Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1805-03-27
s. 8 Fog D0Aars Per Aanua... paid in adsanee.1

the whole merits of the case on the single
question:, whether the claimants At the
time Of making their purchases had or had
mot knowledge of the fraud. In the au.
tum of l7o5. when the .ules were gene
rally made in new England, there was no
knowledge or suspicion of fraud---the con-
tracts were made in full confidence Of the
aet Of sovereign and independent state
and know they could have had no
knowledge of any fraud IN the legislature
tof Georgia. We are told by the gentle
man, that there was " great uproar thro'-
out the state of Georgia" ---whstcvee
might have been the nature or extent oil
this uproar, am confident that know
ledge oS il had not peschrd New England
at the time the contracts were made. But
the proof that there was no knowledge of
any fraud, depends not on the opinion or
assertion of individuals, il is founded on a
tcircumstance which removes all doubt on
the srbject, it is founded in the price
winch the purchasers paid for the land.
They paid as they have stated ia their me
mortal, as much per acre for these lands
as the state of Massachusetts had receis-
cd Few years before, tor lands lying in
the state OF New York; and liz probable
that The purchasers, who have bacn repre-
scented by gentleman from Pennsylvania,
as Possessing so much sagacity and look
ting so we'll TO their ewo interests, would
have paid or contracted TO pay such
price with knowledge that the original
grant had been fraudulen;ly obtained.
Il Is also coniended by the same gentIs-
man, that the claimants had knowledge Of
the resembling aa ofl7s6- This was inn
| possible in points of lime. The sales
were generally made in 1875. the rcscIud-
ling ast was passed In January l7ss. II
follows then that they were innocent pur-
chasers, without knowledge Of the fraud
or ofthe resembling a6t. Two object
have been made Big the gentleman IRON
pennsyIvsnia, and relied on by the genite-
man from Virginia; the FIRST is, IS that Tie
original grantees purchased nominssiy
twensy ,niliions OF acres, when II appear
ed tina, forty millions were contained with.
! in their meets and bounds !" this was )
transaction NTH The original grantees and
the legislature OF Georgia in which the
! present claimants had no agency, and fol
which they are not responsible. The SC.
cond o5jcslion IL said 10 be found ia the
deeds of the claimants, where it is Goa
ltended they have furnished evidence
gainst themselves in the following words
lts and lastly ii is coyenanted and express.
| ~ agreed, and understood by and bc.ween
THE parties 10 these presents, that neither
the grantees aforesaid, nor their heirs, OK.
ecutors or administrators, shall be held 10
any farther or other warantee than is here
in expressed, nor liable To the refunding
any money in consequence OF any DETECT
| in their tide from the state of Georgia, if
such there should hereafter appsar 10 be-
| This it is contsnded is an acknowledge.
,nent on the part Of the claimants OF a
| defeetive title. Let US now turn to the
act of Georgis OF 1875, under which the
original title was derived. We there 6nd
a clause IN the following words, (" aud pro-
vidcd further, that this state and the GO
vernment thereof shall at no time hereaf
ter be subject 70 any suit at law, OF IN e.
guilty or claim, or pretension whatever, for,
or on account of any deduction in the
| quantity Of the said territory, OF on ac-
count Of the amount ofthe purchase mo
tnoy 10 be paid ~ Aforesaid, by any reco-
VERY which may or shall be had, ON any
former or other CLAIM or claims whxte-
ver." The two sections correspond ia a
great degree.---Tbe first instead OF sus-
pIcion Of any fraud or doubt Of their IL
lie confirms the opinion which was enter.
tanned by the claimants Of The validity oi
their title aud theiI confidence in the acl oil
{ Georgia
II is further contsnded that the petition.
eSs have no equitable claim on the govern
ment. IL this be true, the resolution ough,
not TO be adopted. rhs equity of the
claims depend on fasi admitted on al
hands, on The fact that they have purcha
sed the lands and paid valuable conside
ration for the same. This constitutes the
essence Of the claim, and has produced
i the resolution now before the house. The
legality Of the claim is moi under conEidc
ration. The legality of the claims can on.
Iy be decided by the courts of law where
the tile to the whole OF the land, would
be established or set aside--n the title
should be established and confirmed, tb,
United States would have no right 10 pos
sess or dispose Of any part OF il, although