The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-08-28


senator from North Carolina standing here as trustee
representing interests that confded to him by his
constituency would vote this money not. he should
consider il to be due right And il he votes,
not for the life OF understand how he draws the dis
ncon between paying the debt 10 creditor and paying
il to the assignee of the creditor. understand that the
honorable senator would vote the money 10 the Stale OF
Virginia. II she comes propra persone but VIII not vote II
to her assignees Now il the honorable senator can
vote TO the creditor and not to the assignee o the ced
tor, upon bona tide and acknowledged assignment, |
do not how he governed his inquiry whether IT is
Just and fair demand, unfair and unjust demand
ie said Virginia assigned this claim by resolution the
terms OF which will read.
Mr.. M read the resolutions, OF which, however, we
could not obtain copy .
Now, what earthly difference il make, far the
validity OF the demand is concerned whether made
by the creditor proprta person9, by assignee Now
II the honorable senator desirous of applying the ord
nary rules OF muncpa law TO this and will say that
Virginia is barred by lapse OF me and her assignees
also, why then, let rest But ii he recognise the valid
iy OF this claim in any form, cannot for the lie of me-
see how he can draw distinction between the creditor
claiming in person and claiming through another. These
are the facts and, have said before, have received
no instructions whatever upon the subject from the State
OF Virginia or from any branch of the government The
claim IL presented here bona de The State OF Vir
gina knows very we'll that cannot reclaim this money
from Congress, unless Congress, in its discretion and
us sense OF Justice and right, should determine TO grant it.
for wonld be barred by lapse OF time But it presents
facts which state 10 the Senate for their decision.
Mr. BADGER can very easily explain the motive
that might govern in the two cases, whether sasfac
tory 10 the senator not In the first place, do not
admit this to be just claim. The reason why said
would pay to the State OF Virginia may be illustrated
by private transaction II friend twenty years ago
had given me a present OF some money, and thought
proper afterwards forward and say that he chose
to consider changed into debt, there is feeling here
laying his hand upon his heart that would lead me to
pay but would not permit him to go into Wall
street. and draw upon me as his bona fde creditor That
is the principle
makes no difference between debt due 10 himself and
TO one who is acting his trustee. We are not asking
Tins money as her individual property If il moi bona
fde caim we have no right to vote it, whether ap
peal is made to our sympathy not-not the slightest
1t is the very distinction would attempt to draw between
an obligation devolvlng upon us in person, and which
might or might not discharge, as we thought proper
exercising individual discretion, and debt demanded
OF the trustees for another II the debt is due to
the State of Virginia. it is due to the assignees; il
is not due to the State OF Virginia. is mol due the
Mr.. CASS. have but one word to say. The State
of Virginia advanced this government 1920, 900 in thc
day OF It's adversely and il and asks its repay
ment in its day OF prosperity This facts have plainly
shown to me And II strikes me that The position taken
BY the senator from Virginia is ncontroverlibe. that
whether the State OF Virginia make the demand here
tualy assign II 10 third person. the demand is clearly
her own, done in her legislative capacity. Now, sir,
having received the money, what is the objection TO
repaying it 1t maintained that il was gtDen TO Us.
Now will not Tor one, enter into dispute with the
Stale of Virginia to whether she gave loaned us the
$4,000 sixty years ago. Ii she says she loaned IT,
would pay it, 1t is consideration that would not make
an individual, and will not make il in my public
character. If she demands it as debt, am willing TO
sanction II as such.
Mr.. DAYTON. The statement OF thus claim at first
seemed to OF singular character. One OF the
senators from Virginia Mr.. MAsoNl predicates this
claim upon kind OF legal right he looks upon it as
advanced loan, subject to reclamation Well sir, IT
seems TO me that the reading Of the law and the state
men OF the iacts are conclusive answers to tha dea
that intended-hat Virginia, through the
sixty years that have psed since the date OF this trans
action, has considered H. The other senator
from Virginia Mr.. HuNTERl predicates il upon kind
nj nj ty
stand, because II certainly has analogy to the common
case OF grant or loan for public improvements;
Now M ae ,sess 70 V,a s mater are sr wale s,s. ,ns
anxious 10 have the capital o the country located within
It's borders, and an lnducement 10 that loca
ton il offered Sl2o,0o0 in money TO the general govern
meut. That inducement, connected with other induce
enls prevailed and the capital located here; and the
citizens OF Virginia. from the fact that II has this market
Immediately at heE own doors, upon her own oordsrs,
has return OF this money twice told, every year She
has had full pay pay ten-fold Tor this inducemen which
she then held outor the location OF this capital within or
her borders.
And yet under these circumstances she comes here
and asks-no she does not ask the State of Virginia.
standing erect, will make claim Tor this money. She
she will make the claim. Her senator's here feel
as the State of Virginia herself feels. Approaching
the original character OF this transaction, she DIS
dains herself in her capacity State TO re-
claim and ask back the money. But If there be any
equity in this matter, she assigns II to the COZ
poration of Alexandra, and she may ask for II,
anu lakt Wual Tue Rtntldi BoNelnment cnooreS w
give. Now, sir, that is the position of this matter
The State OF Virginia advances this for certain purposes
upon certain Inducements and she has had and recev
ing daily the qud pro quo for this advancement And
yet she, but her assignees-and asks
the repayment OF this money For one, cannot see the
law equity right in the transaction in any way
And il recognise this claim upon the part OF Virginia
or upon the part OF the assignees OF Virginia why not
recognise the claim upon the part OF individuals who
have contributed 10 the corporation every alternate sec
ton or lot OF andl Why, sir the very ground, II un
terstand IT. upon which the city OF Washington is built
il in part individual contribution Where is this thing to
end Ii does TO me, with very great respect and
Difference the OF Others that this claim is not
clam founded either in equity law, and trust will
be rejected Upon the question will ask the yeas and
nays
MIR BRADBURY | do not propose TO prolong this
discussion this occasion; and would not say one
word il not that regard this the beginning OF the
presentation of class OF claims upon the govern
ment II this claim be allowed by Congress, is there not
10 suppose that Maryland may stand ready to
present similar claim ! do not know whether the bill
nay or may not be already prepared and if the principle
Is adopted her claim must be recognised and sane
toned And certainly the claims OF individuals that
have been advered TO by the senator from New Jersey
Mr.. DAYTosl would come within the principle OF this
This seems TO be period in the history OF our
government when inadequate claims presented to
fact that Virginia for period OF sixty years has
time, made any claim upon us for this money few
years ago the treasury of the United States
flowing and il Virginia then supposed that this grant
not in the nature OF loan, she would unquesionably
have made her claim, and the treasury was then in
situation to have met the claim She did not do IT.
There might be equity in allowing Virginia TO de-
been deposited with that Commonwealth by the general
government Bnt we have in the fact that she made at