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

1
nate on tho 18th nit. for the relief of Eben.
czer Oliver and u,hers, Directors of the
New England Mississippi Land Company
in Boston, ON account of a claim they hold
against the Government, for the land ced.
ed by Georgia, which wss embraced with.
in the limits Of the Yazoo purchase.
The report on this subject, made last
year from the Committee on the Judiciary,
was ALSO read.
Mr.. Robbins, Of Rhode Island, spoke to
the following effect AS TO the land in
question, the United States agreed TO pay
the petitioners therefor, If they got good
and legal title from them; they have got
a good and legal title from them why
then not pay them? The honorable gen
tleman from Illinois says, because the Lee.
gislature of Georgia was corrupt in max
ing these grants and was corrupted by
| the grantees. What then? is thst the
reason why the u. States should not keep
their faith in their engagements ls il de-
MED that the United States have got Ii.
tie from these petitioners /? No. Is il dcni-
ed that this title is good and legal title |?
No. Is it deni-d that the United States a.
greed TO pay for such title ? No. IL it
pretended that they have paid No; nor
as to the land in question. II, then, they
refuse TO pay, what becomes of their fidel
itv TO their engagement? believe it will
hardly be saved by alleging the corrup-
tion of the Legislature of Georgia in max
ing these grants. For as to this allcga-
iion against that Legislature, was it not
as well known to the United States when
they made this contract with the petition
ers, as il is now known? Certainly IL was.
If it was not made by the United States
an objection TO making this contract,
should il be made by them an objection to
performing the contractY Is that honora
bic gentleman willing TO exhibit his coun-
Try in this light, as making a contract with
a knowledge of given fact, and after oh.
tanning the benefit Of the contract, on her
part, avaiing herself of this very fact AZ
her excuse for denying 10 the other party
the bcneh, OF the contract on their part
| know Tie honorable gentleman know
his honorable sentiments; know there
fore, he would disdain to act, or to be
thought capable OF acting the part himself,
Errl sf,- hirsse;f.--rrh,ch he advises his
country TO act in the case not attending,
as | verify believe, TO the character which
the transaction that he recommends must
bear IN the minds of all rejecting men.
But If the Legislature Of Georgia was
corrupt in making these grants, who was
the injured party? Why surely the State
Of Georgia was tho !nIured party. Now,
the Stale of Gcorgia has agreed and Civ
en- her consent, that the United States
should make this very arrangement with
The petitioners, which the United States
have made. IL the state of Georgia, the
injured party, makes no objection on the
ground Of that injury, are the United
States, who arc not the injured party, to
make an objection on that ground, aud 10
object, not 10 making the contract, and oh
tanning the benefit of IT themselves, but to
object TO the r"rformanco of IL on their
part in order to deny to the other party
the benefit Of it on their part ? There
could not be a stronger proof of the mer.
its OF the clb i'm, than such a reason for de.
nying it, and that tho only reason for II
shows that those merits arc so ndlsputa-
BILE that nothing can be urged against
them, substantial, or even plausible
But, again, would be glad TO know
where that honorable gentleman finds his
authority for questioning, on the grounds
of corruption, or any other ground, the
act Of sovereign Legislature, acting
within the sphere of lts sovereignty. Has
Congress authority TO impeacb the act oi
State Legislature-a competent act OF
that Lcgislature--on the ground Of the
motives which induced the act, and TO pro-
nounce it invalid on that ground, or any
ground No, sir; neither has Congress
! nor has any tribunal on earth. this author.
ity. The Supreme Court have so decld-
ed and by 50 deriding, have but con.
! frmed the decision made or dictated by
! the reason and nature Of the thing itself
For, if this inquiry was open 10 Congress
or To- any tribunal whatever. the State lie
gislaiure would no longer be sovereign
even within the sphere of it's own soyer-
eighty; even within that sphere, II would
/ be but subordinate and dependent power
The same Legislature may costrol thf
acts Of that LcgIslotyre but they must De
acts properly of legislation nm act Bo'
properly an act Of legislation an act max
J ing grant aud consunmaied, cannot be
! controlled by the same legislature. Or
this ground, the Supreme Court decided
that the resembling act of Georgia was Q
nuIliiy. Now, the gen'lenan's whole ar
gument is built upon the assumption d
the inyalidity of the act of Georgia making
these grants: an act TO which that Stat
was confessedly competent; when, so iei
from assuming the fact, he has no right
nor has this body, even 10 question thu
contrary. The whole foundation, then, o
his argument fails, and with II fails III,
whole superf,ructure, tho argument itself
debile fundanentum fall ct opus. Bot ba'
he a right 10 investigate the truth Of the
fact which he assumes without proof an'
had he proved il, it would still leave ih'