The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1827-02-01

tho necessty OF considering whether the
petitioners were or were not conusant OF
the corruption imputed TO that act. II We
must take the act as valid as 10 the imme.
/ date grantees, we must take il as valid as
to their asslgnees, the present petitioners.
But II this was not 81. and we were at lib
erty To suppose, and warranted in saving,
these assignees were contisant of this inn
puted corruption, il would be no reason
why the United States should not keen
their engagement made with them. But.
Tor the sake ~ the character, IL is proper
that this imputation upon them should be
removed; for II is altogether unmeriied.
The resembling act OF Georgia was not
known in Boston until long after the po-
titoners had completed their purchase al
ten cents per acre. Who can believe
that they would have agreed to give mere
than million of dollars for title which
they had heard was founded in corrup.
ton which they must know would there.
fore be contested, and which they could
not know but would be therefore rendered
void Another fact; after the purchase,
and before the resembling act was known
there, the tito rose from ten To twenty
cents per acre but the momen, the res-
ending act was known there, the TILE tell
dead in that market ; one, or at most. two
cents per acre was for long time tho
highest price given for il nor WAS mora
given until prospects pf acompromise with
the United States began TO dawn upon
these unfortunate assignecs.
The message uf President Washington,
on the subject mot n proclamation as Tho
gentleman states) did not question the M
tegriiy Of the grant made by Georgia, but
the right of Georgia TO make the grant
as not being her land, but the land of tho
United States n question on which opn-
ions were then, and had been long before,
much divided. This risk of the title Of
Georgia, tho petitioners knew they run,
and we're content TO run; but os TO any
risk OF the title of the original grantees,
from the irnud of those grantees, they
we're not apprised ofany, nor did they ap+
prehcnd any. They were innocent pur4
chasers not only innocent of any partici-
patton in The fraud, il any, but innocent Of
any knowledge of any fraud The noise
Of fraud diflused all over ths country, 10
which the gentleman has alluded that
followed, il did not precede the resembling
act. But all this is unnecessary, except
merely to yindicate the character Of tao
petitioners from an injurious but unfound-
ed imputatiop for whtiher founded or un-
ioondud, q cunnnt vary the obligation OF
the United Statcs To pay for their tito
what they have agreed TO ray.
But the honorable gentleman has mado
another objection one founded on tho aus
thority Of the Board of Commissioners, hs
says the act constituting that Board mnds
It's authority final. IL did So as 10 cona
iliuting claims Of individuals against indie
viduals and 30 far the COMMITTEE have
considered its decision az final and have
reported accordingly; and though UNJUST
10 the title Of the petitioners, tbn, mucb
injustice they must suffer. But the act
did not make The decision final as 10 the
United States and tho gentleman is misc
taken IN supposing that II did 20. But
suppose it otherwise, and that the act had
made the decision final ~ to The United
States, what then? So long as the decisA
ION is erroneous on the face Of IL 80 lDna
ms The Board themselves sby il Is crron4
cous so long rs the Supreme Court have
decided II TO be erroneous, have decided
that the title wag in the petitioners, and 10
now in the United States, by thr release
made TO them by tho petitioners 50 long
IA the Uniteo States have got the land
from the petitioners. would they hold the
land and shelter themselves from the pay.
ment for the land under stIri decisIone
II this decision was merely doubtful, mere4
ly questionable, II wOuld be another thing
We might then say--we will not trouble
ourselves TO look into u, 20 consider il.
But when we are obliged TO say that il
is erroneous, can VIC cay that it shall be
our protection against this claim shall
stand as recorded evidence 10 us that tho
title was in us, and not IN them, and there.
fore not to be paid for by ms Bo it so il
We will have it 30. be il 90 let us keep
our title 10 the land but LET us, in the
name Of justice, let US give back TO the pc.
| tltioncrs their title. They petition, in the
alternative, either 10 have their title rec
stored 10 them, or 2 have that title paid
/ for. Can We refuse both, either 10 pay for
/ their title, or 10 rostore IL II we say that
We had, and thnt they had not, the right 10
this land If we withhold their title, We
withhold il without even the plea Of in4
7 terest for so doing and wc do an act of
| injustice for 40 motive bot the Injustice il.
. self And il is the more unjust, as tho
nct compelled the petitisncrs 10 surrender
/ their title on The penalty Of forfciting both
I land and title but uffder the assurance
that the release should not take effect uns
til the indemnity was paid clearly imply.
! ing That If the indemnity was not paid,
thnt the title sbo1ld be restored.
But how can II DC restored: : Simply By
an act enAciing that the release shall be
void and Of no effect as 10 the land in
question. This would content the peties
j inncrs, and ought not 10 DC refused by us,
! If VIC will refuse the indemnity. Blu,
without such an act the petitioners cannot
assert any title 10 the lard IN question. -