Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-05-22

pdyulSUl recommended Gull no PROVISION was
made for it. ltappears that the claim of Galphn
constitutedthe only charge upon these coded lands,
after the claims of the other traders were paid by
the lberality of Great Britain, and that they have
at all times been greatly more than adequate to
pay his claim with interest. No part of his claim
was ever paid till paid by the United States; nor,
prior to that time, had either the United States or
Georgia ever paid anything in any way for these
lands They were disposed of by Georgia in aid
of the revoluton-a portion of them gratuitously
to actual settlers, with view TO the defence of
the country, at period of great suffering and
peril and portion in discharge of military bounty
claims.
In view of these facts, it is believed the position
may be incontroveribly assumed, that the claim
of Galphin was charge upon these coded lands
to the extent of the ascertained and liquidated
amount due him in 1775, and interest thereon
from that time and it is deemed equally clear
that Georgia, having acquired jurisdiction and
control over them by the revolution, took them,
neverhess, with the charge upon them, and, hav-
ing disposed of them, was bound in equity and
good conscience, to discharge this claim; and, as
the fund of land was greatly more than sufficient
to pay both the principal and the interest, that she
was equitably as much bound to pay the one as the
other. Such appears have been her own sense
of Justice and the view Of her Legislature in the
passage of the act of 1850.
The principle relied on, that trustee is not re-
sponsible for interest, unless he makes interest,
has not the slightest application to this case; nor
is the principle, without qualification, true in any
case.
If trustee refuses to pay over a trust fund,
when properly demanded, and converts it to his
own use, he renders himself responsible for inte-
rest, and no authority to the contrary can be
found But, in this case, whether interest was
made or not is wholly immateral, as the fund it
self was sufficient to pay both principal and inte-
rest and still leave for the trustee the lions share.
| Without pursuing this branch of the case fur
Their, we proceed to inquire whether the payment
of interest was authorized by the act of Congress
! The acti as follows:
That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is
hereby authorized and required to examine and adj
just the claim of the late George Galphin, under the
treaty made by the governor OF Georgia with the
Creek and Cherokee Indians in the year 1878 and TO
pay the amount which may be found due to Milledge
Gaphin, executor of the said George Gaphin out of
any money IN the treasury not otherwise appro-
prlated.
1t is manifest that Congress passed this act in
view of most of the important facts in regard to
this claim. They are substantially set forth in
the report of the committee which reported the
! bill to the Senate, (Which is hereto appended,
marked A J and it has been held that accounting
officers may very properly refer to the report of
committee reporting a bill, when there is doubt
as to the construction of the law. Opinions OF
Attorneys General, 1859; also, opinion of Attor-
nev General Johnson in the of De Franca,
3Oth May l849) The report in this case says:
AS there can be no doubt as to the justice or
equity of this claim, the question presents ITSELF
Who is bound to pay 1.-THE government of the
United States the State of Georgia The
conclusion was, that the former ought to pay it
The grounds relied on in support of this conclu-
sion were
lst. That the obligations of the treaty of 1773
upon Great Britain devolved by reason Of the re-
volution upon the government of the United
States, which, having failed 10 discharge them,
became liable for the payment of this claim.
The report states, I'D
That the State of Georgia appropriated these lands,
set apart they by the treaty of 1878 for the
payment of these debts, the public defence and that
the bounty warrants of the officers and soldiers OF the
Georgia line, in the revolutionary army, were located
upon them By act of Congress, approved July
5th 1892 the government of the United States provided
for certain claims, which Virginia had assumed, to the
officers OF that State engaged in the public service
durin the revolutionary war It is believed that the
principles OF that act applicable to the present claim,
which the committee think ought to be allowed, and
accordingly report bill for relief
The undersigned concur in the opinion, ex-
pressed in this report, that the principles of the
act of 1882, passed for the relief of Virginia, are
applicable to this Virginia promised class
of her revolutionary officers half pay; and this
liability was contracted for the benefit OF all the
States it was justice that all should contribute to
dischargeit
| The claim in this case is admitted to have been
charge upon lands which Georgia had appro-
priated for the support of the common cause OF
all the States. Congress has not assumed it as
payment to Georgia for lands which she had
thus appropriated, but to relieve her from the
charge or incumbrance upon them. So far as
Georgia appropriated these lands for her defence
and in discharge of her liabilities to her State
troops, to the extent of this claim she incurred
pecuniary liability. She, to the extent of this
claim, in effect appropriated Gaphin's land. Con-
gress, therefore, in the payment of it, discharges
Georgia, as she did Virginia, from pecuniary Ii
ability, incurred for the benefit of all the States.
Both cases virtually, therefore, rest upon the same
principles
| Whether Georgia had applied to Congress to
pay this claim cannot be material Nor does it
vary the case that Georgia had failed to pay it
1t is fairly be inferred however, that her failure
has resulted from the conviction that the United
States ought to pay it. The communication of
the Governor of Georgia to President Jackson
upon the subject of this claim placed her refusal
upon that ground
| But it is urged that the United States have been
released from any obligation TO Georgia to pay this
claim, by the settlement of all accounts between
them in 1898, under the act of Congress of l79O.
Such settlement was doubt made, and some
instrument equivalent to a receipt given, as al
| legged 1t is not pretended that this claim did in
fact enter into that settlement; buiti is contended
that, whether it did or did not, the United States
were thereby released from any obligation they
might be under to Georgia in regard oit. AS it
is believed such plea would not be available to
an individual, under similar circumstances in
court of equity, it should in the opinion of the
dersigned, be held bad, if relied on by great
ton. But the government has never set up such
defence, regarding it, no doubt, as alike incom-
patible with the principles of justice and its own
dignity and high character.
When the act of 1882 was passed for the relief
of the State of Virginia, it does not appear that any
plea of the kind was relied on, although there had
been similar settlement with that State, and a