The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-05-21
THE GALPHIs GLAZE.
Opinion o. shs Attorney General.


the 14ih Of August 1s4S have examined with all the
ia aas s sas me .a ass which
wolves. ~ ~ /
The opinion have formed am clear i'm; and although
my Official engagements in the Supreme CouH VIII not
enable me 70 give my Of length. do not feel
liberty 10 refuse The request Of the claimant that would
state to YOU the opinion itself.
The auestion is, whether interest should be allowed on
the claim and iii should be. from what periods
FIRST Should il be allowed
Geoge Gaphin the tesaio OF the claimant antecedent
toI773 was authorized trader among the Greek and
Cherokee Indians in the colony Of Georgia In that
Traders he was creditor Of the Indians for large
amount In i773 under instructions from the mother
s q he sSoy 81
large extent OF territory, now constituting. ii is be-
leved two entire counties Of the State OF Georgia (Wilks
Grssn and BY an express stipulation the debts due By
the Indians the traders secured to be paid from
the proceeds OF the lands.
missioner duly constituted 10 quidate the payment of
these debts out Of the fund so BY the treaty provided for
tina, end.
like character were ascertaned and the amount due
him found to be f9.el l5s Sd sterling and for this
sum he obtained proper certificate.
The revolutionary occurring afterwards, and
ending in the independence Of the colonies the territory
coded became the property OF Georgia All the debts due
the traders provided Tor BY the treaty except Gslphin
ish government and his excepted only because of his pa
trioc adherence to this country during the war Thel
others, who were loyal TO England were fully indemni
fed BY that government under just and high OF
the obligation imposed upon her by the treaty. although
asto her, the consideration as 70 the payment Of the
debts IN TACT failed by the loss OF the entire territory ce
died. But the fault hers and the traders were in
nocent a. 70 that result and did all they could loyal
subjects q avert i she stood between Them and harm
have been paid had he following the fortunes of Eng
land been regardless Of the duty which patriotism IL
such emergency, demanded, il smpossble to doubt
he IOasO ia IL thprafn rpf N ref
clusively to cause which should commend to the ia
vor OF the American government, and induce the gov
ant. instead Of causing Ii 10 apply 10 the claim narrow
rule Of responsibility often in its effects placing its jus
,ice upon level far below that which, by the law,
between man and man. daily declared to be the proper
and only level Of justice.
These lands were TO considerable extent disposed OF
by Georgia, n bounss to the soldiers who achieved her
Independence. given by her to Settlers guard her
on her frontier from Indian outrages s9e
From time 70 time the claim we, demanded Of Georgia
and although its merits denied, but on the
contrary in various ways admitted it was never paid
In 1902, large tract OF country now comprising The
States of Alabama and Mississpp was ceded by Geor.
ls4S provision made by the United States for the
liquidation OF the debt Since that act il too late
dispute the justice Of the demand That question was
settled by the law ITSELF looking only its terms the
memorial which prayed the relief and the report OF the
COMMITTEES who reported the BILL and, i not. is now
n e. dss
cpai of the debt
As have already said. am Of opinion that interest
ITS. MY reasons are briefly these;
l. The effect OF the treaty OF l773 to charge the
lands themselves with the payment Of the debt principal
g. This charge in equity remained an ncumbrance on
the land in whatsoever hands they might come except
far as BY right q war the claims were confscatsd
struggled in common with the patriots Of the day, in
wrestling the territory from British rule, and in subecting
1t TO the sovereignty OF Georgia
he ~ IN he vJptad
States, in 1884, the latter became liable for the spua
tons Of the treaty Of 773 and bound in law and honor
S. That the minimum OF their responsibility being the
value Of the lands and this being far beyond The amount
OF the claim. with interest their liability for the entire
O. That il the British government was liable for the
debt, tas il clearly, under her law not as between
her and GalPhin, because ofGalphn's dsoyay,)
the duty OF The United States to have prosecuted upon
that government.
a. Thai Georgia responsible originally. as between
herself and the claimant; but the lands were used in
great measure. for the common benefit Of all the States
either n means OF giving soldiers bouniies, as fur
nlshing resource to guard against Indian ravages, the
United States IN lS4s, when they agreed pay this par
ticular claim, agreed 10 liability coextensiye
with that OF Georgia. In this respect am unable TO
distinguish between this case and that Of the Virginia
communication cases assumed BY the United States BY the
s. That the allowance Of interest in such case in no
way conhics with The prior custom OF the government
in relation 10 such allowances. That the act OF ls4s
stand il 10 be, denied
II 10 BY assuming that there is settled and almost uni.
vsrsa rule adverse 10 oh allowances that the claim
thought 10 be invalid. I.
For want OF time am unable now to 70 into an
examination OF the cases In which interest has been paid
where there was no express provision for il in the law
embracing the claims. As fhsve already said think
the Virginia Communication claims are answer to the
objection but the clam in question stands upon grounds
higher and stronger than these.
Here, beside the obligation resulting from assuming
a. Was done by the act OF ls4s, this debt OF Geoa be-
cause OF the Appropriation by her OF the lands charged
with the debt to the common cause which was ali that
existed m The Virginia cases. there exists this additional
ground that by taking hs ession from Georgia IN 1902
~ toxnd oursefues 10 eLguh all outstanding tfles 10
he lands within The limits OF Georgia, and therefore com
treaty stipulation, them and must remain until paid
lien on such ands And, in the last place. that LOOK
Ing 70 the circumstances preceding the act OF 1919 as
stated in the memorial OF the claimant and in the repor
Of the Judiciary Committee, and looking 10 the words ~
the law itself, have doubt il was and should have
been the purpose OF Congress pay the interest az we'll
% the principal OF the claim. This, in my opinion was
due TO the services and sacrifices OF the ancestor OF the
claimant; TO the mere legal and equitable responsibility
OF the United States trustee OF the lands charged with
the debit TO the obligation to Georgia to indemnify her
against H. because Of her application Of the lands,
disposed Of TO the promotion OF the common cause OF
the revolution and above all, 10 the duty which Con-
ges must have felt OF securing to her own citizens that
iu measure OF justice demanded by the treaty s,pula
ton OF 1913, which England under much less in
circumstances, 30 promptly rendered to her subjects
As am not able TO find reason WHY the interest
snould De made 10 short OF the passing OF the ac
o. ISIS am, for the already stated of opinion
tnar y ought TO be allowed to that date.