The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-03-15

= CRtltl l0SeSd IN DoutlCS III inns OF O.
federation, and with all my enmity to it, which
/ own has been vc~y great, If it con6lts in
complying with prudent advice and honett en-
gagements, in doing iultice to the unfortunate,
aud deciding on Qneitions of private right, BY
the rules of universal aw--I will receive it with
omen ar,ns---I will cherih it-and hug il TO my
bofom with the affection Of father for a long
loit Ton returning TO the paths OF virtue.
Ny colleague near me mir. Clarke with the
Earn, iiberaty which characteriies MS general
conduct on this 1oor has Investigated the quef-
ton OF the kegaLty of thefe claims and conten-
ded it was mott clear that the parties have no
fpecies of legal right am not diipoled to go
largely into this examination the volume pre-
tented bv the agents which is called "prota-
nation of arguments" is IN able vindication of
It'll will however notice iome OF his pohuons
In eAablilhine his premires he afumes certain
facts rs conceded, which are denied in the moi
expreis and dire6 maIner-tTtt, that the cai-
rnants now before us, had notice of fraud when
they purchafed the lands in queftion, this no.
tice he fays was unqueftionably given by the
meGage of the PRECEDENT to Congrefs, and the
proceedings in the Houfe of Representatives..
| have aniwered this aiiertion by minute reca-
pitulation of all the proceedings of that period;
and deny that they either exprefs or imply
fraud, or corruption in the remoteit manner.
't They had notice by the preientments of the
for one can declare | never faw thoie pre-
fentments in the newspapers; nay farther ne
yer iaw Georgia Newspaper TO my recoilecti-
on until had the honor of a feat on this floor;
they are not extenfvely circulated beyond the
limits Of the fate, and the fact adduced by my
colleague proves nothng-bnt (added the gen
tleman) here is Prefenred notice; facts, fir, al
ways defeat prefumptions it is not principle
admitted in law that becaufe it boLfble
tbot he, iubt h1v nht ed he
inference mutt be that he had notice.-And
how is the fact ofnot;ce or notice TO be fet
tied. MY colleague well knows that if the u
nited States ihall fell any of theie lands to in
dividuals, and the claimants do, as they ndu-
bitably will, conteit the title the proper pro-
ce(s will he the action of eie6tment, in which it
is principle than which no one is better eta
bliihed, that the eldeft grant mutt prevail.
What then why, fir, the fettler will refort
to a court ofeuQuiry whofe province it is TO re-
Iieve aeaiuft fraud, and he will charge in his
bill in chancery, that his antagonift derived his
title from the at of a corrupt legilature, and
that he purchaled from The grantees with notice
of fuch fraud. The anfwer which is fworn 70,
expressly denies the notice, for, fir, the parties
foemnly aver, they had no notice of fraud, or
corruption, when they purchafed, and a know
ledge oftbeir high characters leaves no doubt
on my mind Of its truth: and il is ALTO well
fettled rule in equity, that where the anfwer
is refponive to the bill, it fhall be conclYf7,e ];
unefs contradicted by two boftiz,s witnei1es,
or one witnefs, and .fro1g corroborating cir
cumftances: where then is my colleague doc
trine OF prefumed, implied notice They are
faid he, bsndente lite purchaicrs, and here the
gentleman mutt have encountered a good old
law maxim that g purchafer for valuable
confederation without notice has good title"
unleis he is beNdente lite purchaier-what, fir,
benGeHte lite purchaiers when they derive their
title from the law of an independent legislature?
the grantees armed with its official records
the great zeal of fate affixed a folemn acknow-
Judgement of the receipt of payment in their
pofeifion That it can be alfimilated to ! lis
psnAea5 between and y would indeed be a
far fetched fuDDofition-if any fuit was depend
ing, it was between the Georgians and their
corrupt agents for abufing the truft repofed in
them, not for exceeding their powers-as we'll
might If be urged. that if an individual give his
agent full powers, and he fell his property at
fhaneful facrifi:e that fuit between flch in
tlividua and his agent is to affect the property
which he had power to FELL MY colleague de-
cares his willinglefs to make provilion for fuch
claims s t,.a!i acpear 70 nave originated ~ pur-
chafes without knowledge of fraud, thefe alone
are the claims which am willing to provide
for but we are folemnly afTured by the appli-
Giants that they are all in this ftuation. Is
this Houfe competent to due invefgaton
q q
felton, viii be inadequate to this object, it is to
get rid ofthe great difficulty which flch an en-
quiry wouId impofe, and more Especially TO
remove beyond our rea, h the polIibility of re-
neviug the unpleafaut difcufIion which this fub-
iet( has produced, and which for the honor of
nv couatry hope will never be witnefed a.
ia, that / am delirous to refer the queftion
rs 20 the cafes which are deIerving of compen-
flton, and the extent oft. to commifIioners
to be faeetcd by the Prefdent, in whom the
utmoft confidence can be piaced.-My col
league near me declared that no contract orr
eiraihg in fraud can ever be rendered valid by
any after tr5rflGtion. I will prove 70 him an ex-
ception to this rule, in the laws and judicial de-
ciiOns of the itate to which be belongs, and
this, fir, will b. efficient to thew that the u
uiverfality Of the rule cannot be contended for.
In VIRGINIA our laws declare that no bond given
for a earning contract can be available in law,
thai money won at gaming may be recovered
in fnit brought either by the party oGng or
oranv Other perfon who will fue for it., that all
convcyancee Of land on that account fnalI be
utterly void, yet under this law the high court
ofappcss haze decided that where a party
gave bond for the payment ola gaming debt,
and aGurcd . third Perfon in the prefcnce the
obligee that II was good and he would pay It