Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1852-09-16

We extract the remarks of the Louisville Courier
on Galphinisln, with the addition of the Washing
ton correspondent of the Tribune on the same sub
ject. While the Democratic press is attempting to
make capital out ofthe Gaphn claim, it is strange
that they forget the real swinders and government
defaulters. Mr.. Richie is TO have the nice little
sum Of $50, 900 voted him by Congress, because the
public printing was MOTTO profitable as he expected
to have found it and that, too, when he took the
contract assignee of the original contractor with
his eyes open, after Belt had declared that he could
not carry it on. No one pretends that Mr.. Richie
was legally entitled to one dollar He had received
all the Government agreed to give, but because he
alleged that the job was an improbable one, he
receives at the hands ofthe magnanimous Demo-
cratic Congress the nice doceur of $4,000, as n
sort of bonus or reward, we presume, for his long
and faithful service to- the party. He had not been
a sufferer from Indian or British spoiation-he had
no legal claims, dating from our independence
was he entitled to one dollar more than any
other government contractor, who looses, he
sustains ioss by his contract and yet Mr.. Richie
is to have retiring pension, while others are held
and bsund by the letter of the law. this Rtchie
izing precedent is TO be followed where will it end
All that contractor has to do Is 10 say he is loser;
and 1T he Is Democrat, all IS well, and he Is pap
ped and fed, and goes on his way rejoicing. No
matter how careless or negligent he may have been
mo matter how much his alleged loss may be at
tributed to his own waste or incompetency-no
matter how much overpaid he may have been, in
fact, for the actual value of the work done, if he
only whines little, and can produce clean party
way-bill, he will receive his reward.
BY the way, what is the history of this Galphin
case Why, simply this: Galphin had a large
claim for loss sustained during the revolutionary
war, byresson of his fidelity to the american cause,
and for long time pressed his claim before the
Georgia Legislature. Then an effort was made TO
obtain it from some of the Indian tribes, who were
supposed liable. The effort was continued from
year to year, and the original claimant having died.
and the United States having acquired by treaty the
property of the tribes out of which the fund was
claimed, his executors and distributes pressed the
matter before Congress, and in 1S4S Democratic
Polk Congress passed bill authorising the settle
ment of the claim by the Treasury Department.
Mr. Polk signed that bill, and we need not now
enquire whether the claim was Just. We presume
il W S. Nothing was said about interest (; and Mr..
Walker, then Democratic Secretary of the Treasury
paid the principal of the sum, amounting TO more
than $4,000 and did not decide not topoy interest,
but adjourned the question for further settlement.
He went out of Office soon after, and Gen. Taylors
Secretary of the Treasury allowed the interest, and
1t was paid to the parties entitled thereto. MIR.
Walker has since said, in his examination before
committee of the House of Representatives, that
had he continued at the head of the Treasury De-
parnent, he icoud haze aiowed the claim Of interest
Why tits that poor Revolutionary pensioner should
rot Lave interest his claim, when he has been
kept out of his just dues for more than seventy
years, we are at a loss to determine. Why the
government with its millions is not as much bound
20 pay interest on its debts, the poor laborerw
tolls for his daily bread, we cannot perceive nor
is here any fit reason why should not, other than
mere arbitrary and despotic power. Better by far
to pay the honest sufferer for his country all that
he claims, principal and interest, than by setting
such unlawful and swindiing precedent as that
containedin the recent Congressional act of Rtch-
e!stn, hold out brides and inducements TO careless,
worthless and trfing public contractors, to fail in
the discharge of their duty and then to rely on this
strong and Illegal precedent of Democratic Con-
gresslonal legislation, and heretofore unprecedent-
cd prodigality. As to Mr.. Crawford's connection
with the claim, will not now speak. As he is
claimed as an advocate of Pierce & King, we leave
hun in the hands of his new born brotherhood.