New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-05-21


Revolutionary Army were located upon hem By an &c
Of Congress spproved July 1882 the Government, ~
United States provided for certain clSs, which Virgin
rad ASSUMED 10 he officers Of that Se engaged II bs
public during The Revolutionary War lis believed
Ia principles ~ st act sppcs u 20 the prsa@
CAIN uich he Commute mink ghi be slo we'd, and
| second ely report bill for relief
The undersigned c0ncur in the opinion expresssl
in this report that the principles ct the act OF 1882
passed for the relief Of Virginia, are applicable 70
. Il is case. Virginia promised a class Of her revo
luiionary officers half pay; and as 8is liability
was contracted for the benefit OF all the States, u
was justice that al should contribute TO dis
! charge {.
The claim in this case IS admitted to have been
2 charge upcn lands, which Georgia had appr0prla-
/ ted .or the support Of the common cause OF all the
States. Congress has not assumed 1t rs q pay
neut to Georgia for lands which she had thus ap-
pioprsted, but 10 relieve her from the charge or
| iucumirance upon them. So far as Georgia appro-
rrsted these lands fr herdefense and in discharge
OF her liabilities TO her State Troops 70 the extent
Of this clam. she incurred a pecuniary liability.
She, 10 the extent OF this claim, In effect apprO-
preted Galph.Es land. Congress, therefore, IN the
payment OF It, discharges Georgia, as she did Nir
GINA from a pecunary liability incurred for the
benefit OF all the States. Both cases virtually
therefore, St upon the same principles.
Whether Georgia had applied to Congress TO pay
this claim cannot be material Nor does il vary
the case that Georgia has failed TO paw IT, Il il
resulted from the conviction that the United States
ought to pay il. The communication OF the Gov
emo OF Georgia 70 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 10 pay this
claim. by the settlement Of all accounts between
them in 1913, under the act Of Congress Of 1890.
Such settlement was no doubt made, and some in-
strument equivalent to a receipt given. as alleged
Ii is prete nded that this claim did in fact enter
into that settlement; but il is contended that
whether it did or not, the United States there
by released from any obligation they might De
der to Georgia in regard to It, AS it is believed
such plea would not be available 10 an individual,
under similar circumstances in court OF equity, it
should, in q opinion of the underlined, be held
tad, II relied on by great nation But he Gov
eminent has never set up such defense, regard
ing H. no doubt, as alike Incompatible with the
principles OF Justice and its own dignity and high
character.
When the act Of 1892 was pass ed 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
similar receipt taken. Nor does it appear that,
prior 10 the passage Of the act for the payment Of
this claim, during the ten years or more it was be-
fore Congress, this objection or plea was ever urged
against it. Relief in each case was evidently
granted upon the broad principles Of justice and
equity.
But the obligation Of the United States to pay
this claim has been placed upon another and add.
toua ground although not contained in the report
10 the Senate, in the cessiOn by Georgia 70 the
United States in 1902, of that extensive and vaua-
bic territory now composing the States of Alabama
and Mississippi, the United States undertook, as
part OF the consideration, to extnguish the Indian
title to all the lands within the limits of Georgia
Ii is conceded that the Indian title to these lands
upon which this claim was a charge passed - Great
Britain by the treaty of 1913, and that the revolu-
ton vested il in Georgia. Bat Georgia took it in
trust Great Britain took and held it for the pay
ment of the debts due the traders To the extent |
Of Gslphin's claim he had lien, expressly created
by sole mn treaty stipuations, upon the Indian title
10 these lands Was the Indian title, therefore |
perfect in Georgia, so long this ncumbrance |
upon it remained twas the Indian title, no mat
ter 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 Gaphin was
paid, say the Indian title 10 these lands belonged
Internationally TO the STATED or it not living
title, which Georgia to the extent
OF this lien in equity and good faith, had no claim
TOT Beside, the Indians, as party to the treaty
OF 1913, had just right to insist and require that
its stipulations should be performed. Ii is submit
ted then. whether the extineuishment of the lien
Of Galphin does not come within the spirit if not
the letter OF that clause in the cessOn or agreement
|
lZed by the United States out Of the sales of land
obtained by that cesson exceed 500 900 OOO Geor-
gia would seem entitled to very liberal construc-
hon Of il.
Apart from the grounds suggested rs constituting
m equitable obligation upon the Government for
he payment Of this claim, it might with some pro-
luety be urged that the interest of Gaphin in
hese lands having been appropriated by one men,
Der OF the firm Of States virtually for the benefit of
Ill., tne whole firm should be held responsible, and
bat he might, therefore, irrespective Of any direct
ialily as to any one, very properly apply 10 all for
elicf
Such are the grounds on which this claim rested
Nor 10 the act Of ls4s, and the undersigned are by
10 means prepared to admit that they constituted
10 obligation upon the Government to pay it on the
ontra y they are OF opinion that, taken in conn &C
lon with the eminent services OF Gaphin, they
resent a strong claim 10 its Justice as well as to its
berality. But even if it be conceded that the
government was under no obligation to pay it, and
i at its payment had been grat1itously assumed IL
would not in the opinion OF the undersigned in the
lichiest degree affect the question as to the pay
nent OF interest The act of le4s, in the language
( the former Secretary, Mr. Walker, recognized
he claim, and the United States became bound to
ay it, whatever it might be-
The act referred it to the Secretary for examna.
ion, and to ascertain the amount due. IL was not
ascertain whether anything was due, or whether
he claim was Just The Senate Report says, .
there can be doubt as to its justice or equity
was admitted just in l775 aud it has been so
Omitted always, and whenever it / as been exam.
ed. The only question has been, who ought to :
ay II 7 IL was not referred to ascertain the
mount due In l77J, for the precise amount was
ated in the Senate Report. The certificate OF its
luidation at that time, and Of the amount due, was
siore the Senate. But it was referred as lust j
I'd meritorous claim, that the amount due thereon {
the passage OF the act might be ascertained and !!
nd. L
Having shown, as we think, that the claimant n
as entitled to interest did the act authorize it's
lowanee IL is conceded that the accounting
hcer had TO authority to allow it, unless the act
Inferred 1t. But it was not necessary that the =
shortly should be conferred in express terms 1t =