 500 francs, 6 months when the amount does not exceed 1,000 francs, and so on in that proportion, but not to extend beyond 3 years for any amount; and in the case of a man having minor children, imprisonment may be suspended a year. Ecclesiastics, minors, septuagenarians, and women not engaged in commerce, are exempt from imprisonment. Officers of courts (greffiers, notaires, avoués, huissiers, &c.) are subject to contrainte par corps for moneys received by them officially or professionally, and wrongfully withheld, or for any other violation of official or professional obligation to suitors. So also constraint is allowed pour stellionat, i. e. the selling or hypothecating property belonging to another, en cas de redintegrande, or action for the recovery of property wrongfully withheld, and various cases of fraud or breach of trust. The law relating to this subject is to be found in the Code civile, § 2,060 et suivans; loi 27 Avril, 1832; and loi 13 Dec. 1848.

DECADE (Gr. deka, ten), an aggregate of ten. In the French republican calendar, decades of days were substituted for weeks in the division of the year. In the French system of weights and measures, the prefix deca multiplies the quantity by 10, while deci divides by 10.

DECALOGUE (Gr. dexa, ten, and λoyos, word), the Ten Commandments, or more properly, according to the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and Vulgate, the ten words or sayings which God delivered to the Jews through Moses. They contain the fundamental precepts of religion and morality, and are almost universally regarded as the golden rules for every society, age, and people. The division of the commandments has elicited a manifold difference of opinion. Of the various modes of dividing them which have found both numerous and weighty defenders, the following may be regarded as historically the most important: the Origenian or Philonic, the common Jewish or Talmudic, and the two Masoretic. According to the 1st, which is supported by the Jewish testimony of Philo and Josephus, and the authority of Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, and Jerome, the 1st precept consists mainly in the words: "Thou shalt have no other gods but me;" the 2d forbids images of God; the 3d forbids taking the name of God in vain; the 4th commands the sanctification of the sabbath day; the 5th,

to honor one's father and mother; the 6th forbids murder; the 7th, adultery; the 8th, theft; the 9th, bearing false witness; and the 10th, concupiscence. This division has been adopted by the Helvetian and Anglican churches, by the Lutherans of the school of Bucer, and by the Socinians. The Talmudic division, which is also that of the modern Jews, being supported among other authorities by Maimonides's "Book of the Commandments," and Aben Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, differs from the preceding only in making the words, "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," the 1st commandment, and in considering the prohibition of the worship of other gods and of images as the 2d. This division is proved by a quotation from Julian in Cyril of Jerusalem to have been generally known in the early centuries of the Christian era, and has through the authority of Pseudo-Athanasius also been adopted by the Greek churches, including the Russian, which has sanctioned it in its catechism. The Masoretic division, in both forms, so called on account of its being based on the Hebrew text as revised according to the rule of the Masora, unites the passage on the exclusive worship of God with the prohibition of images to make the 1st commandment, and restores the number 10, which is distinctly specified in the Scriptures, by dividing the last into 2; the text of Exodus separating by the mark of division () the prohibited coveting of a neighbor's house, as the 9th commandment, from the prohibited coveting of all other objects as the 10th, while the text of Deuteronomy separates and gives first the commandment against coveting another's wife. The division according to Exodus has been adopted by the Lutheran church, and also by the council of Trent; the other Masoretic form, which is supported by the Septuagint, by St. Augustine, Bede, and Peter Lombard. The question, how many of the ten commandments were engraved on each of the stone tables of Moses, has been agitated, mostly on philosophical grounds. Philo, and after him Irenæus, are for 2 pentads; others believe the commandments on worship alone to have been engraved on the 1st table, which is regarded by some as the more divine of the two.

DECAMPS, ALEXANDRE GABRIEL, a French painter, born in Paris in 1803. In early life he visited Turkey, and afterward executed a great number of pictures of oriental scenery and characteristics. He has gained a high reputation by these works, as well as by his pictures of animals. Among the latter are many representations of apes; one of them, the "Monkey Connoisseurs," is intended as a satire on the jury of the Paris academy of painting, on account of the severe criticisms passed upon his works. One of his best historical paintings represents the "Defeat of the Cimbri." About 60 of his works figured at the great exhibition of 1855. His style of painting is bold and original, his coloring brilliant, and he is especially happy in pre

DE CANDOLLE

senting strong contrasts in a humorous and picturesque manner, but has often been censured for his want of correctness.

DE CANDOLLE. See CANDOLLE. DECAPOLIS (Gr. deka, ten, πodis, city,) a confederacy of eastern Palestine, which contained the following 10 cities: Damascus, Philadelphia, Raphana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippol, Dion, Pella, Galasa, and Canatha, and was formed by the heathen inhabitants for mutual protection against the Asmonean princes of Judæa. These cities appear to have possessed similar political institutions and privileges.

DECATUR, the name of counties in several of the United States. I. A S. W. co. of Ga., bordering on Fla., intersected by Flint river, and bounded W. by the Chattahoochee; area, about 1,062 sq. m.; pop. in 1850, 8,820, of whom 3,949 were slaves. The surface is irregular, and the soil productive. In 1850 the harvest amounted to 5,308 bales of cotton, 275,497 bushels of corn, 105,889 of sweet potatoes, and 65 hogsheads of sugar. Value of real estate in 1856, $1,379,470. The county was named in honor of Com. Stephen Decatur, jr. Capital, Bainbridge. II. A W. central co. of Tenn.; area, 325 sq. m.; pop. in 1850, 6,003, of whom 723 were slaves. The Tennessee river flows along its entire E. boundary, and Beech river intersects it. The surface is nearly level, and almost all the land is fertile. The productions in 1850 were 261,790 bushels of corn, 43,555 of oats, 66,180 lbs. of tobacco, and 52,211 of butter. There were 15 churches, and 1,058 pupils attending public schools. This county was formed in 1846 by the division of Perry county. Capital, Decaturville. III. A S. E. co. of Ind.; area, 372 sq. m.; pop. in 1850, 15,107. It is drained by several small streams. It has a level or gently undulating surface, and the soil is a rich loam, resting on a basis of limestone. Wheat and live stock are the chief articles of export. In 1850 the productions were 1,050,217 bushels of corn, 88,493 of wheat, 47,778 of oats, and 5,537 tons of hay. There were 46 churches, and 3,721 pupils attending public schools. The county was organized in 1821. Capital, Greensburg. IV. AS. co. of Iowa, bordering on Mo.; area, 528 sq. m.; pop. in 1856, 6,229. It has a rolling surface, and a good soil. A great part of the land is occupied by prairies, interspersed with numerous clusters of hard timber, scattered along the Weldon river and other streams, which intersect the county. In 1856 the productions were 13,693 bushels of wheat, 32,332 of oats, 283,249 of corn, 18,715 of potatoes, 266 tons of hay, and 63,260 lbs. of butter.

DECATUR, a prosperous village of Ga., and capital of De Kalb co.; pop. in 1850, 744. It is a handsome little town, noted for its beautiful situation and healthy climate. It is the seat of 2 seminaries. About 6 m. E. of the village is Stone mountain, an isolated granite rock, nearly 2,200 feet high, which is annually visited by thousands of persons.

DECATUR. 1. STEPHEN, a commodore in

VOL. VI.-21

the U. S. navy, born in Newport, R. I., in 1751, died in 1808, obtained the command of a vessel in the merchant service at a very early age. During the war of the revolution he commanded several privateers, and acquired some reputation by the capture of English ships. At the commencement of hostilities with France in 1798, he received the commission of captain in the navy, and was appointed to the command of the Delaware of 20 guns, in which ship he cruised during the years 1798-'99 on the American coast, and in the West Indies, capturing at different times the French privateers Le Croyable of 14, and Marsuin of 10 guns. In 1800 he commanded a squadron of 13 sail on the Guade loupe station, the Philadelphia frigate of 38 guns being his flag ship. He was discharged from the service under the peace establishment in Oct. 1801, and engaged in commercial pursuits in Philadelphia. II. STEPHEN, jr., a commodore in the U. S. navy, son of the preceding, born at Sinnepuxent, Md., Jan. 5, 1779, killed in a duel, March 22, 1820. He entered the navy as midshipman, July, 1798, was promoted to a lieutenancy in July, 1799, and served in both grades in the frigate United States, on the West India station, under the command of Com. John Barry, during the quasi war with France. In May, 1801, he joined the frigate Essex, Capt. William Bainbridge, one of a squadron of 3 frigates and a brig, sent to the Mediterranean, under the command of Com. Richard Dale, in consequence of hostile demonstrations against the United States by Tripoli. War had been actually declared by Tripoli before the arrival of Com. Dale upon the station, but the orders under which he acted were prepared in ignorance of that fact, and nothing, therefore, beyond blockading Tripolitan cruisers, and the consequent protection of our commerce, was effected by this squadron, except an action which took place off Malta between the Enterprise of 12 guns, under Lieut. Sterrett, and a Tripolitan cruiser of 14 guns, which resulted in the capture of the latter. Com. Dale returned to the United States in Dec. 1801, and early in the spring of 1802 another squadron of 3 frigates, 2 sloops of war, and a brig was ordered to the same station, under Com. Valentine Morris, in which Decatur was actively employed as first lieutenant of the frigate New York, Capt. James Barron. At Malta he acted as second in a duel between Midshipman Joseph Bainbridge and an English officer, which terminated fatally to the latter. The surrender of the parties concerned to the civil authorities was demanded by the governor, Sir Alexander Ball, and it was therefore deemed prudent for Decatur to leave the squadron, and return to the United States. Com. Morris was recalled from his command in Nov. 1803, and the squadron, having been materially strengthened, was placed under the command of Com. Edward Preble, Decatur serving in it at first in command of the brig Argus of 16 guns, and subsequently of the Enterprise, 12, having been superseded in the Argus by Lieut.

Hull, his senior in rank. At the commencement of Preble's command, and in fact before he had time to appear off Tripoli himself, the frigate Philadelphia unfortunately fell into the enemy's hands; and as she added much to the defences of the port, and would doubtless be eventually sent out to cruise, it was deemed very important to recapture or destroy her. Capt. Bainbridge, then a prisoner in Tripoli, and in secret correspondence with Preble, suggested, in a letter of Dec. 5, 1803, the practicability of destroying her by fire, although she was in a harbor filled with cruisers, and surrounded by batteries. Preble was then lying at Syracuse, the rendezvous of the squadron, with the Enterprise, Lieut. Comdt. Decatur, in company. The plan was mentioned to Decatur, who at once entered upon it with great zeal and spirit. A Tripolitan mastico, bound to Constantinople with a present of female slaves for the Porte, which had been captured by the Enterprise a few days before, afforded ready means for carrying it into execution, and she was taken into the service for the purpose, and named the Intrepid. About this time Lieut. Comdt. (now Commodore) Stewart, of the brig Siren, of 16 guns, which had just arrived from a cruise, volunteered to cut out the Philadelphia; but Preble adhered to the plan already formed, and on Feb. 3, 1804, issued the order for carrying it into effect. That evening the Intrepid, convoyed by the Siren, sailed from Syracuse to execute this important service. The officers were Lieut. Comdt. Decatur, Lieuts. Lawrence, Joseph Bainbridge, and Thorn, Midshipman Thomas McDonough, and Surgeon Heerman, all of the Enterprise, and Midshipmen Izard, Morris, Laws, Davis, and Rowe, who volunteered from the Constitution, Com. Preble's flag ship, and Salvadore Catalano, a Greek, acting as pilot and interpreter. The entire crew of the Enterprise volunteered for the expedition, but only 62 of the most athletic and active were selected, making, with the officers, 74 souls. On Feb. 9 Tripoli was discovered, but bad weather prevented the attempt until the night of the 15th, when the party in the Intrepid was reënforced by Midn. Anderson and 8 men from the Siren. About 10 o'clock in the evening the Intrepid reached the mouth of the harbor. The weather was beautiful, and the sea and bay were as smooth as in summer. She entered the hostile port slowly, the breeze being very light. Decatur stood at the helm, with the interpreter beside him, the men lying on deck out of sight; a few officers only remained standing. As the frigate was neared, Decatur discovered a few of her crew looking over the hammock rail, and the Intrepid was hailed and ordered to keep off. The pilot answered, according to previous instructions, that they were from Malta, on a trading voyage, had lost their anchors in a late gale, and desired to ride by the frigate until others could be procured. The Tripolitan then asked some questions about the brig in the offing, and was told that it was the Transfer, a former Brit

ish vessel of war, which had been purchased for the Tripolitans, and was daily expected to arrive. During this conversation warps were carried to the frigate, where they were received and made fast, and the crew of the Intrepid, still lying down, began to warp her gently alongside. Distrust was awakened among the Tripolitans by the discovery of the anchors of the Intrepid, and the cry of Americanos was raised. A vigorous pull brought the vessels in contact, the order to board was given, and Midshipman Charles Morris stood first on the quarter deck of the Philadelphia, followed immediately by Decatur. So perfect was the surprise, and so rapid and vehement the assault, that the resistance was very slight, and in less than 10 minutes Decatur was in undisturbed possession of the ship. Her foremast was wanting, and not a sail was bent, or yard crossed. To move her, therefore, was impossible, and her destruction was instantly resolved upon. The men immediately distributed themselves, according to previous instructions, with combustibles, which consisted principally of canvas sacks of dry pine and shavings, well covered with soft turpentine. All were emptied and spread in the cock pit and store rooms, and demijohns of spirits of turpentine poured down upon them from the gun deck. The ship was in a very dry state, and the conflagration so extremely rapid that the assailants escaped with difficulty. When all were on board the Intrepid, she was cast off, and for an instant was in great danger, in consequence of the fouling of a fast. It was cut, and the little vessel dropped clear just as the flames burst forth from the ports of the frigate over her deck,.upon which a large mass of ammunition was lying covered with tarpaulins. The sweeps were now manned, and the Intrepid was very soon at a safe distance from the burning frigate. When a few lengths from her the men ceased to row for an instant, and gave 3 hearty cheers. A light land breeze sprung up at this critical moment, which wafted the little vessel rapidly out of the harbor. The spectacle as she left the port was described by the officers as sublime and beautiful. The bay was completely illuminated by the conflagration, and the town, castles, minarets, and mosques were all brought by it into distinct view. By the light thus afforded, a heavy fire was opened upon the Intrepid by the batteries and cruisers, though without effect, one shot only passing through a sail. The guns of the frigate, as they became heated, began to go off, and singularly enough, her broadsides bore upon the city and one of the principal batteries. The Siren was soon fallen in with in the offing, and Decatur went on board to report his success. The arrangements for this expedition were perfect. No firearms were used, but all was carried by the cutlass. Nothing was wanting, nothing defeated, and on the part of the Americans but a single casualty occurred, one man being slightly wounded. The loss sustained by the enemy could never of course be correctly ascertained. Many swam on shore,