The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-05-21

ouCu octtlCucnt was no uOuDt ndue, anu bOmc IN
strument equivalent TO receipt given, alleged.
IL ID not pretended that this claim did, in Tact,
ter into that settlement; but il is contended that
whether il did did not, the United States were
be under to Georgia in regard TO il. AS II is be
heved such plea would not be available TO an in
dividual, under similar circumstances, in court
Of equity, il should in the opinion of the under
signed be held bad, if relied by great nation.
But the government has never set up such de-
fence, regarding il, no doubt, as alike incompat-
BILE with the principles Of justice and its own dign
ty and high character.
When the act of 1882 was passed for the relief of
the State of Virginia, il does not appear that any
plea of the kind was relied on, although there had
been a similar settlement with that State, and a
similar receipt taken. Nor does it appear that,
prior TO the passage Of the act for the payment of
this claim, during the ten years more il 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 addi-
tional ground although not contained in the re-
port Of the Senate In the cession by Georgia to
the United States, in 1902, of that extensive and
valuable territory now composing the States of Ala
bama and Mississippi, the United States undertook,
as part of the consideration, to extnguish the In
dian title to all the lands within the limits Of Geor
gia. II is conceded that the Indian title To these
lands, upon which this claim charge, passed
TO Great Britain by the treaty Of l773 and that the
revolution vested it in Georgia. But Georgia took
it in trust, Great Britain took and held il for the
payment Of the debts due the traders. To the ex-
tent of Galphin's claim he had lien, expressly
created by solemn treaty supulatiQns, upon the In
dian title to these lands Was the Indian title,
therefore, perfect in Georgia, long this in
cumbrance upon ii remained? II was the Indian
title, no matter who held it, if it not perfect in
Georgia, which the United States were bound to
quiet and extingush.
Could Georgia, before the claim of Galphn was
paid, say the Indian title To these lands belonged
Internationally to the State! it not living,
unextinguishcd title, which Georgia, to the extent
of this lien in equity and good faith, had claim
to? Besides, the Indians, as party to the treaty
of l773 had just right to insist and require that
its stpulations should be performed. 1t is submit
ted, then, whether the extinguishment OF the lien
OF Galphin does not come within the spirit if not
the letter of that clause in the cesson agreement
referred to. And as the nett proceeds already re-
allied by the United States out of the sales of land
obtained by that cession exceed twenty millions of
dollars, Georgia would seem entitled to very lib
eral construction oft.
Apart from the grounds suggested as constitut-
ing an equitable obligation upon the government
for the payment OF this claim, 1t might with some
propriey be urged that the interest of Galphin in
these lands having been appropriated by one mem
Der of the firm OF State5, virtually for the benefit OF
all, the whole firm should be held responsible and
that he might therefore, irrespective of any direct
liability as to any one, very properly apply to all
for relief
ouCn are the GROUNDS Oh WHICH ILLS CHILLI Tebteu
prior to the act Of lS4s and the undersigned by
no means prepared to admit that they constituted
no obligation upon the Government to pay IL; on
the contrary, they of opinion that taken in con-
nexion with the eminent services OF Galphin, they
present strong claim to its justice well as to its
berality. But even if it be conceded that the Gov
eminent was under obligation to pay it, and
that its payment had been gratuitousy assumed,
it would not, in the opinion of the undersigned, in
the slightest degree affect the question to the
payment of interest The act of lS4S, in the lam
guage of the former Secretary, Mr.. Walker, Gre
cognised the claim, and the United States became
bound to pay it, whatever it might be-"
The act referred it to the Secretary for examina-
ton, and to ascertain the amount due IL was not
to ascertain whether any thing was due, whether
the claim was just The Senate report says, "there
can be doubt as to its justice equity" twas
admitted just in l775; and 1t has been so admitted
always and whenever it has been examined The
only question has been, who ought to pay it? 1t
was not referred to ascertain the amount due in
l775 for the precise amount was stated in the Sen
ate report The certificate OF its liquidation at that
tme and of the amount due, was before the Senate.
But it referred just and meritorious claim,
that the amount due thereon at the passage Of the
act might be ascertained and paid.
Having shown, think, that the claimant
entitled to interest, did the act authorize its al
lowance? Ii is conceded that the accounting Off
Ger had authority TO allow it, unless the act con-
ferred il. But 1t was not necessary that the au-
thority should be conferred in express terms. Ii
would be equally available, and equally the duty
of the accounting officer to act upon it, if implied.
We do not understand this position to be seriously
controvertcd; but if is the authorities in support
OF ii are numerous and conclusive. list OF cases,
in which the accounting officers have allowed in
terest although the acts referring them were silent
in regard to 1t, is hereto annexed. IL the express
sion in the opinion of Attorney General Crttenden,
relied on be construed to mean that interest ia
never allowed by an accounting officer, unless the
act expressly directs its allowance, it is manifestly
erroneous. But we apprehend it must have refer
ence TO the particular class of cases to which the
case, in which the opinion was given, belon ged
In that there nothing in the act or in the
merits of the claim TO justify the payment of inter
est.
Is authority, then, in the act in this case, inn
piled? In the opinion OF the undersigned, IL is In
view of the Senate report and of the peculiar char
acter and merits of the claim, the presumption may
be fairly INDUCED that Congress passed the act in
spirit of liberality as well as justice. Should il
not, therefore, be construed in the spirit lib
orally, as a remedial and not a penal statute!
The intention was TO do act of justice, long de-
layed TO the representatives Of revolutionary pa
triot and public benefactor.
The naked return of the amount Justly due their
ancestor in IT'S without interest, when fund
charged with its payment, and amply sufficient
for the payment of BOTH had been appropriated in
aid Of the cause Of freedom and independence,
would fall far short, not only Of the imperative de-
mands of justice, but OF the presumed intention OF
Congress. But the relief granted by the act is be-
lieved to be not thus limited. II expressly requires
the payment oil Whatever amount, upon cratnina-
ton, may be found due; and can any chancellor or
judge be found who, having jurisdiction of the
would decree the meagre return Of the amount due
in IT'S as all that was now due-as the measure oil
relief TO which the claimant is entitledi We APP
prehend no such judge can be found, and that il
would be difficult even 10 pack jury who would
return such a verdict But the allowance Of inter
est does not depend upon liberal construction OF
the act the strictest construction would au-
thorize 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! II, as
we believe, the act of lS4S implies an authority 70
pay it, then il has been paid according 10 both
law and usage, and in discharge of an imperative
duty, which the act imposed. II is true, as appli-
cable 10 the great majority Of disbursements by this
and no doubt every other government, that interest
is not paid. But II IL equally true that this and
every other honest government pays interest in all
cases, where, upon the principles of justice and
equity, interest is due. Vattel says:
"All the promises, the conventions, all the con-
tracts Of the sovereign, naturally subjected to
the rules those Of private persons (vat-
tel, lib. 2, chap. IL, 2l3 p.)
That eminent jurist, the lamentcd Justice Story,
says, in Thorndike Us. United States, q Mason's
Reports, 20)
''If the present were a contract between private
al -, ds..,ht hat. he