Literary cadet and Rhode-Island statesman. [volume] (Providence, R.I.) 1827-1829, 1828-02-09
REMARKS OF MIR. ROBBINS.

OF Rhode-Island, in the Senate on Tuesday,
January 29th, while the bill was unaNr consid-
Grafton, for the relief of certain surviving Off
GERS of the Revolution. The motion to fll the
blank with 81 loo, 900, was pending:
Mr.. Robbins rose and spoke to the following effect:
In speaking to this subject, | shall speak only to the
legal obligation, if any, ofthe United States. in this
case. For though ! do not agree with the honorable
gentleman from Worth Carolina, (my friend, il he will
permit me to call him so,) that appeals in this case
to the gratitude and magnanimity oflhe nation, i'm.
ply the absence Of legal obligation, or the a~pprehen-
sion of that absence; l do agree that this question is
not to be determined on those appeals, nor to be in
iluenced by them, any further than as they are sus-
tanned by that obligation. / I'm the more anxious
now to speak TO that point, as it has been more par
ticularly challenged by the learned and able gentle.
man from South Carolina, who has Just taken his seat.
The legal question / take to be t~his-whether, sup
posing the combination not to be equal to the hall
pay for life, the United States are under an obliga-
ton to make good the difference; an obligation either
legal or equitable; for as to Government, there is no
difference between the legal obligation and the equit-
able; both have the sape common foundation IN JUS
tice; their difference IS only a difference OF forms be-
longing to Courts, not to Governments.
l begin tins enquiry by saying, that the act Of $50,
providing half pay for life for the officers OF the revo-
lutionary army, who should serve to the close Of the
lOi4tEI IL u [Jlitld y Will lOf Jill
GERS who did serve to the close OF that var. The pro-
position made 10 them in that act, was a conditional
one; and when the proposition was accepted, ana the
condition was performed on their part, it became a
contract OH the part ofthe United States, strictly and
technically SO speaking contract with hose officers,
not as a body, but with each individual officer. In
1888, when the Treaty of Peace was concluded and
ratified, these contracts were perfected and be
came fon that moment obligatory upon the
United States; and are still obligatory, unless they
have been rescinded by each individual acting for
himself. For several parties 10 several contracts,
cannot rescind those contracts for one another; nor
can a majority OF all those parties rescind them tor
all. The idea is preposterous.
Ifthese contracts have been rescinded, IL must be,
/ repe. by the individual assent Of each officer to
the resembling act, whatever that act may be. If that
assent has boon given, | agree il is not material in
what form it was given: nor whether by words or by
acts; whether express in the former, or implied by the
latter: but the fact Of the assent, and Of the ,ndivftu-
al assent, is material.
Now as to the evidence Of this assent. The votes
Of the army lines, determined by majorities in those
lines, is not evidence Of individual assent; not even
in those majorities; for it is impossible to say who
voted in those majorities, and who did not vote In
them; it is impossible, therefore, to bring home the
assent TO any one individual in particular. And
there is no prctence, to say that these votes were I'M
animous. Had they been unanimous, 1t would have
amounted to the requisite proof, as to each individual;
but they were not unanimous; and the proof Is that
the votes were reported to Congress as majorities
merely; a majority Of the whole, certainly is not the
whole; regarding, then the votcs Of these majorities
as not being evidence Of individual assont-what evil
dcnce Of individual assent remainsl
1t Is said that the acts Of these officers imply this
assent that in point Of fact they did accept OF the
communication notes, given as q substitute ior hall pay,
and did receive them in lieu Of halt pay that this
was implied assent, and was individually given, All
this is very true, and would BIO quite conclusive
a0ainaf Tho a0icar N thie aaeauf xgaa voluntary.
Here is the turning point of the whole case. II this
assent was voluntary, II was conclusive against the
officer but . 1t was compulsory, 1t was not eonciu'
sive. How was the fact 7
If this alternative had been presented to tho officer
here take these communication notes, or take your
half nav for life and he had taken the commutation
notes, the acceptance would have been conclusive up
on him, because then IL would have been voluntary.
But this Alternative was not presented 20 hin' lhe
alternative presented TO him was this--here, take
thesc commutation notes, or take nothtng--yes, OF
take nothing. That this was he alternative IS evi'