Alexandria gazette & advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1822-1824, 1823-03-20


unless W. are bound ami therefor this
guaran'e. is matter o. course Nc, SOL
Iii was matter OF course why does tb..
commissioner tell US he bad no specific
instructions or powers TO enter into this
article Why does he reserv. the Jower
OF rejection? II twas implied by he res
terence, why did Kenlu'ky .insis. en-
specific and express article binding US t.
guara ntee?
Indeed, il leaving the case CT Indicated
warrants 10 arbitrator. binds us o, itself
TO guarantee K. arau,s their Gle M. W..
shall also he hound 10 gua,artee re- a.
gainst the decision OF the C, ur. on the &C..
cupying claimant laws, because we bave
also lett them 10 arbitration The same
reasoning apple to both cases We
should, indeed, have additional reason to
be cautious il this be so, be cause II is iui-
possible TO tell how lar such guarantee
might 60.
MI T. also commended tha, the gnsran.
tee on our part was not the correlatvt at
the obligation on the part Of X That K.
had not acted Upon the supposiiion thaS.
the holders OF warrants could not recover
the claims, but the coDtra1y-so that she,
was not, as had been sa! ID, misieu by our
suggestion to that effect.
On this point he conc luded that We y ere
no. bound to enter int" tins guarantee, by
any obligation OF good faith.
Is il Poi,tic T. take upon US this qua;
raDtee which NAV bind US 10 the amount
OF not less than 10000 dollars
II is said il viii 60 no harm This Is the
argument always INST Il b. feared We
have been always acting on such primer. :
pies and always losing ~ il IL private
life, he who does things bfcause he thinks.
he sees no harm in them, and without be-
ing certain they are 10 do. good, always
comes to ruin. So it IS with the stale
And why will it do no harm? Because
thu lawyers tell US The people can't reco-
vi from Kentucky. and The retore K. can't
: recover from US But suppose they are
mistaken Then we shall pay l5o 600
dollars f uur rashnes,! Can any lawyer
now say whether lawyers and courts may
not ind out remedy hereafter ? Have
we OF recent instances OF the ingenuity
OF the federal courts in finding means of
efecting ends ? Look at Cohens' case
Look at 'be 100000 dollars recovered
from The state OF OHIO. indeed, what is
more usual than for time to Prove to the
most eminent counsel that they are n ista
ken? There was memorable instance
in Judge Marshall. In the cpnvebtiou he
said, il was irrational 10 suppose lhat UNI
"der the constitution a state could be
i brought to the bar OF the supreme court"
yet he has lately decided upon new Lights,
and ew arg neEts that, under The con-
itu ion II might be done Yei he was 4,
urinary among luminaries when be ex-
crossed the former opinion
But The guar an:ee is supported on seve-
ral grounds
]. II IS said that we are bound TO gua-
rantee, the soldiers claims at any rate,
and therefore We do not add to our obi.
cation by guaranteeing X. This MIR. T..
denied. II is a new idea that the sove.
reign power IS bound to gusranie. What ia
given as 3 fargesse, and received with tuli
knowledge tt tn character II The glil.
Ii Is only bound "a give its aid 10 securing
il. The soldier. " no took these warrants
knew the lano was in the Indian country.
Was the slate iairly TO lie responsible, il
Indian hostllites suspended locations OF
made suspension by government aeCes-
sary or il an acknowledgment superior.
(tbe United SIales,) prevented locations
by treaty? Surely not. Besides, the hoi-
ders OF warrants might have located in The
year i784.-Locations were authorized
in 1888, and not stopped until Oct 1884.
In the meantime, 265,ooo acres acre
located. The other lO9 600 were not.
Why not? u the holders Of these had done
as The others did. then there would have
been no dispute about their rights. If they
did NOT when they might have located as
we'll as the others, is the state 10 be re-
sprnsihle? And to do whs? To guaran.
tee k. against kentuckiGns-fo kentucki-
ans il has been SAID, hold the greatest part
of the warrants. Indeed, if there yas q
guarantee Of the soldiers rights. have NOT
Kentuckians who hold warrants LOST il, as
their own sovereign does the wTOng?-
Should not Kentucky which was par f.
Virginia, a, least bear her pari? Yet here
all is put on US: and this guarantee tGo
will not be for the soldiers benefit, but Tor
his assisnees-the spectators in warrants.
Observe, however, that on the SUPPOSE
tion that we are nov liable to the warrant
holders, we shall certainly on the first Of
April next, il we rstiiy this guarantee, be
bound 70 pay what is due, either TO Ken
lucky or the soldiers. Ought we not then
to provide for IT NOW? Should we not make
an appropriation OF Dl5o, 900 10 pay what
is due as soon as the decision is made? Are
members prepared to make this apprOpria'
ton from the treasury, when we refuse
even to lend our aid to the complrlitn OF
the University? II is indeed remarkable
consequence of this argument, that admit
ing our liability to the soldiers, we are
nom only Liable in case Mey lose in the
suits which may be brought in the federal
courts; but if we make this contract, and
the commissioners decide against US, we