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

limits OF Georgia. 1t is conceded that the Indian
title to these lands upon which this claim was a
CHARGE passed to Great Britain by the treaty OF
of l773 and that the revolution vested it in Geor-
gia But Georgia took 1t in trust, as Great Britain
took and held it, for the payment of the debts due
the traders. To the extent of Galphin's claim he
had lien, expressly created by solemn treaty sti-
pulatons upon the Indian title to these lands
Was the Indian title, therefore, perfect in Geor
gia so long as thsncumbrance upon it remained?
1t was the Indian title, matter who held it, if it
were not perfect in Georgia, which the United
States were bound to quiet and extinguish
Could Georgia, before the claim of Galphin was
paid say the Indian title TO these lands BELONGED
Internationally to the State or was it not a Iiv-
ing, unextngushed title. which Georgia to the
extent of this lien in equity and good faith, had
no claim? Besides, the Indians, as party to the
treaty of l773, had just right to insist and re-
quire that its stipulatlons should be performed 1t
Is submitted, then, whether the eXtngulshment OF
the lien of Galphn does not come within the sp-
rt if not the letter of that clause In the cession
or agreement referred to. And as the net pro-
ceeds already realized by the United States out of
the sales of land obtained by that cession exceed
twenty millions of dollars, Georgia would seem
entitled to a very liberal construction of it.
Apart from the grounds suggested as constituting an
equitable obligation upon the government for the pay
ment of this claim it might with propriety be
urged that the interest OF Gaphn in thse lands having
been appropriated by member OF the firm OF States,
virtually tor the benefit OF all the whole firm should be
held responsible, and that he might therefore, rrespec
tive OF any direct liability to any very properly
apply to all for relief.
Such the grounds which this claim rested prior
10 the of 1S4s and the undersigned by no means
prepared TO admit that they constituted obligation
upon the governm emit to pay it, the contrary, they
OF opinion that, taken III conueXon with the emf
nent services of aphin, they present strong claim to
It's justice as we'll as to its liberahty But if it be
IaI
10 pay it, and that its payment had been gratuousy
sumed, 1t would not, IN the opinion OF the undersigned
IN the slightest degree affect the question the pay
nent OF interest The act OF 1913 in the language of
the former Secretary Mr. Walker, recognized the
claim, and the United States became bound pay it,
whatever it might be-
The act referred it to the Secretary for examination,
and to ascertain the amount due 1t to ascer-
tain whether any thing was DUE or whether the claim
was Just The Senate report says, there can be no
doubt TO its justice equity" 1t admitted lust in
l775; and has been admitted always and whenever
it has been examined. The only question has been
who ought to pay it 1t referred to ascertain
the amount due in l775 for the precise amount was
stated in the Senate report The certificate of its H.
quotation at that time, and OF the due, was be-
fore the Senate But it was referred as a just and mer
torious claim, that the amount due thereon the pas
sage OF the act might be ascertaned and paid
Having shown, we think, that the claimant was en-
titled to interest did the act authorize its allowances
Its conceded that the accounting officer had author
ity 10 allow IT, unless the act conferred it. But it was
not necessary that the authority should be conferred in
express terms 1t would be equally avaled and equal
ly the duty OF the accounting officer to act upon it, if
implied. We do not understand this position to be
seriously controversies but 1t is, the authorities in
support OF 1t are numerous and conclusive A list of
eases, in which the accounting officers have allowed
interest although the acts referring them were silent
IN regard to it's hereto annexed 1.-THE expression
IN the opin ion OF Attorney General Crendep, relied
on be construed to mean that interest is allowed
by an accounting officer, unless the erpressIg d.
reefs its allowance, it is manitesty erroneous But we
appreend thrust have reference to the particular class
OF cases to which the case, in which the opinion was
given, belonged. In that there was nothing in
the act or in the merits OF the ella Justify the payment
of interest
Is authority then, in the in this case implied! In
the opinion OF the unders gned, it is. Ia view of the
Senate report and OF the peculiar character and ner-
its OF the claim the presumption may be fairly INDUCED
that Congress passed the act in spirit Of iberaIity
well justice Should il not therefore, be construed
in the spirit, literally a remedial and not as
penal statute9 The Intention do an act of
justice, long delayed, to the representatives ola revou
tionary patriot and public benetactor.
The naked return OF the amount Justly due their an
cestor in l775 without interest when a fund charged
with its payment and amply sufficiently tor the pay
ment OF both, had been appropriated in aid of the
cause of freedom and Independence would fall
far short, not only OF the imperative demands OF
justice but OF the presumed intention Of Congress- But
the relet granted by the acis believed be thus
limited. 1t expressly requires the payment of whatev
er amount, upon examination, may be found due; and
can any chancellor or judge be found who, having u
rsdicton OF the case would decree the meagre return
of the amount due in 1875 as all that was now
due-as the measure of relief to which the claim
ant is entitled? We apprehend such Judge can
be found, and that it would be difficult pack
jury who would return such verdict. But the allow
Of interest does not depend upon liberal con-
struction OF the act even the stricest construction
would authorize its payment if found due. And what
rule or usage OF the government has been violated by
the payment OF the interest on this claim! IT, as we
beege, the act of l84S implies authority to pay it,
then ithas been paid according to both law AID usage
and in DISCHARGE OF an imperative duty, which the act I'M
posed 1t is true as applicable to the great majority
OF disbursements by this and no doubt every other gov
eminent, that interest is not paid But it is equally
true that this and every other honest govern uent paws
interest in all cases. where upon the principles OF JUS
tce and equity, interest is due. Vattel says:
All the premises, the conventions, all the contracts
of the sovereign, naturally subjected the same
rules as those OF private persons Vatte lib. q chap.
a. 2l3 p)
That eminent jurs the lamented Justice Story, saws.
2o3 0 $500 'Np0''9'
If the present contract between private cit-
zens, there be no doubt that the court would be
bound TO give interest upon the contract up to the time
OF payment and ii by law the amount due the
tract could be pleaded tender set off to pri
debt would be good bar in the full extent Of
the principal and interest due at the time OF such ten
der or set-oh Nay, mo il the note promise
made by citizen OF the government, the latter might
enforce its claim to the like extent Can make any
difference in the construction OF the contract that the
government is the debtor instead OF the creditor! In
reason JUSTICE in equity, it ought to Ike none, and
there is not scintla of law to justify any If a suit
could be maintained against the government do not
perceive why would not be much the duty of the
court to render judgment in such suit for the principal
and the interest in the manner and the same
extent would in the OF private citizens The
United States have no prerogative to claim one law
upon their own contracts as creditors, and another
debtors. IT, creditors they entitled to interest," as
debtors they are bound also to pay it.
The opinion OF Chief Justice fancy, while Attorney
General, in the case OF Tharp (Op. Attorneys General
s4l places the subject also upon the true ground He
says; "hat am not OF any statute ofthe United
States that torbids the Secretary of War; or the ac-
counting officers to allow interest to claimant, if it
should appear that interest is justly due him. As the
United States alwayssready 10 pay when claim is
presented supported by proper vouchers, can rarely,
ever happen that they justly chargeabe with
presenting his claim, or does bring for ward the pro-
per vouchers to prove it and justify its payment But