The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-05-21

one The question made was, Who should pay il Eng
land held that losing the fund Gland pedged) to pay il
by our revolution, was not her duty to quidate the
demands. paying such claims however, OF those who
stood BY her in that contest When he heard from Mr.
Books the declaration that Galphins loyalty 70 the
wings IN the revolution was questionable he (Mr IT,
was prepared 10 hear any other strange statements of
ths case from his lips Here M; 4. went aver the
proofs adduced 70 show that II Galphins whgism was
not proved up that OF no other revolutionary character
was. 81 ef#te
Mr.. BROOKS remarked that he had made no such
,A aass s Georgia Sss e
M TooMBs knew that Mr, B. had made no charge
next rehearsed the history Of the action Of Georgia
upon the claim Georgia had uniformly held that.
under the circumstances, the government bound to
England forthe payment Of such debtehad become the
refuge OF those OF that colony who had suffered most In
the revolutionary having taken possession
indiana. The question was, Who should pay in Geor-
ga had insisted that this was the legitimate duty Of the
Mr. 4 next gave the history Of similar cases, IN which
the State OF Georgia had become bound to pay interest
on revolutionary claims, and explained the crcumsan
'ss under & which a; che had failed to ay The interest BY se
tor to ths payment ei the last cent due him. fa -
sSos eees p Bas
their eyes justice to the Secretary Of War Standing
committees Of the House had reported in favon1 the
Cldm anu Wneu tue law LOT lQulQauOn was p6Gocu,
one had objected to it, because The Georgia members
all of whom had looked into the subject thoroughly
had endorsed its justice The late President Of the Uni
late Secretary Of the Treasury had paid the principal
without deciding on the question Of interest
The course Of Mr. Secretary Crawford in connexion
with the claim next came under Mr.. T's review being
critically examined with the view 10 show that il had
been irrepoachably correct and that he had not used
hs position to put money IN his pocket as Mi BnooKs
times Of the revolution being lquidated monthly by
the government. Mr. Polk had vetoed the French
spolatoa bill opay five ml!on:on reyouonary account
T) had severely criticised and blamed him. II the claim
was Just as ne held It to be- the fact that was in part
owned by cabinst officer should not Be bar 70 s pay
morality ike that Of the Five Poins' the ad-
minstraon should rightly have perperated an act Of
held ap 10 oo . q he d0s e q
concerning the improperly of jeopatdng the char
act; sessr Ga The Wig party By !hs payment q os
he differed on great questions with he administrations he
willing to do the members thereof justice and. af
ter twenty years acquaintance with the Secretary Of War,
he felt bound to vouch for him a whose integrity
was far above suspicion. Detailing the course OF Mf,
Crawford since coming into Office, upon this claim, be
argued TO show that Mr.. G. had fulfilled his duty
honest man and true gentleman in absianing from COM
muncang the fact Of his connexion with The claim to
his colleagues dishonest man would have done other
wisewould have urged his connexon with the cabinet
in order 70 receive the money II the whig party had
fallen so low that it was necessary to do injustice 10
private claimant to sustain self-the policy advocated by
MI: BRooKs tsad Mr. T-).he trusted il would 60 down
as then its> abasemen would be well for the country
He should hereafter discuss the question OF the justice
OF the claim for interest, which he held 10 be perfect
He would remark however that he intended also, hereaf
ter, to supply important omissions in the report of the
COMMITTEES,
Here Mr. TOXINS was interrupted by explanations from
Msssn. BURT and CONRAD, to show that the com
mee had reported fully each point oil the upon
which they felt themselves directed and authorized 10 re-
J, =. -
debt honestly due, and rghtfully paid BY Con-
gress, he should take occasion TO prove when the
question again came up His object 10 addressing the
House now was but to correct 80 much Of the speech Of
Mr. BRooKs, as he thought required such correction.
Mr.. CONGER remarked that he, for one, stood side
by side with his colleague Mr. BaooKsl on the
To- me e ssas
the inference drawn BY the gentleman from Geor-
gia [Mr. TooMBsl that the action of the last House,
into the validity Of the claim, an endorse.
ment Of the proprety Of paying j. When he obtained
an opportunity 10 speak upon it, he should endeavor TO
retary Walker, Mr. Meredith, and Mr. Attorney General
Johnson had each acted highly improper IN paying any
portion OF The claim.
the subject up today, il afforded him and opportunity
to show that the principle which the claim Tor inter
est was paid would bankrupt the goyernmeni-hat y;
that, under the construction which an Attorney General
might put law OF Congress the decision OF Comp
troIler Of the treasury might be overruled.
III Mr. TooMBs (said Mr.. BRo0Ks) cannot see the i'm
proprety OF the OF the Secretary Of War urging
g for his Georgia friends" the settlement OF the ci
the Secretary of the Treasury he would not attempt 10
show il to him. He (Mr BRooKs) regarded the suppress
sion OF the truth TO be practical asehood Such was the
morality in which he had been trained. The gentleman
from Georgia Continued Mr.. BRooKs) had formerly
urged the legislature Of his State 10 pay the claim
due by the State herself and failing carry that point
had introduced resolutions 10 have the legislature ask
payment from the general government which had JAILED
BY vote of three 10 one. Here MI b commented AZ
.-sL is IA Inrla atnur
the Attorney General had ovefrued that OF the Comp
iroer Of the treasury which he heId TO be foowinga
very dangerous precedent first he understood 10
remark) by Mr. Attorney General Butler He stood upon
The decision OF the State Of Georgia, that the claim did
NOT hold good against the United States
Mr. BUrLER, OF Pennsylvania, inquired whether Mr..
BRooRs did not recognise The propey ton the part OF the
torney General as TO the meaning OF laws.
Mr. BROOKS answered in the negative and argued
10 show that no money should be paid from The treasury
on any such opinion, after The proper accounting ocers
had decided against the claim.
Mr. KAUFMAN did not like much 10 interfere IN any
such family quarre but be intended TO offer resolution
to direct that the Committee on the Judiciary should re-
port bill to require suite be brought to recover back
Mr. RICHARDSON remarked. that having been paid
out under iaw. this technical fact would defeat the
covery. 49, . l.s.
Mr. KAUFMAN did not believe that either Mr. Sec.
reiary Crawford or Mr.. Galphin, the executor, would
avail themselves OF technicalities in such Il was
the duty Of the democrats Of The House pass his resou
on, TO show that they were in earnest in originally pro
On motion Of Mr. p KING. the motion TO reconsider
tmade by Mr. TooMBs) was then laid on. the table
Mr.. MEADE. from the committee OF conference on