The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-07-04

report Of the majority (six) Of the Wise commit
tee had entirely exonerated Mr.. Forsyth. He
had not only continued to fill the Office Of Secre-
tary of State until the end Of the of Jackson,
but served in the same capacity for four years
more, under Mr.. Van Buren,. This proved that
public opinion had completely justified Mr. F.
Certainly in the estimation of the political friends
Of that gentleman, his conduct had been above
suspicion. On that occasion the Democrats were
by no means so sensitive relative to the conduct
Of men in high places, as Mr.. DISNEY appeared to
be in this instance.
All acknowledged that the debt was just claim
against some party or other. 1t was alleged by
some to be just as against the United States, and
by some as against the State of Georgia. He be-
lieyed that Georgia was in justice bound to pay
it but in so doing she would have been the mere
agent Of the general government. According to
the manuscript records in Georgia, from which
we quoted, these lands were sold in It'll, and the
British government annulled that grant in 17T3,
declaring that private parties should not purchase
lands from the Indians. Now, though the Gov
eminent might take private property for govern
ment purposes she was bound to pay for it.
Civilized society itself was not older than this
principle, as the writings of Grotious, Vattell,
and other pubicists proved. They maintain
that conquering country only acquired the
rights which were previously those of the con-
quered government, assuming at the same time
all the obligations incident to the ownership of
the property, before devolving on those from
whom it came to the latter Certainly, no one
pretending to craftsmanship had ever held a CO
Mr.. BROOKS said that Mr. Jefferson held a
contrary doctrine.
Mr.. ToOMBS. No, sir =; Mr.. Jefferson had
sense he never held any such doctrine, for he
was a statesman.
Mr.. T. resuming the course of his remarks,
declared that Georgia succeeded to the obligation
of the British crown, as well as to its rights in
and to the territory in question This was to sell
the land, and with the proceeds of the sale to pay
George Galphin and other claimants holding
lien on them. Ever since the days of the Roman
republic, it had been the received doctrine that
conquered country on being restored to her sover
eighty, was bound to restore to her people their
rights Of property.
In legal point Of view, George Galphin had
never been thrown out of his claim, as had been
alleged. As Georgia had approximated the pro-
ceeds Of this property for the common defence in
a general war, the U. States Government became
virtually bound for the amount for which the
said lands had been mortgaged. In maintaining
this view, Mr.. T. quoted from divers cases.
The Virginia and other similar payments by the
General Government proved that, time and again,
the Government of the United States had liqu-
dated demands on her treasury arising in this
manner.
Mr.. BURT, he (Mr. To- went on to show,
was in error in arguing that there was parallel
between this case and the somewhat like case be-
tween the State of Virginia and the United States.
Georgia, in this case, took the lands to pay for
the common defence, which were private mort
gaged) property. On the other, Virginia and the
other States had thus appropriated lands which
had been won by the expenditure Of the common
blood aud treasure Of the Colonies. When
Georgia had seized the Galphin lands to the same
end, her act was accompanied by virtual prom
Use to indemnify the mortgages.
r. MT. continuing, argued that from 1927 to
tnlS udys eNCi htloIHcy SShCiol vi tiC
United States had ruled that the national treasury
was liable to pay such demands as this.
He did not subscribe to the doctrine that govern
ments were not bound to pay interest under cir
cumstances like these. Nay, it was then
knowledged that the interest in such cases was
just if what Mr.. BURTs report said in this connec
ton was correct. Mr.. T. to maintain this point
brought under review cases in which, in settling
with other governments for claims Of American
citizens against them, the United States had de-
manded and secured the payment of interest at
the cannon S mouth. Heargued that to justify the
accounting officers in allowing interest, they re-
uuired virtual order, as general thing, to that
effect But in certain cases they were justified
in so doing without express provision by law.
This was when the demand might be properly con-
strued as coming under the pr inclple on which
it was their duty so to pay interest.
This case was Identical with the Virginia case,
in which interest had been paid without express
direction Of law. On one account, as had been
asserted, Mr.. Writ had decided against this prin-
ciple, for which he was then arguing. But, sub
sequently, that gentleman, had admitted that in
his decision he had committed an error
Now, he (Mr. T.) had made it plain that Gov
eminent could not appropriate private property,
(as in this case,) without indemnifcation to the
owners; he had further shown that this demand
was on the precise principle ruling in the Vir-
gnia claim. Under these circumstances, he felt
justified in declaring that he had proved the JUS
tice of the demand against this government, and
further that the payment ofthe interest was right,
proper, and legal.
Mr.. ToOMBS then sent to the Clerks desk,
from whence it was reported to the House,)
resolution he intended to offer as an amendment
to those reported by Mr.. BURT, from the select
committee; the said amendment declaring that
the facts, as reported by the Committee, did not
warrant an imputation on the integrity of the
conduct of Mr.. Secretary Crawford.
Mr.. CONGER was not about to answer the
speech of the gentleman from Georgia, mr.
TooMBs,) but had views upon it to present, which
had been framed only, after long and thorough