The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1828-04-03
SPErC Gil or Mr. ROBBINS. orr
IN SENATE, TuEspAY, MARou II, Is2s.


Mr.. ROBBINS, of Rhode Island, said
this case seems 10 labor most on the point
OF legal obligations lfthls is not establish
ed, nor 10 be estsb b!islied should despair
Of the claim being carried. In that case,
indeed, am not prepared TO say it ought
10 be carried for, in common with other
gentlemen, doubt It any other ground.
per Sc, would warrantthe appropriation. In
deed the petitioners, themselves, rest their
claim on the legal obligation entirely. IL
that is not established, nor 10 be establish
ed, they make no claim upon us, for they
ask nothing of tho national gratitude. On
this ground they are silent, and forever
will be. In this they display oil the noble.
ness OF noble minds for, though II il no.
bic to confer obligations. il is stili nobler
not TO make any claim upon them, and no.
bier still never 10 mention them. But. let
me remark, here, that however noble il is
IN the beneiactor never TO remember. il is
equally noble IN the party benefited, never
20 forget, the obligation. A few words,
however, and but few, on this question OF
legal obligation.
IL does appear 10 me 20 clearly that n
special contract made with these petitions
ers has been violated; and to their injury,
for which they have legal title 10 lden'ni-
fcution. II is 60 my surprise thar tho tact
should appear otherwise, 10 other minds,
and such minds too minds who command
all my respect for. II, waving the quest on,
whether the cnmmutailon was or was not
adequate to the annuties IN point Of value
and, waving, too, the question, Whether tho
commutGtlon was or was not 0steh,eG a. by
the officers, in a manner to be binding up
on him-li.wo look at the communication act,
and see what was To be given, and then at
the final settlement, aud see what wRs CIV
en,and compare the two things not ~ kind,
for they were different IN klnd--bui in val
pe, and It would seem 20 me impossible 10
say that that promise was performed, or
that the non performance vas not sn in
jury. or that the injury did not constituted
legal utle TO decentralization.
Now what was gwen on that final settle
mcnt? Ii was u certificate certifying the
amount due, aud that i, was payable NJ six
per cent interest. speak from MI au,hen-
ticated transcript of the form OF that cer,i-
fcate. On what was this botiomed On
the credit Of the Country. What was its
value IL was twenty per cent, on It's nom
inaI amount, and 40 more--it would com
mand tins in the market. and no more.
| Now, by the conmn,ation act, what wac
10 be gyen2 II was Secu,iiieS. at FIVE per
| cent. interest, 10 be bottomed, ms say, and
will attempt TO show, on particular funds,
pledged 10 psy The accruing interest an
nually, and ultimately 20 redeem the prin-
cipol. What were sucb securities, and so
guaranteed, worth They were worth
,I, II
mount, and would command this in money
here OF elsewhere. What then was tho
| difference ia value between what they did
receive, and vhn they we're to receiver
! itwns sixty three per cent en- the nominal
dmount,or sixty.ihlee dollars OH every hun
dred.
| That these five por cent. securities, thus
guaranteed, were not delivered, ,lwoud here
remark, was not the fault Of the Govern.
Inent for /; was owing 10 their utter ina
bllity to deliver them Congress had no ppf-
ticular funds and could command none,
though they made every possible effort To
acquire them from the State, for this pur-
pose. But this neither varies the fact Of
the breach OF the contract, nor impsirs the
! right Of idcinnlficaion for that breach.
would here further remark, that u ls thiI
circumstance, that these securities were 10
be guaranteed by particular funds, that dis
| tlnguishrs these petitioners from other
creditors makes their case peculiar one;
a cose that cannot make precede NJ which
other creditors con claim the benefit of,
nor which can enbarrnss the Government
~ being such a precedent. They com
/ PLAIN that they have not had what they
{ l., ..Vl. Il y,
| kind md lcsS IN value, much less. The
other creditors were 10 have certificates Of
credit, upon he credit OF the country
! these they did have and if the depression
. Of that credit has depressed the value of
I those certificates IN The market, and " loss
has hoen occasinncd TO the holders by that
. depression, It isa loss - hich gives no legal
t iulc ~ .dcmnty; II is n ddmnunl. but q
R drmnuHp, Bs the lnw has II, db5guc injurtn;
. q b. loss ~ consequence Of the want Of
credit in lie debtor: which does not make
legal Ground orclnim ngains, the debtor.
But ~ this case II is a loss in consequence
ofthc non 'casance Of the debtor, the not
delivering what was TO be delivered which
d ocs cobslilutute legal demand against
! the debtor.
am aware that the valne Of this whole
statement depends upon the evidence that
these securities were to be guaranteed BY
particular funds. But this evidence is so
irresistible in my view Of II, that Il forces
conyic ton of the fact upon my mind and,
! trust, when considered and weighed IL
will have like effect with others In the
first place j, was so understood by the ar
my for they say, in their resolution, trans
mI,Ied to Congress by their Commanders
in Chief: We expect Congress to provide
adequate funds for satisfying the life snns-
tiles, or such conmutstion as may be SUBJ