FEB. 14, 1825.]

Georgia Militia Claims.

[H. of R.

ment of the Union. The state authority, on such occasions, becomes the agent of the nation. It acts in behalf of the nation, until the immediate powers of the General Government can be called into action. Haj, therefore, the Governor of Georgia seen a sudden approach of the barbarians upon the frontiers of his state, he would have been justified in military preparations to meet it.

that, previous to the Militia being called into service, the frontiers of Georgia were threatened with all the horrors of an Indian war. Already was the tomahawk raised. Massacres in the advanced settlement had taken place. A well founded alarm spread through the state. Measures of resistance were no longer to be delayed. A full knowledge of the dangers of the frontier were fully known to the Government of the Union. Its duty was manifest; its decision was prompt and energetic. Mr. How much stronger is the claim in question by the Secretary Knox says, in his communication to the Gover-evidence before us, than if the military preparations bad nor of Georgia, dated October 27th, 1792, "I have the been made by the Governor of Georgia, while acting honor to inform your Excellency, that it appears, by in- under his own discretion. He might have been told formation from Governor Blount, dated the 7th instant, that his state was in no danger of invasion. The solthat the five lower towns of the Cherokees, on Tennes- dier might have been told that the state was terrified by see river, containing perhaps from three to five hundred an empty alarm. But, sir, he cannot now be doomed to warriors, have decided on hostilities against the United meet such an objection. The Government of the Union States. They are aided by a number of banditti, Upper did authorize the measures of defence of that state. Creeks, and their first object is probably the Cumber- The Governor was directed, as Commander of the mili land settlements." In the same, the Secretary says, tary force of Georgia, “to take the most effectual measures "If the information which you may receive shall substan- for the defence thereof, as may be in your power, and which tiate, clearly, any hostile desig 8 of the Creeks against the the occasion_may require.” When he had adopted his frontiers of Georgia, you will be pleased to take the most measures, the Secretary of War, as has been mentioned, effectual measures for the defence thereof.as may be in your submitted them to the President of the United States, power, and which the occasion may require. In such an and he says, "they may be considered indispensable." unfortunate event, however, I will thank you for the What more can be required to give validity to the meaearliest information, by express, of the circumstances of sures adopted by the Governor of Georgia? What more the invasion, and the force called into activity to repel could have been done to give the soldier a just claim on the same." the United States for his scanty pay? Suppose the Governor had abused the orders of the General Government, were the militia to blame? Are they to be held responsible for the mistakes or errors of their comman ders? It would be a violation of military rules. But there has been no error or mistake. Nothing has been done but what the occasion demanded.

ble."

Sir, said Mr. M. having shown that the occasion was such as demanded the interference of the General Government, and also, that it did direct and control the military operations in Georgia, we are prepared to decide on the rights of the soldiers and the duty and obligation of the nation. It would seem as if the conclusion was irresistible, that their claims for payment are on the Government of the Union-that they can look to no other source for the just reward for their services.

On the 8th of May, 1793, the Governor of Georgia states to the Secretary of War, that, "such is the havoc and carnage making by the savages on our frontiers, that retaliation by open war becomes the only resort," &c. The Governor states the force he had called into service, and considers it indispensable. On the 10th of June, 1793, the Secretary of War replies to the Governor of Georgia, that his letter of the 8th of May had been received and submitted to the President of the United States. The Secretary also says, " The state of Georgia being invaded, or in imminent danger thereof, the measures taken by your Excellency may be considered as indispensaNumerous are the passages from the papers before us, to prove that the General Government conduct ed and controlled the military operations in that quarter. Again, sir, said Mr. M. we find repeated detachments of regular troops ordered to the frontiers, and cooperating with the militia. We find the General Government furnishing every kind of arms, ammunition, and military stores for the Georgia Militia. They were provided for by the nation while in the field, and no intimation was ever made, that the state was accountable. The next inquiry is, have these claims been dischar Now it is pretended that the pay of the troops belong to ged? And has the National Government been exoneratGeorgia. Is this just or equitable! With such a state-ed from its original responsibility? By the report of the ment of facts, which cannot be denied with a semblance of truth, is Georgia to bear the burthen, or her citizens to be cast off unrewarded?

Permit me to advert to the duty of this Government and the rights of a state, which should remain inviolable. This Union was formed for common defence. Whenever any portion is invaded, it is an invasion of the Union. Whatever threatens one part, involves the whole. Whether invasion touches the frontiers of Vermont or Georgia, it is an invasion of the Union. The General Government having under its control the revenues and resources of the nation, to that the constitution allows us to look for the power to repel that invasion. The resources and revenues of a state would be ruined in a single campaign, if left alone.

Permit me, said Mr. M. to refer to another provision of the constitution. A state is prohibited from engaging in war, “unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will admit of no delay." If this imminent danger of invasion exists, a state may prepare to resist it. But can any one say, that this is to be at the expense of the state? No, sir; necessity requires state authority to act, to perform a duty which belongs to the Govern

Sir, it appears that these claims were admitted as just> ly due from the Government, by the accounting officers in 1794. By the Secretary of War, Mr. Pickering, in 1795. By the Secretary of War, Gen. Dearborn, in 1803. The first opinion of the Executive seems to have been decidedly in their favor.

Military Committee it is alleged, that, by the articles of cession by which the Western Territory of Georgia was transferred to the nation, the Government of the Union was wholly discharged from the payment of those claims. Allow me, sir, to ask the House to give this point an attentive examination.

It seems this defence was urged by the Committee of Claims in 1803, and continued in the Reports of 1822 and 1824. They have all been referred to by the Military Committee, who last reported, and all the decisions made by those reports have been adopted. Let us, for a moment, examine the grounds of the report of the Committee of Claims of 1803. It states that, "by the Convention concluded between the United States and the State of Georgia, relative to the cession of the territory therein described, the sum of $1,250,000 is stipulated to be paid by the United States to the State of Georgia, "as a consideration for the expenses incurred by the said state in relation to said Territory." Several inquiries now present themselves to the mind. One is, do the terms of the Convention embrace the claims of the Georgia soldiers? If they do not, were the claims in fact embraced in the negotiation and settled by convention!

H. of R.]

Georgia Militia Claims.

[FEB. 14, 1825.

what it may. The only document before us, as evidence on this point, against the allowance, is the letter of Mr. Lincoln, the late Attorney General. He is asked by the committee whether the commissioners "considered the present claims satisfied by the convention, and what, in fact, cession?" He says, "I can only state my own impres sions." He also observes, "it is perfectly recollected, in the course of the negotiation with the commissioners on the part of Georgia, &c. they stated as a reason why an allowance to a certain amount ought to be made them out of the proceeds of the ceded territory, that their state then had a debt which had been incurred for military services in defence of the state, or of the ceded territory; and which, on application, the United States had unreasonably refused to allow them." He says he had no knowledge of the expenses in question, until they were then disclosed. But he finally remarks, "It is other commissioners, or what weight the recited circumstances had, in conjunction with other considerations, in reconciling my own mind to the sum finally agreed on." Could any one, for a moment, take this as evidence that the claims were allowed? Is here the assertion of a single important fact? There is nothing but impressions of the mind, and they of a character wholly unsatisfactory to the mind of Mr. Lincoln himself. The amount of the claim is $140,000, the sum allowed is $1,250,000. Of what was the balance of this last sum composed? There must have been claims to nearly ten times the amount now asked for, included in the adjustment. Mr. Lincoln offers no impressions on this point.

Should those claims appear to have been included in the terms of the convention, or actually adjusted by the Commissioners, how ought that, in justice and equity, to operate as a discharge of the obligation of the United States to the militia who performed the service? The Government agree to pay Georgia 1,250,000 dol-were the particular expenses referred to in the articles of lars," as a consideration for expenses incurred by said state in relation to said Territory." If any reliance can be placed on the documents before us, and to which a reference has been made, how can any one for a moment suppose that the state of Georgia conducted the defence of her frontiers, independent of the General Government? The Secretary of War, by his letter of 27th | October, 1792, expressly authorizes the Governor of that state" to take the most effectual measures for the defence thereof." Afterwards, the Governor gives the Secretary of War information of the measures adopted for defence, and the Secretary replies, under the authority of the President, that the measures taken by "his Ex-impossible for me to say what influence the minds of the cellency may be considered as indispensable." How is it possible for any one to imagine that those measures were upon the responsibility of the state? When it appears that all the supplies of every kind were furnished by the General Government, how can it be inferred that the pay of the troops was a claim on the state? Again, sir, how can the defence of the frontier of that state differ from the defence of the frontier of any other? It can make no difference whether the state is in danger of Indians or Europeans. If every state must defend its frontier, of what benefit is the Union? If such is our condition, the arm of the nation_can never be exerted. Individual states alone must suffer invasion. The true ground is, that, for purposes of defence, the states form Permit me now to call your attention to the evidence one solid empire. When one part is invaded, the whole on the other side. Mr. M. desired the House to exais attacked, and must be defended by the whole. The mine the statement of James Jackson and Abraham Baldinvasion of Georgia was an invasion of the Union, and win, commissioners on the part of Georgia. They certi the Union was bound to defend her at our common ex-tify that the claim of the militia of Georgia, for services pense. The expenses of the Georgia militia could not, in justice, have been incurred by that state in relation to her territory. If not, they are not embraced in the Articles of Cession.

The committee, in their report of 1803, further report, that, "in their view, whatever shape it may as sume, and whether originally well-founded or not, it is virtually a claim on the state of Georgia. The militia were called into service by the Executive of that state, and, notwithstanding the ulterior responsibility of the General Government, the state must be considered as accountable in the first instance, for the expense incurred." This doctrine is as unjust as it is erroneous. The militia of the Union, placed under the control of the General Government for purposes of general defence, and yet, when called into service by the nation, the state to which they belong must, "be considered accountable in the first instance!" The state authorities must obey the orders of the commander in chief of the nation, and then be compelled to pay the expenses! Such is the reasoning of the committee, to force the claims within | the influence of the terms of the convention. Again, sir, what was the practice of the Government during the late war? Were not orders given to the Governors of the several states, when militia were wanted for service? Did not they in turn issue their orders to those whom they commanded? What would have been the answer of the states to the doctrine that they were answerable, in the first instance, to their citizens, thus called into service? Would it not have been met with the warmest indignation? No such idea was ever entertained by the General Government, on the one hand, nor feared, on the other.

But, sir, we have been toll that these claims were, in fact, included in the convention with Georgia. This will depend upon the evidence before us. Should it so appear, the claims are groundless, and should be instantly rejected, let the language of that convention be

under the United States, on which the Secretary of War has reported, and is now before the Committee of Claims of the House of Representatives,never was estimated by us as any part of the consideration money for which the cession was made, or included, in any manner or shape, in the same; and that it was out of our power to accede to such construction." Here we have the most decided and express declaration of those who acted with Mr. Lincoln-the one giving a confused and doubtful im pression, the others giving a clear, unequivocal, and prompt denial.

Mr. MALLARY denied the right of the House to call on Georgia to allow what claims were adjusted. It was sufficient that it was made to appear that the amount in question had never been discharged. But the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. TATTNALL,) who has just addressed the House, has fully shown the reasons for the allowance of the sum of $1,250,000. She was in debt to her citizens to an equal, to even a larger amount than she received from the General Government. That debt had been contracted before her admission into the Union, for her own defence, as well as for the protection of her extended territory. It would seem that the explanation already offered will be entirely satisfactory.

Here, sir, we have the question, so far as relates to facts, reduced to a narrow compass. We have an obscure impression of one of the commissioners, that the claims were, or might have been, included in the settlement; we have the unqualified denial of the other two, that they were included. We have a full exposition of those claims which were embraced in the convention, and those under consideration are not among the number.

But, suppose, sir, that these claims had been named in the convention, and that Georgia had agreed to make full compensation to her soldiers, what would have been the effect? The claims of the militia for compensation from the nation must be considered as well founded.

FEB. 14, 1825.]

Georgia Militia Claims.

[H. of R

Two classes of persons present their claims to Con gress.

The first for services specially authorized by the War Department.

All the troops specially authorized were paid in 1794, except one company, to whom there was still due 13,000 dollars. This sum was not paid because a dispute had arisen between the Captain of the Company and the Military Commander of the United States' troops in Georgia, which prevented a regular authentication of the pay rolls. The pay rolls have since been authenticated. About this sum no dispute ever occurred. It was acknowledged to be due in 1794. Why is it not allowed? Because the committee, confounding the amount with that claimed by those whose services were said not to be authorized, had examined the subject as if there was but one class of claimants, and the conclusion against the latter had been gratuitously applied to the former.

They had no right to demand it of Georgia. Has, then, that state the power, if she should make the attempt, to discharge the General Government from its original obligation to the soldiers, without their own approbation and consent? It is firmly and confidently maintained that The second for services rendered in consequence of she has not. The military service was by virtue of a con- orders from the Governor of Georgia, acting under a tract between the Government and soldier. It is a per-discretionary power from the War Department. sonal engagement to the Government. The Government becomes bound, on its part, to comply with all its stipulations. By what authority are his rights against the General Government annulled and transferred against the state? The attempt is clearly a violation of the constitution. That declares that no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. Can a state indirectly impair the obligation of a contract which directly it is unable to do? Can it effect by a convention what it cannot accomplish by a full exercise of its sovereignty in an act of legislation? But, sir, it appears that the validity of the articles of cession depends entirely upon an act of legislation. After the Commissioners had agreed upon the terms, they were expressly ratified by Georgia, through the medium of her Legislature. On this alone the convention depends for its binding force on Georgia and the nation. It is an act of legislation which is used to destroy the rights of the militia, pursuant to their contract with the nation, and, therefore, by the constitution, an absolute nullity, so far as those rights are involved. The militia have never assented to that arrangement. They never ceased to look to the United States for their compensation. If the United States have made any agreement with Georgia which she refuses to fulfil, the United States alone can call her to account. It is unjust and cruel to require the old soldiers to seek redress where they know they have no claim, and where it has been unceasingly and irresistibly denied.

It seems to be clear, said Mr. M. that the General Government authorized the call for the militia and the continuance of their services; that the state of Georgia is under no obligation to remunerate them, and it would be unjust to require it; that the claims were never embraced in the articles of cession, nor were they intended to be by the contracting parties; that, had the attempt been made to compel the militia to depend for their pay on Georgia, without their approbation, it would have been a direct violation of their rights and of the constitution; that it is due to the honor and good faith of the nation that the General Government should make a prompt provision for the payment of the claims.

Mr. FORSYTH then said, that the present subject had been so long before Congress, and was of so much interest to the state he had the honor, in part, to represent, that, late as the hour was, and anxious as the House very probably might be for an adjournment, he nevertheless, felt himself compelled to make a few observa tions respecting it. He should confine himself to the points immediately in dispute. He was conscious that the individuals now claiming before the House, were so situated, that they can scarcely expect to obtain justice. He knew that there existed in this House the strongest prejudice against them. Nor was this very surprising: for it could scarcely be considered that the Government of the United States could have refused a just claim for so long a time as thirtyyears. It was natural to conclude that there must have been some powerful reason for rejecting this claim for such a length of time. But nothing was necessary but a fair statement of facts, to satisfy any candid man that the denial of the claim was unjust, and that every moment's delay did but increase that injustice. He did not mean to charge the House with intentional wrong, but he presumed it must have arisen from inattention, from carelessness, or from the pressure of what was deemed more important concerns. He trusted that the claim would now receive a full and fair examination.

VOL 1.-37

Although widely differing in the view taken by the Military Committee, there was, in reality, no difference' in principle between services specially authorized, and those performed under a discretionary power from the United States. And Mr. F. was willing that the whole should stand or fall together. That the petitioners, or their ancestors, had performed services, was not denied; they were entitled to their daily pay, and the question was, who was to make that payment? In order to remove some of the prejudices against the claim, founded upon its antiquity, he would state from the documents, that all the other expenses of that day in Georgia, connected with their militia claims, were paid by the United States. The provisions, the forage, the transportation, every thing had been paid out of the Treasury of the General Government, save only the daily pittance of the militiamen.

Like services performed by Major Orr and Col. Sevier, from the territory south of Ohio, have been paid under an act of Congress.

Nothing was left unpaid of the expenses of that day, but the sum to his unfortunate countrymen. The cause of the failure to pay them in 1794, was to be found in the documents in his hand. The Accountant in the War Department, after a correct summary of the facts, concludes his report to the Secretary of War with this opinion: that the services of the militia in 1792, 3, and 4, were authorized by the General Government.

The Secretary of War, laying the subject before the President of the United States, discloses, with sufficient distinctness, in his letter to the President, the causes of his doubting the propriety of making the payment. He says, a portion of the amount is for offensive operations, in direct contravention of the President's orders, and tending to embarrass the United States in an unnecessary Creek war. In this letter of the Secretary of War there is both an error of fact and of principle-an error which is to be found in the report of the Military Committee. There were no offensive operations by these militia; the certificate of Governor Matthews on this point is conclusive.

[Mr. F. read extracts from the Governor's letter to Maj. Freeman, of the 8th of May, 1795.] "All the services performed were for defensive purposes," &c. "I feel myself justified in saying the service was indispensably necessary."

This certificate was altogether unnecessary if the Governor had a discretionary power to call out the militia; the use made of them when in the field, did not change the obligation of the United States to pay for their ser vices. The soldier is bound to obey the commands of his officer-the officer is responsible to the Governor

H. of R.]

Georgia Militia Claims.

[FEB. 14, 1825.

for his conduct; to refuse the private soldier his pay for included in the cession of 1802. In what does this relathe fault of bis commander, is to punish the innocent tion consist? The services were for the defence of the and to suffer the guilty to escape unscathed. Was it de-frontiers, and had no more relation to this territory than nied that the Governor of Georgia had this discretiona- services performed in New Hampshire or Massachusetts, ry power? The opinion of the Accountant was, that he in defence of their frontiers. had. The documents show that it was vested in him, not only to call out the militia of Georgia, but to call upon the Governor of South Carolina for aid from the militia of that state, in case of emergency. The Military Committee, itself, speaks of the discretionary power of the Governor of Georgia. The contractor of the U. States furnished the troops, under the conviction that the Governor had authority from the United States to call out the militia. He gave notice to the Secretary of War that he was furnishing supplies for the militia service. He was not commanded to refrain, and his accounts were paid without dispute.

It is a great error to suppose that the magical words, "in consideration of expenses incurred by the State,' and on which so much stress is laid, express the real consideration for which the $1,250,000 was to be paid. The consideration was a territory sufficiently extensive for two European kingdoms. From the sale of the lands, government has received four millions of dollars; more than six million is due, and the remaining lands will yield fifty millions, if sold at the minimum price of public lands. It may be asked, Why were these words introduced into the compact? and what are the expenses to which they refer? The last question has been answerIt is now too late to deny a liability to pay what was ed by my colleagues. The first, I shall now answer, and, demanded in 1793. But a new ground of opposition to I trust, satisfactorily. When the Commissioners of the these claims was discovered in 1803. A Committee of United States were called upon by those of Georgia, to this House fancied that tirese claims wère adjusted in stipulate a payment of a large sum, out of the proceeds the contract between the United States and Georgia for of the lands ceded, if they did their duty, they demandthe cession of the territory comprising at this day the ed of the Georgia Commissioners, on what principle states of Mississippi and Alabama. The United States Georgia demanded a payment for lands ceded for the stipulate, as part consideration of that cession, to pay general benefit, when New York, and Massachusetts, $1,250,000 out of the nett proceeds of the land ceded, and Connecticut, and Virginia, and North Carolina, had "in consideration of expenses incurred by the said state ceded territory withont any equivalent ? To this appeal in relation to the said territory." These magical words, to the magnanimity of one of the parties, the answer in the judgment of the committee of 1803, as in that of was simple and conclusive. New York and Massachuthe Military Committee of this Congress, paid off these setts had conflicting claims, and, to avoid dispute, ceded militia claims, or at least shifted the responsibility upon the disputed territory. Connecticut gave up her juristhe state of Georgia. In support of this opinion, as the diction, but retained her right to the soil. Virginia and words themselves bear no such construction, resort was North Carolina gave up their territory, but saddled it had to Mr. Levi Lincoln, the Attorney General, who was with the payment of a variety of the existing claims, inone of the Commissioners who formed the contract of definite in extent, and not yet satisfied. Georgia ceding 1802. This letter of Mr. Lincoln is a mere opinion, territory, asks only what has been demanded and grantfounded not upon the instrument, but upon his vague re-ed to Virginia and North Carolina. She asks in money, collections of some conversations with the Georgia and they received lands. Georgia owes to her State Commissioners. As a matter of evidence, it weighs not troops two millions of acres of land. This debt is to be a feather, as it is expressly contradicted by the positive discharged out of the Western lands, about which we are declarations of two gentlemen, in every respect his treating, by the terms on which the troops enlisted. It equals. They speak from perfect knowledge of this is not a Revolutionary claim, but a claim arising prior to subject. These gentlemen state that these claims were the adoption of the Constitution. It is due for defence not included, because the state of Georgia never ac- of the State, and forms a fair and reasonable claim upon knowledged herself liable for them. That the Commis- the Confederation. It has not been allowed, and we sioners had no authority to stipulate about them, and must take care that it shall be paid, especially as we are did not stipulate for their payment or assumption by about to convey away the fund on which it was secured. Georgia. It is not possible for any unprejudiced man to The nature of this claim has been already explained. A read the letter of the Georgia Commissioners, and be brief recapitulation may not, however, be useless. lieve that these militia claims were intended to be in- 1787, during an Indian war, it was deemed necessary cluded in the words quoted from the act of cession. It to raise 3,000 men. As an inducement to enlistments, is admitted, however, that, in drawing up articles of 640 acres of land were offerd to each private; and to any compact, between States or individuals, the inten- the officers, a larger quantity--the greatest amount protion and the act are not always the same. The parties mised being 1200 acres to a Colonel. The Statute of intend to do one thing, and sometimes do a very differ- Georgia lies on my table, for the inspection of any genent thing. This may arise from the superior adroitness tleman who wishes to know, accurately, its provisions. of one of them in the use of language, or from careless- It is enough for my purpose to state the substance of it. ness in the choice of words. In the present instance, The enlistments were made, and warrants for the bounneither can be supposed; all the persons engaged in ties were given to the officers and men. According to forming the compact of 1802, were gentlemen of astute the promises of the statute, these bounty warrants were understandings and pure characters. There was no de- to be located in the Western territory. A part of the sign to entrap-there was no want of care. The words troops were to be raised in what was then called Franklin, used expressed fairly the intention of the parties. Can a part of what is now the state of Tennessee. To these they, by any construction, be made to cover these mili- recruits a promise was given of 50 acres on every 100 of tia claims? Georgia did not owe them. This was ad- bounty, in lieu of rations, which Georgia did not promitted. The documents show that she did not. Where pose to furnish them, and this quantity was to be surveydoes she assume to pay them? No promise to pay themed in the Bend of Tennessee. In demanding payment is in the instrument. Nothing is contained in the com- for these bounty warrants, Georgia followed the exampact which imposes any obligation upon Georgia which ple of Virginia and North Carolina. In consenting to did not then exist. These claims were then charges on pay, the United States did only what was done for the General Government. They remain so still. those States. The difference between the cases is this: The claims of Virginia and North Carolina were Revolutionary. The claims of Georgia prior to the Constitution, but after the Revolution,

Were it even admitted that there was an obligation on the state of Georgia to pay these claims in 1794, it is yet necessary to show that these expenses had a "relation to the territory ceded," before they can be considered

In

Virginia and North Carolina made the land subject to

their claims. Georgia asked the amount in money, and paid it over to her citizens and those claiming under them. The Commissioners of Georgia and of the United States acted wisely in making this arrangement, both for the interests of the individuals claiming and for the convenience of the United States, in the subsequent survey and sale of the territory ceded. The ceded ter ritory has been regularly surveyed by the United States. There are no conflicting claims in Alabama and Mississippi. The ground has not been "shingled with warrants," as in Kentucky and Tennessee. The claimants, under the statute of Georgia, have all been paid, while some of those claiming under Virginia and North Carolina, are yet unsatisfied. Whoever will consider the disputes and difficulties which have attended the arrangement of these claims of Virginia and North Carolina, will applaud the conduct of Georgia.

[H. of R. & Sen.

invade Georgia, but were restrained by the Governor until it was ascertained what was to be done by Spain and the U. States.] Such was the effect produced by this let ter, that the administration of Gen. Washington expected a war with Spain as the ally of the Creeks and Cherokees. The letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Carmichael, communicating this document, shows the apprehension of the government that such was to be the consequence of the disturbances to the South. To the Western gentlemen, a full justification of the conduct of the Governor would be found in the fact that, notwithstanding the force called into service, the incursions of the Indians were so frequent, that the frontier settlements were broken up the whole extent of the Indian boundary. All this is aside from the question. It was imma. terial whether the Governor was justified or criminal in employing the force called out. The troops were called out by him as the agent of the United States; the U. States are bound to pay. The U. States have paid the contractor who supplied them all the expenses incident to the service; have paid troops from Tennessee, employed under similar circumstances, and have not been absolved from their liability to the Georgia militia by the compact of 1802.

Mr. HAMILTON rose in reply, but gave way to a mo. tion for adjournment, which was carried.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, offered a few further remarks explanatory of the nature of the bill, and called for the Yeas and Nays.

This explanation accounts for the apparent contradiction between Mr. Lincoln and the Georgia Commissioners, and completely reconciles their statements. Mr. Lincoln heard the Commissioners say something about militia claims due by that State, and he has confounded the claims for services in 1787, with the claims for the services rendered in 1792, '3, and '4. This claim of two millions of acres is that referred to in the cession, and not the trifling sum of $142,000. This latter is a debt incurred, not by Georgia, but by the United States; and is as wholly unconnected with the former, as the militia claims of Massachusetts are. IN SENATE-TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15. In construing this instrument, then, it is for this House to coose whether they The Senate resumed, as in committee of the whole, (Mr. will make its language refer to clams equal in amount KING, of Alabama, in the Chair,) the bill to amend the to the sum stipulated, and having a direct relation to judicial system of the United States, and to provide for the land ceded, or to this little militia claim, so far short three additional Circuit Courts; the question being on of the sum stipulated, having no relation to the land ced-recommitting the bill with instructions. ed,and in which the state never meddled, except through its Governor. I will now shew, in conclusion, that the Military Committee have erred on this subject, and on the same ground as the Secretary erred in 1794. They express great regret that the documents were burnt in the War Office. Sir, it is true that the documents were burnt, but the records of the state of Georgia have been applied to, and from those records the whole correspondence on both sides has been obtained. The committee suppose that those documents, if they had not been burnt, would show why these claims have been reject ed. And they suppose, as the Secretary did, that they were rejected because the operations against the Creeks and Cherokees had taken a direction which was offensive to the government. But this was never the fact. It is true, indeed that expeditions were undertaken against the Indians, in opposition to the will of the government: but these were expeditions, not of the militia, but of volunteers, acting on their own mere motion, in revenge for injuries previously inflicted by the Indians.

It is immaterial whether the Governor of Georgia acted right or acted wrong. He was authorized, by the General Government, to raise those troops: in doing so, he was the agent of the General Government, and the government is bound to pay the soldiers he raised.

Mr. TAZEWELL, of Virginia, adverted to the importance of the measure, and the impossibility of its receiving the consideration which it merited, and passing through both Houses of Congress the present session. He then moved that the bill and resolution be indefinitely postponed, and pledged himself, should the postponement take place, to co-operate with the honorable mover of the bill, in producing a plan which should ensure the attainment of the object he had in view, by the best means that could be employed.

Mr. TALBOT hoped that the bill would not be postponed, and went into a long argument to show that the Western states, who had been for years asking that the benefits of the Circuit system should be allowed them, should not longer be denied a just and common right. He proceeded to reply at some length to the arguments urged against the bill, when it was last before the Senate, and contended that the present bill was only an attempt to perfect a system which had received the approbation of the country for more than thirty years, a sys'em copied from the English judiciary, which, whatever might be said of the Government, was the pride of the Were it, however, necessary, I could show that, in-country and the admiration of the world. He glanced stead of doing too much, he did too little. The documents show that the people of the state did not consider the frontiers sufficiently protected. The Legislature passed sundry resolutions, calling upon the General Government for further aid-aid which would have been indispensable, but for the voluntary expeditions undertaken by the citizens of Georgia against the Indians. To show the danger to which the state was exposed, I ask the attention of the House to a single document, a letter from the Spanish Governor of Louisiana to the Spanish Commissioners, Jaudenes and Viar, [Mr. F. read from Waite's State Papers, extracts from the letter, which stated that 600 herokees were asking supplies of ammunition to invade Georgia; that partial supplies had been given; that four bodies of Creeks were ready to

at the observations made in relation to the impracticability of the Judges of the Supreme Court performing circuit duties, and maintained that the present facilities for travelling through the country were such that this argument was entitled to no weight.

Mr. BARBOUR, of Virginia, begged the Senate would not be alarmed with the idea that he was going to consume the time by entering into detail in reply to every objection made by the gentleman from Kentucky; not that he thought them unanswerable, but the time would be unreasonably consumed. He should, he said, feel himself reluctantly compelled to vote in favor of the motion made by his colleague, not because he was averse to any change being made in the Courts of the United States, for he had, he thought, been sufficiently