Unclaimed Stock Dividends-Georgia Militia Claims.

This discrimination resulted from the following cir. cumstances: In 1792, the frontiers of Georgia were se riously menaced by Indian incursions. The then Secretary of War, Gen. Knox, authorized the Governor of that state "to take such measures, for the defence of the same as might be indispensable," and, very shortly after, communicated to the Governor the views of the President, as to the amount of the militia force which might be necessary for the security of the frontiers of Georgia, in addition to the regular troops which were, at that time, in that quarter, under the command of Major Gaither. The additional for e, thus suggested as sufficient, were one hundred horse and one hundred foot. The "case of the serious invasion of Georgia by large bodies of Indians," the Secretary remarked, at the conclusion of his order, "must be left to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States." The authorized claims, amounting to $13,159 63, may, therefore, be considered as founded on the services of the one hundred horse and one hundred foot, ordered by the Secretary; and the unauthorized claims, amounting to $129,375 66, are those which grew out of the discretion

H. of R.]

Georgia Militia Claims.

which the Executive of Georgia exercised under the presumed instructions of the Secretary of War, or the provisions of the Constitution.

As the ground assumed by the committee, in their report, is the one so often taken, that these claims have been finally settled under the treaty of cession, Mr. H. said, he would not go into a minute recapitulation, of the correspondence, to shew that the unauthorized claims were always considered as liable to objection, in consequence of a belief, on the part of the General Government, that the Governor of Georgia had not exercised a proper discretion in calling out troops, the levies of which were, at times, unjustifiably large and frequent, and, consequently, entailing unnecessary expense on the United States. If any proof were wanting of this fact, it is to be found in the letter of the 22d February, 1794, in which the Secretary of War informs the Governor of Georgia "that a body of militia had been kept up, on the frontiers of Georgia, during a greater part of the last year, greatly exceeding the number, which, according to the information received at the War Office, would seem to have been required by the state of things in that quarter." This number was represented from 1,000 to 1,200; and, in this communication, the Secretary employs the caution of reverting again to the force which the President considered adequate to the defence of Georgia, which he was willing to consider as raised and continued in the service by his authority, viz: 100 horse and 100 foot.

But this was not the only exception which was probably taken to the claims. The correspondence between the federal and state authorities, as well as the report of Col. Freeman, discloses the fact that, notwithstanding the peremptory instructions of the Government of the United States, that the Indian territory was not to be invaded, that incursions did take place, which induced the Secretary of War, in his letter to Col. Freeman, of the 5th of September, 1793, to order him "not to concur in any measures, at the expense of the United States, for invading the Creeks." And, in relation to the facts in connection with this branch of the subject, Col. Freeman says, in his report on the unauthorized claims made to the War Department, on the 25th of October, 1802, "the periods in which these unauthorized claims are made, are particularly marked in the history of that state, for misunderstandings between the Creeks and the frontier settlers. There were faults on both sides. The Indians were continually stealing horses, murdering, and doing other injuries to the inhabitants, who, in retaliation, made incursions into their country. Such were the Oakmulgee expedition under General Twiggs, in June, 1.93, which consisted of about 750 horse and foot; the destruction of the Oakfuskee village, by Col. Melter, in September, who had under his command about eighty-eight officers and men; the detachment of 125 men, who marched under the orders of Major Brenton, against the Little Chehaw Village, on Flint River; and several others of less note, which were made by volunteer parties of militia. It has been supposed that these expeditions have operated as objections to admitting the militia claims. Although they might have been irregular, it is certain that some of the detachments who were then in service, afforded great security to the peaceable inhabitants on the frontiers."

[FEB. 15, 1825.

bodied without that attention to the forms of service which were required, which led to some unpleasant conflicts of authority between Col. Gaither and the state functionaries. It is evident, from the letters of this officer, that he did not conceive that any serious invasion of the Indians was threatened, but merely predatory incursions, and, in November, 1792, he thinks even a less force than that designated by the Secretary of War, would be sufficient for the protection of the frontiers; that is two troops of cavalry, instead of 100 horse and 100 foot. that the militia of Georgia were assembled with irregularity, is highly probable, from another fact which appears in the correspondence between Col. Freeman and Major Gaither, in their respective letters of the 17th and 19th October, 1793. The former makes an application to the latter "to appoint some fit and proper person to muster and inspect the militia," to which Major Gaither replies: "Your's of the 17th inst. I have received, and declare to you, if there are any militia in arms under the authority of the United States, in Georgia, I am ignorant thereof When I received your instructions from the Secretary of War, I wrote immediately for information, which I daily expect to receive, and for that reason wish to postpone the mustering the militia of Georgia, until I am properly informed. As there are difficulties which may arise in this business, it is highly necessary it should be delayed."

Mr. H. said that he had thus, as compendiously as possible, endeavored to shew, that these unauthorized claims had probably been suspended for other reasons than any disposition on the part of the General Government to do Georgia injustice. He then remarked, that it was much to be lamented the conflagration of the War Office had probably destroyed many documents illustrating the views and objections of the government on this subject, from the earliest period at which their payment had been pressed. But, as he had before remarked, if the House came to the same conclusion with the committee, that these claims, "authorized," as well as "unauthorized," were provided for and paid under the treaty of cession of 1802, it was not very material to inquire whether the inferences which he had deduced were sound or not.

Mr. H. said he would now trouble the House with a few remarks in regard to the treaty of cession between the United States and Georgia, for the purpose of giving a brief exposition of the reasons which induced the Committee on Military Affairs to arrive unanimously at the same conclusion with all standing committees of this House, who had ever had the claims under consideration-that they had been fully cancelled under the stipulations of that agreement. But he would, before he discussed this point, admit, (for he was bound in candor to make the admission) that he believed, but for the treaty of cession of 1802, and the consideration for which that amount was paid under that treaty, there could be no substantial objection to the allowance of the claims in question, as he had no doubt the services had been bona fide and patriotically rendered; and, although irregularities may have been committed in relation to hasty and disproportionably large levies of troops, yet these are unavoidably incident to the employment of militia; and the occasionally offensive operations of the citizens of Georgia were inseparable from the exigencies of a savage war carried on on their own frontier. If, however, the debt has been paid by the treaty, the discussion is at an end.

If a portion of these unauthorized claims comprised expeditions involved in these excursions into the enemy's territory, contrary to the express orders of the President, it may well be supposed, said Mr. H. that very se- This treaty was concluded in April 1802, and prorious difficulty would have been made by the Govern-vides that the Government of the United States should ment as to their admission. But these circumstances pay to the state of Georgia, out of the nett proceeds of form not the only objections which were entertained as the sales of lands, the sum of one million two hundred to the validity of the claims in question. Both from Col. and fifty thousand dollars," as a consideration for the Freeman's report, and the correspondence between the expenses incurred by said state, in relation to said terGovernor and Col. Gaither, who commanded the fede- ritory." When this subject was referred to the Commitfal troops, it appears that the militia were sometimes em- tee of Claims in 1803, this Committee very properly di

FEB. 15, 1825.]

Georgia Militia Claims.

[H. of R.

and were induced to stipulate for so large a sum to be paid, it would seem that we ought not, on light grounds, to impugn the testimony of our own agent, whose very caution and reserve prove the great circumspection with which he had been disposed to give his evidence. Mr. HAMILTON said, that the Committee on Military Affairs had not been content with the documentary testimony on the files of the House, but had applied to Mr. Gallatin, who had been a United States' Commissioner with Mr. Lincoln. But, unfortunately, the lapse of time (20 years) had effaced from the memory of that gentleman all recollection of the circumstances attending the negotiation; and Mr. HAMILTON said, that, on making a personal application at the Department of State, with a view of ascertaining whether there were on record any letters "comprising a protocol or schedule of the nature of the expenses," &c. in question, he had been entirely unsuccessful. The Committee on Military Affairs had, therefore, been constrained to take Mr. Lincoln's letter as furnishing a cotemporary construction of the treaty, and as the best evidence within their reach.

rected a letter to the then Attorney General, (Mr. Lin some time after that of Mr. Lincoln's, who, on the other coln,) who had been a Commissioner on the part of the hand, declares that, according to his best recollection, U. States in the negotiation and conclusion of this Trea- and every rational probability, they were included. ty. His reply to this call, which has been read, I will not Now it might so happen, that, whilst the United States' trouble the House with at length, but there is one pas- Commissioners believed that they were providing for sage in it which I wish to press upon their consideration these, and all other claims which could, in any wise be con with some emphasis. He says, "It is perfectly recol-sidered as expenses "in relation to said Territory," the "lected in the course of the negotiation with the Com- Georgia Commissioners might have entertained a differmissioners on the part of Georgia, at one or more in-ent impression; yet, as our Commissioners did so treat, "terviews with them, 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 detence of the state, which the "United States, on application, had unreasonably re"fused to allow them." Now, as the identical claims were at that time the only claims of a military, as well as pecuniary character that Georgia had presented, or that the United States could be supposed to have unreasonably refused to allow, it is a fair matter of inference, that the Commissioners on the part of the United States were induced to make the large allowance in money, in consequence of their regarding these claims as actually and justly pressed on their consideration. Besides, it would be a most extraordinary presumption to suppose, that, at a moment when they were about to negotiate a Treaty, that the only serious matters in dispute between the two sovereigns should have been omitted, and when the services on which the claims in question are grounded, were expenses as well "in relation to said Territory" as to the State at large. The truth is, that it was somewhat unprecedented, as had been admitted by the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. FORSYTH) that the United States should pay any pecuniary bonus to a State for her cession of Territory; and, Mr. H. said, he suspected it was the object of th Commissioners to bring all the claims which Georga might have on the General Government, under the cover of these " expenses in relation to said Territory," in order that Congress might be reconciled, apparently, to so large an appropriation.

But the gentlemen from Georgia contend that these are not claims of the state of Georgia, but of her citizens, who have never surrendered the liability of the United States to them. On this subject, Mr. H. said, that he thought the principle was clear, that, if the United States had suspended their payment on the ground that the Governor of the state of Georgia had exceeded the instructions and discretion given to him, as to the manner in which the Indian wars of '92, '93 and '94, were to be conducted, the Federal Government might fairly regard her as chargeable with the expenses of these wars, and yet be disposed to pay them "as expenses in relation to the ceded Territory," and as a part consideration for the acquisition. It does not follow, because a state exceeds its authority in the employment of troops, for which the General Government will not pay, that the state is, itself discharged from all obligation to its citizens who are thus employed. She may well be presumed to incur, in such an event, an ulterior responsibility.

It is true, that a gentleman of Georgia, (Mr. THOмPSON,) who, some days since, addressed the House, exhibited a tabular statement of the appropriations of land, which the state of Georgia bad made to certain troops she had raised from '83 to '87, before the formation of the Constitution of the United States; but even these were not exclusively expenses applicable to the Territory in question, and none of them expenses for which the United states could be considered as bound for reimThe gentleman from Georgia, Mr. FORSYTH,) has said bursement, under any circumstances. This statement, that the Treaty Cession has been immensely profitable which the gentleman had exhibited in the form of a sum, to the United States. It ought to be recollected that he had made to exceed a million four hundred thousand this account is not yet closed. The United States have dollars, but on assumptions which he, Mr. H. thought taken the cession with an onerous stipulation "to exentirely gratuitous In the first place, he had assumed tinguish the Indian title within her territory." This the quantity of land appropriated by the Legislature of had already been partly accomplished, at a considerable Georgia as the quantity actually given, and next he had cost, and a large territory, much larger than one state placed the valuation of the land (at that time situated in in our confederacy, remains to be extinguished, of great almost a savage wilderness,) at fifty cents per acre This, fertility, where civilization is progressing among the InMr. H. said he conceived, was an high valuation; some dians, and with it, as its inseparable incidents, producrecent purchases had been made by the United States ing a higher attachment to property, by a multiplication on an average of less than seven cents per acre, of land of its objects, as the sphere of rational enjoyment benot now more remote from the settlements of our citizens, comes enlarged. When this section of country, comthan those lands in question were at that time. He be-prehending one of the most fertile portions of Georgia, lieved if we even gave Georgia credit for all these ex- is purchased from the Indians, in conformity with the penses, on a calculation founded on what she actually treaty-stipulation, it will be ample time to state the acexpended, enough would still be left, as a balance of count of profit and loss. He trusted, however onerous the million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, to the burden might be, that the Government of the Unit cover and provide for the claims under consideration. ed States would be able to fulfil, on terms satisfactory to Georgia, its stipulations on this subject.

Mr. HAMILTON said, it was far from his intention to impeach the testimony of the Commissioners from Georgia, (to their memories he was as willing to pay a tribute of respect as any one) who had declared that, according to their understanding, these claims were not included. But it will be recollected, that their testimony was given

It has also been urged, said Mr. H. that the United States impliedly acknowledged the war as her own, by paying, in the course of its progress, the expenses of the Commissariat and Quartermaster's Department. These expenses, Mr. H, said, were undoubtedly paid by the

United States, and it appears from the documents on your table, that at least ninety thousand dollars were actually disbursed, in a short time, by the agent of the United States, for these purposes. This fact furnishes abundant proof of the publi spirit and good faith with which the government of the United States, at that time, acted towards Georgia, but, as these payments were all prior to the treaty of cession, in 1802, they do not touch the position that the balance of the claim was adjusted under that treaty.

en.

[FEB. 15, 1825.

Troops were called out; a dispute arose about the number called out; an explanation was given, and the General Government was satisfied. The concluding part of the letter of the Secretary of War expresses a hope that the large force will be dismissed when the danger is passed, provided the safety of the frontier will admit of it. The Governor at this time received also authority to call out the militia of South Carolina, if necessary, through the Governor of that State, who was officially informed, from the Department of War, that the Mr. HAMILTON, after noticing, briefly, some observa- expense incurred would be paid by the General Governtions which had been made in opposition to the report ment. The Military Committee, with the Committee of of the committee, concluded by remarking, that, if the Claims of 1803, both consider the Governor of Georgia House should come to the conclusion that the committee as defending the state, under the constitution and laws had erred in confirming the construction which Mr. Lin- of the United States, in his character of Governor. He coln, and the several committees of that House, for a pe- acted as the special agent of the War Department under riod of upwards of twenty years, had put on the treaty a written authority. He addressed himself as such to of 1802, he should only say, that, for one, (and he was the Department. He gave notice as such of his movecertain that he spoke the sentiments of the whole comments. The United States knew the number of troops; mittee,) he would be exceedingly gratified to receive never objected to the number until there was an appreits instructions to report a bill to provide for the pay-hension that they were to be used for invading the Inment of the surviving soldiers of the war to which the dian territory. This the Department wished to prevent, claims have reference, or to their legal representatives. lest we should be involved in a war with Spain. All pride of opinion, in this event, would be lost in the The Governor had contemplated an invasion, and was conviction that the committee must have erred, and un-making preparations for it. It was prevented by orders intentionally have done injustice. But, until corrected from the War Department. But, sir, if the Governor by a contrary decision of the House, they were constrain- had invaded the Indian territory, and desolated the whole ed to believe that the claims under discussion had been region to the banks of the Mississippi, this act could not paid in the manner for which he had contended. have impaired the right of the militia to their daily pay. I pray the recollection of the House of the letter of the Governor of Georgia, written on the application of the War Department, in 1794, after the Indian war had ended. This letter has also escaped the notice of the Mili│tary Committee. The Governor says the militia were used only defensively, or in pursuit of invading Indians; that their services were indispensable to the safety of the frontier.

All difficulty is solved by the compact of 1802. This cuts the Gordian knot for all the committees, and releases the United States from all liability. What are the arguments in support of this opinion, now offered by the gen tleman, or heretofore used by others?

The gentleman applies to this contract for a sale of territory between Georgia and the United States, the rule of international law that, when nations have a treaty for the settlement of pecuniary claims, all those existing previously to the contract, are taken to be embraced by it. Without inquiry into the correctness of the rule, which might be disputed with safety, I have to say that this compact was not for the settlement of pecuniary claims. The United States wanted to have a cession of territory, and Georgia was willing to make it. All that the state desired was, that the territory, itself, should pay all the debts due by Georgia, and for which that territory had been pledged by that state.

Mr. FORSYTH, of Georgia, in reply to Mr. HAMILTON, said, the gentleman who had just taken his seat had committed several mistakes as to the facts of the case before the House, which it would be best to correct while the remembrance of his argument was fresh in the minds of the members. He stated that there had been no favorable decision from a standing committee; that all the favorable reports were from select committees. A bill was reported at the last Congress by a standing committee of the Senate. The bill passed the Senate, but was not acted upon fnally here. [Mr. HAMILTON explained, that his remark was confined to committees of the House of Representatives.] Mr. F. was not prepared to dispute the fact, that unfavorable reports had been made by standing committees and favorable by select committees. He did not perceive that this ought to prejudice the claimants Reports were not considered as authority: their value depended upon the matter contained in them, and they were confirmed or rejected according to the judgment of the House, after careful examination of their contents. The two reports against the claim, were, 1st, that of the Committee of Claims of 1803; 20, that of the Military Committee of the last session. Both committees occupy the same ground, that the claims were due by Georgia in 1794, and that the responsibility of the United States was removed by the compact of 1802. Both committees, in my judgment, erred, from the want of due consideration of the documents. The gentleman from South Carolina has satisfied me by his argument of to-day, that the Military Com. mittee have in this case relied too much upon the previous reports, and have therefore failed to examine accurately the original papers. He says, with regret, that two letters of the Governor of Georgia are not to be had. This is a mistake. Both those letters are in a pamphlet now in my hand, printed at the present session of Congress. He states, also, that this business originated in an application from the Governor of Georgia for aid from the General Government in 1792. This was not so. The origin of this claim is a letter from the Secretary of War to the Governor, warning him of impending dan ger, and urging him to take preparatory measures. The letter to which the gentleman alludes, is the answer to the Secretary of War. The measures preparatory to The United States were, however, answerable on meet the danger, were taken, and notice given to the every principle of equity. Georgia was a member of War Department. A discretionary power was then giv-the confederation. That confederation was bound to

But, the gentleman insists that these militia services were the consideration for which the one million and a quarter was paid. Sir, this is a mockery of Georgia.— You pay her a sum of money out of the proceeds of the property she gave you, and then gravely say this settles all disputes. You must pay all our obligations to your militia. I have already endeavored to show that the words in the compact were introduced to show the motive which justified Georgia in demanding any payment for the lands ceded for the general benefit. The state troop bounties, the gentleman says, cannot be referred to, because the United States were not answerable for those debts. But, was not Georgia answerable; had she not bound herself to pay them out of this fund. If this were the case, could the Commissioners of the United States refuse to provide the means of paying them out of the fund?

pay for the common defence, and these expenses were incurred for the common defence. But, sir, the gentleman urges not upon the compact, but on Mr. Lincoln's vague recollections of the conversations of the commissioners who framed that compact. Look to the instrument, and there is no difficulty. The example of Virginia and North Carolina was followed, to the benefit of the Georgia claimants, and to that of the states formed out of the ceded territory. I will not repeat what has been already urged on this point.

The gentleman says, suppose the United States' Commissioners thought the present claim ought to have been included, then it would have been included, to absolve the United States; and, from this supposition, he concludes that it was included. Now, sir, it appears that the United States' Commissioners knew nothing about the claims intended to be included, but what was told to them by the Georgia Commissioners. The Georgia Commissioners, say, positively, the claims now under discussion, were not included, or intended to be includ. ed, in the words of the compact. But admitting that the United States' Commissioners had knowledge of these claims, and wished to include them. Georgia was a party to the compact. What possible motive existed to induce her to have them included? Georgia had no motive to intermeddle with the payment of the debts of the United States; her anxiety was to pay her own debts, and the stipulation applies to no other. It is confined within still narrower limits. The stipulation is for the payment of "those expenses incurred by Georgia which had relation to the territory" ceded.

[H. of R.

paid? Why do the committee neglect to pay it now? Georgia has not assumed this; there never was a dispute about it. Shall I state the cause to the Housethe same cause which has kept the Hall empty since this subject was discussed? Apathy and indifference prevents a thorough examination. There are no strong feelings of interest excited by an antiquated claim. The subject has been frequently before Congress, and no provision has been made for it. How many members of this House, are, at this moment, aware that a whole troop has not been paid its just dues, because a Major in the regular army refused to authenticate its pay rolls in 1794? I venture to say not twenty. How powerful is the effect of time, and an adverse report, I myself know. When I first had the honor to take a seat in Congress, I examined this claim as interesting to a portion of my constituents. The report made upon it by Mr. Secretary M'Henry, was the first and only document I read, and it induced me to throw down the papers, with a strong conviction that the claimants could not expect redress. Subsequent circumstances occasioned me to examine the original papers, and I saw with surprise, that the facts of the case were distorted by Mr. M'Henry's statement. The report of General Dearborn, then seen, for the first time, confirmed the opinion, that a fairer claim had never been presented to the justice of Congress.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would remark, that this claim is presented on the ground that the Governor of Georgia was acting, not as the Executive of the state, but as the agent of the United States. Considering him as fulfilling his duties under the Constitution, according to the rules established during the late war, the United States are bound to pay the amount. By the rule established, as we are told by the Military Committee, militia in service, in case of invasion, or imminent danger thereof, during the late war, whether called out by the Goveror of a state or not; whether called out by an officer of the General Government or not; were paid as a matter of course out of the public Treasury by the Department of War.

What is to deprive the militia of Georgia of the benefit of this rule? Is there any difference between a British and an Indian war, in the rules for the settlement of accounts? Is the spontaneous gathering of the militia in time of danger in 1813 and 14, to charge the public Treasury directly, when the call of a Governor, acting under an authority vested by the General Government, is deemed insufficient, in 1792, 3, and 4, to fix any thing but a remote responsibility upon that General Government? But Mr. Speaker, I have done; it remains for the House to decide the proposition before it. I should have the strongest confidence that a favorable decision would be made, if I was satisfied that the members had attentively read the documentary evidence printed by their order.

Will the gentleman establish the relationship of the present claims with the territory ceded, or is he willing to rest upon the reasoning of Mr. Lincoln? He reasons thus: The militia services of 1792, '3, and '4, were for the defence of Georgia. The ceded territory was part of Georgia in those years. The defence of the whole is the defence of all the parts, and therefore these services were the defence of the ceded territory, and thus had relation to it. This mode of argument will prove that the expense had relation to Vermont. It was incurred for the defence of Georgia, Georgia is a part of the United States; it was, therefore, for the defence of the United States; Vermont is a part of the United States; ergo, the expense incurred had relation to Vermont. What is amusing in this argument, is, that it proves Georgia was defending a territory which the militia were forbidden to invade lest they might offend the Indians. I defy any man to confine himself to the compact, and show any reasonable ground of doubt on this subject. It is merely by connecting the compact with Mr. Lincoln's in perfect recollections, that a doubt can be raised. What weight should be given to his declarations, I have already shown. One circumstance occurs to me, that has not been mentioned. Six months after the compact of 1802, the members of the administration were perfectly ignorant that a settlement of these claims of the Mr. M'COY observed, that much of the debate on this Georgia militia could be considered as effected by that question might have been spared. We had not now to compact. General Dearborn, in February, 1803, re- discuss the merits of the claim, but whether it had been ported favorably on these claims, and recommended paid or not. It was easy now, after the lapse of thirty their payment. The gentleman from South Carolina has years, when the persons and circumstances at first con toid the House that Mr. Gallatin knew nothing about it. cerned, were nearly forgotten, to draw constructions eiMr. Madison was not better informed. Can the House ther for or against the claim. For his own part, he presume, under these circumstances, that Mr. Lincoln should have no objection to pay, if he were not fully sawas alone accurate in his remembrance? Sir, it cannot, tisfied that this demand had been paid already. There for Mr. L. himself speaks with becoming timidity of was a report from the Committee of Claims, in the year his remembrance, and in all that is material to the inves-1803, one year after the treaty of cession, in which the tigation, differs with the Georgia Commissioners.

That the parties never intended to include these claims is certain; that they are not included by the force of the terms used, is to me, irresistibly clear.

The gentleman from South Carolina admits, that the 13,000 dollars still due, was a fair claim against the United States in 1794, and that the failure to pay in that year was accidental. Why has this sum not been

committee say that a question had arisen at the previous session of Congress, Whether or not this claim was embraced in that treaty. How did the House get this notion in 1802 The Attorney General furnishes the clue to this question. The subject, it seems, had been talked of between the commissioners, and his understanding, from that conversation, was, that these claims were included. This officer, it will be observed, was called