fered by unlawful aggressions of the enemy. If you allow this as giving a right to indemnification, you must go through; there is no stopping place; all who have suffered may claim; and all they have lost must be made up to them. Permit me, said Mr. B. to quote, on this subject, a writer who indulges in a very considerable liberality in treating the case. [Here he quoted a writer on national law, who, after allowing that it is a case of great difficulty, concludes the whole matter with determining that Government must take a view of all the circumstances, and act as it finds most expedient.] Suppose, for farther illustration, that we had no treaty stipulation on the subject of the negroes of the South, which were carried off during the war-(and I wish, after all the discussions on that matter, it may not turn out to be a treaty stipulation more in form than in effect) -is this committee prepared to say that Government would be bound to indemnify the losers for every negro(I had almost said stolen)-during the war? Sir, the loss would be immense. Every gentleman knows that if a few circumstances, during that war, had happened otherwise than they did-and had not the negroes been penetrated with a horror of the refuge which was opened to them by the enemy, they might have carried off thousands and millions of slaves. Indemnity for these would sweep away a whole year's revenue-(I hear a gentleman near me say two or three years.) Sir, I have purposely referred to this subject of the negroes, lest it should be said that I was obdurate and insensible to one class of sufferers and one species of losses, but all alive to another nearer home, and for the express purpose that I might thus publicly declare that, were a claim, like that provided for in this bill, set up by the losers of negro slaves, I should be just as much opposed to it as I am to this, and for the self-same reasons. [H. of R. and Sen. ed gentleman from Virginia, on most points, but thought he had not fully explained the reason of the distinction he had made. Mr. B. said he was not aware of any instance in which a Government was bound to indemnify for a belligerant act, considered simply as such, and most of the difficulty which had occurred arose from cases where property was destroyed by the enemy, when in possession of the Government. But Mr. B. begged the committee to remember that no difference existed in these cases, whether the property was destroyed by the enemy or the Government itself. And the reason was this: every well regulated Government, when it takes the property of the citizen, is bound to pay for it; and if it is taken for a temporary use to return it in a state as good as it received it. When, therefore, it is destroyed by the enemy, the Government is deprived of the power of performing the moral obligation under which it labors, and can only make compensation in money, which it is bound to do. Nor can it take advantage of the same defence, as an individual, for the non-performance of its contract. For the private lessee defends on the ground of inevitable necessity-a necessity against which he could not by possibility defend-but the Government being entrusted with the whole power of the nation for its defence, is not permitted to avail itself of this excuse. For this reason, Mr. B. said, his vote would be entirely regulated by the proof how far the property in question was in the actual possession of the Government; and, if it was not in such possession, he conceived the petitioners had no greater claim than every individual subjected to the vicissitudes of war. Mr. TRACY, of New York, then took the floor, in support of the bill, and had been addressing the House for some time, when, On motion of Mr WRIGHT, of Ohio, the Committee rose; and, having obtained leave to sit again, The House adjourned. IN SENATE.-WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1824. The Senate, according to the order of the day, proceeded to the consideration of the bill "to abolish imprisonment for debt." He did not know that any opposition would be made to it now, on general principles; but if any were intended, he should propose to take it up at a future day for general discussion; at present he hoped the investigation would be confined to its details, for which purpose he moved that it be taken up by sections. The question of policy I need not agitate it has been frequently and powerfully pressed upon the committee. My object has been to show that the fundamental principle of the bill is wrong; that this is not one of those appeals to sheer and abstract justice, in which the maxim applies, "fiat justitia, ruat calum"-but that it is a case which, if it has any claims, applies itself exclusively to the principle of sympathy. In that point of view it is certainly not for me to dictate to this House. If, on Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, remarked that this bill the whole case, they shall choose to award any thing in had been very maturely digested by the committee, and way of mitigation for these losses, it is very well, but greatly modified from the bill of last session, with the that is not this bill. The bill, I do maintain, goes fur-view of obviating objections made to it at that time. ther than any Government ever went before, or ever can go, without danger of ruin: it runs out into consequences which are beyond our utmost sight. Consider what may not be said to be either the direct, or indirect consequences of war. The scholar is driven by it from his books, and flies to arms-the husbandman leaves his plough in the furrow-all classes of the community are thrown into a state of greater or less derangement-all these are the effects of war; and the act of Government is its immediate canse. An embargo, for instance, is laid-the merchant's obligations come upon him while his capital lies unemployed, and his ships are rotting at the wharves. The farmer loses his foreign market, and his crops are rotting in his barn the injury is every where you can never indemnify all who suffer-and why must one small class be preferred before all their brethren in calamity? No, sir, unless the suffering has been directly occasioned by the act of Government, in using private property for military purposes-there is no claim, but a claim on our compassion. The bill recognizes a demand upon our justice; and as such I am fundamentally opposed to it. I move to strike out the enacting clause. Mr. BRADLEY, of Vermont, said he did not rise for the purpose of extending the debate, nor should he have risen at all, had the principles by which he should be governed on this occasion been enunciated with sufficient distinctness. He cordially agreed with the learn This was done, and some verbal amendments made. The bill having been gone through, Mr. COBB moved to strike out the following sentences from the fourth section, viz: 64 'But, after the return thereof, the defendant or defendants may contest the allegation of the said oaths or affirmations, before the court in which the said suit or action is instituted, in such form as the court shall prescribe. And if the court shall be of opinion that the said allegations are not well founded, it may make an order, to be entered on record, discharging the said bail or security from his or their suretyship." duration, embracing occasional remarks on general prinThis motion gave rise to a debate of near two hours' ciples, but chiefly involving questions of practice and proceeding in the courts of the different states, &c. &c. MILLS, at considerable length; and was opposed with The motion was supported by the mover and by Mr. much earnestness by Messrs. JOHNSON, of Ky. BARBOUR, and VAN BÜREN. Mr. BRANCH made also some remarks on the question of modification; and then The bill was postponed to to-morrow. H. of R.] Georgia Militia Claims. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Dec. 29, 1824. Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, according to notice, moved to discharge the committee of the whole from the further consideration of the report of the Committee on Military Affairs on the claim of that state for compensation for services performed by her militia, in 1793-4. The motion was carried-ayes 63, noes 56. [DEC. 29, 1824. which were incurred during the continuance of such agency. I propose to shew, also, that the United States are bound by constitutional principles, to defray all expenses incurred, (subsequent to the adoption of the Fed, eral Constitution,) by military operations necessary to the defence of an individual state; and that, under the operation of the Constitution, an individual state cannot be charged with such expenses. Mr. THOMPSON then moved to recommit the report to the same committee, with instructions "to report a bill making an appropriation for the payment of the said claims; the appropriation to be conformed to the report of the Secretary of War, made to this House upon the subject of those claims, in the year 1803, and to embrace each class of claims respectively, as described in that re-gia. If I succeed in either of the two last propositions, port." In support of this motion, Mr. THOMPSON rose, and addressed the House as follows: "It becomes my duty, said Mr. T. as a Representative of the people of Georgia, to urge upon the attention of the House the consideration of the claim which is exhibited in the Report now before you. It is with some hesitancy I make this attempt, not because I doubt the strength or fairness of the claim, but because so just a claim has been so long neglected by the United States. Unused, as I am, to address the ear of this House, and notwithstanding the embarrassment under which, (I am conscious,) I in some sort labor, I dare believe that, if I am so fortunate as to have the indulgence of an attentive hearing, for a few minutes, I shall be able to satisfy the House, not only of the justness of these claims, but that they ought to be paid by the United States. And, finally, that the state of Georgia did, prior to the adoption of the Constitution, incur expenses to a much greater amount than the sum stipulated in the Treaty of Cession, which expenses come much more properly within the description of expenses referred to in that treaty, than these militia claims, which were created subsequent to the adoption of the Constitution by Georthe motion now pending before the House must prevail. These militia claims are founded upon services alleged to have been rendered to the United States, in the years 1792, 3, and 4, by certain detachments of the militia of Georgia, in defence of that state, against the Creek and Cherokee nations of Indians. At that time, Georgia presented to several warlike tribes of hostile savages, a thinly inhabited frontier of about four hundred miles extent; those savages had long cherished a hostile disposition towards the infant settlements of Georgia, and had frequently, before that period, indulged their savage thirst for blood, by desolating those young settlements, and butchering the defenceless inhabitants At length, excited by their hope of plunder, and fired with jealousy and rage, by the artful representations of a few designing, discontented chiefs amongst them, the Creek Indians, especially at the commencement of the period to It may be thought that I have, in the prosecution of which this inquiry is directed, attacked the frontier setmy object, to combat prejudices which are, perhaps, sup- tlements of Georgia, with such fury, as seemed to threaposed to exist against these claims, in consequence of the ten a total destruction of those settlements. The Governor several rejections of them by committees of this House, of Georgia represented to the President of the United to whom the subject has been heretofore referred. No, States the then critical situation of that state, which resir, I will not insult this House by supposing that such presentation was supported by satisfactory evidence, rejections have dictated to them a decision upon this sub- that murders and depredations had already been comject. intend no disrespect to the committees who have mitted on the defenceless frontier inhabitants-and in heretofore reported against these claims; on the contra- consequence of such representation, the Secretary of ry, I cherish towards the gentlemen who composed those War, on the 27th day of October, in 1792, wrote to the committees, sentiments of proper respect; indeed, I an- Governor of Georgia, which communication contains ticipate, with some confidence, that some of those gen- this unequivocal passage. "If the information you may tlemen will review their decision upon this subject If receive, shall substantiate, clearly, any hostile designs on such rejections, however, are considered as amounting the part of the Creeks against the frontiers of Georgia, to an argument against these claims, in reply to such ar- you will be pleased to take the most effectual means for gument, I will only say, (and I presume it is admissible the defence thereof, which may be in your power, and to say,) that the fact of the very favorable reception which the occasion inay require." Thus, the Executive these claims have heretofore met in the Senate, together of Georgia was clothed with full discretionary powers, with the several reports made to this House, favorable to and was constituted the judge of the necessity of calling the claimants, should be received as a countervailing out the militia and of the force necessary to be employargument. The only ground upon which the Commit- ed. And in the exercise of such discretionary powers, tee on Military Affairs found their rejection of these we present to your conclusive evidence, that several declaims, is the assumption that these claims were adjust-tacliments of the militia of Georgia, were ordered into ed by the Treaty of Cession entered into between the service, for the defence of the frontiers of Georgia, state of Georgia and the United States, on the 24th day against an enemy common to the United States. The of April, 180, which is a virtual admission that they evidence on which the claimants rely for the support of were originally just. If, on a full investigation of this their claims, is embodied in documents printed under an subject, it shall appear to the House that the expenses order of the House, and laid on our tables yesterday. which were consequent on the services upon which these The Ilouse will there find the correspondence between claims are predicated, were not incurred by Georgia, the Secretary of War, in the year 1793, and the then actthen it will be acknowledged that they do not come ing agent for the supply of the troops in Georgia, which within the description of expenses referred to in the shows that the agent had caused rations to be regularly Treaty of Cession, as that treaty referred distinctly to issued to the militia, who now claim compensation for expenses which were incurred by Georgia. If they do their service. And the report of the Secretary of War, not come within that description, they could not have made to this House upon this subject in 1803, informs been adjusted by that treaty. In the investigation of this us that regular pay and muster rolls, showing the sersubject, I propose to show to the House, that the Go-vice of these militia, have been received at that departvernor of Georgia, when arranging the defence of that ment under the direction of the President of the United state, (by which these claims were created,) acted under States. the authority and control, and as the agent of the President. If I succeed in this, it will be conceded by all, that the United States were bound to pay the expenses The evidence submitted must, I think, satisfy the House, as it has the Committee on Military Affairs, that the militia did perform the service for which compensa 77 Georgia Militia Claims. tion is now asked; and the amount due is not a matter of speculative opinion, for the estimates prepared and forwarded by the then acting agent for the War Depart ment in Georgia, and now on file, ascertains the precise amount. Then, the service was performed. The individuals who performed it were, therefore, entitled to compensation. Such compensation has not yet been made, but is now due, and it is due from the United States; because, the Governor of Georgia, when arranging the defence of that state, acted under the authority, and as the agent of the President. The service was, therefore, rendered to the United States, especially as it was Consequently, the United against a common enemy. States are bound to pay the expenses which were incurred by that service. But I contend that the United States are bound, by constitutional principles-principles perfectly independent of any agency which the President may have had in arranging the military defence of Georgia-to pay these claims. 78 dently, under the constitution, as constitutional agent of the United States. Will it be denied that the President did assume the direction and control of the military ar rangements made in the defence of Georgia? Why, then, the Secretary's letter of the 27th of October, before alluded to? Why did the President, by the Secretary's letter of the 30th of May, 1793, addressed to the Governor of Georgia, restrain offensive expeditions into the Creek country? Why did the President, by the Secretary's letter of the 10th of June, before alluded to, approve of the measures adopted by the Governor of Georgia for the defence of that state, acknowledging that he was apprized of the large number of troops ordered into service for that purpose? And why the Secretary's letter of the same date, addressed to the Governor of South Carolina, requesting that state to aid in the defence of Georgia? But if you deny (what I am sure you the defence of that state, did act under the authority, will not) that the Governor of Georgia, when arranging The state of Georgia,on entering into the confederation, and as the agent of the President, will you say that the by the adoption of the federal Constitution, transferred expenses which were incurred by the military arrangethe power she then had, as a separate, distinct, and in- ments made in defence of Georgia, where chargeable dependent government, of making war and concluding upon that state, because the Governor, when arranging ers independent of the President? What! an individual peace, and, thereby, became a member of the American the defence of that state, exercised constitutional powUnion as a member of the Union, she was entitled to the protection of the United States; and such transfer state, a member of the Union, under the operation of of her sovereign, independent powers, imposed on the the federal constitution, chargeable with expenses incurUnited States the necessity of defraying all expenses in-red by military operations necessary to its defence curred by the military operations necessary to her de- against an enemy common to the Union! If so, to a state fence, especially as the defence of an individual state is situated as Georgia was then, and is now, the Union This right was reserved to the states, because the defence of the Union. And, although the Constitu- would not only be perfectly oppressive, but it would be tion has committed the defence of the country, general- a curse. ly, to the United States, yet the right is reserved to the of the anticipated necessity of exercising such a power was compelled to exercise this reserved right, she was, States, respectively, to defend themselves under parti- in cases of emergency; and, notwithstanding Georgia cular exigencies. This reservation is incorporated in the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution, in nevertheless, at that time, entitled to the protection of these words: "No State shall engage in war unless ac- the United States; for, by the fourth section of the 4th tually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not article of the constitution, the United States guaranties admit of delay." A state may, therefore, when actually to each individual state protection against invasion. With invaded, or when in such imminent danger of invasion as the idea of protection against invasion, I am necessarily will not admit of delay, constitutionally engage in a war compelled to associate the idea of an exertion of military against the invader; and the exercise of this reserved force; and an expenditure is inseparable from such an right, by an individual state, constitutes the Executive of exertion; then, as the constitution guaranties to each insuch state the constitutional agent of the United States. dividual state protection against invasion, and reserves What were the exigencies which authorized the military to the states, respectively, the right to defend themarrangements made for the defence of Georgia? They selves under particular exigencies, and as the exigency were the same which induced the President to clothe occurred which authorized Georgia to exercise this rethe Executive of Georgia with full discretionary powers, served right, it follows, of necessity, irresistibly follows, by the Secretary's letter of the 27th of October, 1792, that, whether the Governor of Georgia, when arranging before alluded to-the same which induced the Presi- the defence of that state, did act under the authority, dent to say to the Governor of Georgia, by the Secre- and as the agent of the President, or as constitutional tary's letter of the 10th of June, 1793, "the state of agent of the United States, or in the double capacity of Georgia being invaded, or in imminent danger thereof, agent of the President and constitutional agent of the the measures taken by your Excellency may be consi- United States, the United States are morally and constidered as indispensable: you are the judge of the degree tutionally bound to pay these claims. The constitutional of danger and of its duration, and will, undoubtedly, pro- principle which I have laid down and attempted to eluportion the defence to exigencies. The President, how- cidate, is, as it seems to me, so clearly fundamental, that ever, expresses his confidence that, when the danger any additional remarks by me, on this part of the subwhich has induced you to call out so large a body of mi- ject, would chance to be superfluous, and I appeal to the litia shall have subsided, you will reduce the troops to great constitutional lawyers of the House, not only for the existing state of things." (Here, let it be observed, the correctness of this principle, but to aid me in supthat this letter not only confirmed, but renewed the port of it. powers given by the previous letter.) And the Secretary's letter, of the same date, addressed to the Governor of South Carolina, acknowledged that the President had received authentic information of the unprovoked and cruel outrages of the Creek Indians upon the frontiers of Georgia. I presume it is admitted by the House, and that it will not be denied by any one, that the state of Georgia was invaded, and that the danger of a still more serious invasion was daily increasing. The Governor of Georgia, therefore, when arranging the defence of that state, exercised a two-fold power; for the power which he exercised under the authority, and as the agent of the President, he had a right to exercise, indepen I anticipate that it will be said, that the Secretary's letter, of the 19th of July, 1793, addressed to the Governor of Georgia, withdrew from the Executive of that state the power previously given by the President. Be it so: the evidence submitted to you shows that the frontiers of Georgia were still pressed by a murderous savage foe. Yes, sir, defenceless females were then fly. ing with their helpless children from the Indian scalping knife; driven by a storm of savage war, they were even then, all shelterless, forlorn, and destitute, wandering The necessity which through the gloom of night, or, guided alone by the blaze of their humble cottage, fell an easy and unresisting prey to the ruthless savage. H. of R.] Georgia Militia Claims. [DEC. 29 1824. evidence of Mr. Lincoln and the Georgia commissioners, called the militia into the field, sir, as a direct conse Mr. Lincoln's construction and impressions were bot-large bounties of land within the present limits of that tomed upon the erroneous supposition, that these claims originally formed a debt against the state of Georgia. Sir, Georgia never did acknowledge them as forming a debt against her, nor can any legislative act of the state be found which authorized the service; neither has Georgia ever, directly or indirectly, assumed to pay these claims. She always viewed them, and properly too, as originally forming a debt against the United States. In opposition to Mr. Lincoln's reasonings and mere impressions upon this subject, we have the solemn and positive declaration of two of the commissioners on the part of Georgia. They say that "the militia services, which are the basis of the present application, were not at all contemplated as a part of the consideration referred to in the articles of cession." Will you reject the evidence of the Georgia commissioners because of their supposed identity of interest with that state? Why then admit the evidence of Mr. Lincoln, who stood in the same relation to the United States? If you admit the evidence of Mr. Lincoln, you are bound to admit the evidence of the Georgia commissioners. If you admit the allotted to those troops is 1,981,240; this, By two several acts of the Legislature of 12,840 00 . DEC. 29, 1824.] Georgia Militia Claims.-Niagara Sufferers. çember, 1793, and the second on the 22d of February, 1796, the sum of [H. of R. feel humbled by the recollection, that it has been, here35,654 00 tofore, made to my country, repeatedly made, and made in vain. In the name of the deceased soldier, I claim for the widow and orphan some small portion of the price of the blood of the husband and father. They are the children of sorrow and affliction-miserable subjects of squallid poverty-the destitute widows and orphans of deceased soldiers-even the decrepid soldier himself, who thus appeals to your humanity, your sense of Justice. Then let not a cold, calculating, unfeeling policy dictate to you the rejection of so just a claim. Mr. DWIGHT, of Massachusetts, denying all hostility to the claims of Georgia, which had just been so ably advocated by the member from that State, thought that it was nevertheless due to the gentleman from New York, (Mr. TRACY,) who was engaged in the discussion of a subject previously before the House, and which had, at his own motion, been suspended yesterday, to leave the subject of the Georgia claims until that discussion was finished-and, with this view, Mr. D. moved that the report of the Committee of Military Affairs, referred to in the gentleman's motion, be laid upon the table for the present. Which motion was carried. NIAGARA SUFFERERS. On motion of Mr. TRACY, the House again resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the bill further to amend the act authorizing payment for property lost, captured, or destroyed by the enemy, in the late war with Great Britain, and for other purposes-Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio, in the Chair. Mr. TRACY rose in reply to the speech of Mr. BARHe observed that it was not his inBOUR, yesterday. was appropriated for the purpose of extinguishing the Indian title to the territory within the limits of Georgia. Besides this, the state had been obliged to hold frequent treaties with the Indians, commencing in the year 1773, for the purpose of restoring and preserving peace, and fixing on temporary boundary lines. On the subject of Indian treaties, our own experience has been such as will enable us to form some tolerable estimate of the immense expense the state of Georgia must have thus incurred: estimating the amount on this item, including presents to the Indians, with incidental expenses, it will be considered very moderate at $200,000 00 Making, in the aggregate, the sum of $1,491,187 20 These expenses come within the description of expenses referred to in the treaty of cession, because they were incurred by the state of Georgia; and these are the expenses referred to. We are informed by the report of the Secretary of War before alluded to, that, at the time when the service was performed, for which compensation is now asked, a hostile disposition pervaded the greater part of the Indian nations within the United States; that a serious war then existed between the Uni ed States and the numerous tribes of Indians in the country northwest of the Ohio, and that a predatory war was carried on between the territory southeast of the Ohio, (now the state of Tennessee,) and the Cherokee Nation of Indians, the expenses of which were principally defrayed by the United States. And that, at that time to, troops were kept in pay at the expense of tention to have entered further into the debate on this the United States on the frontiers of South Carolina. question, than he had already done on the present as Shall Georgia, alone, be considered as unworthy the no-well as at former sessions. He did hope that of those tice and protection of the United States? Is she, alone, who thought with him on the subject of this bill, there driven to the humiliating necessity of appealing, so re- would have been enough on every side to have sustainpeatedly, on behalf of her citizens, to the justice, the ed its cause. He was well aware that his situation, as magnanimity of the United States, and shall such ap- the representative of the sufferers, detracted much from peal finally be in vain? Or, do you conceive that the the weight of any thing he could advance on the subantiquity of these claims furnish an objection to their ject; but, as he found himself left alone to sustain this admission? The neglect of the United States has made controversy, he could only regret that the task had fallthem stale. Will you reject the claims on the supposi-en on one so very inadequate to do it justice. tion that it is difficult, at this remote period, to investigate their merits clearly? The evidence in support of the facts on which they are predicated, is strong and conclusive. But it will be said, perhaps, that many, and, it may be, that most of the individual claimants are dead. Then, in the name of justice, I demand just ice to their offspring. No, they are not all dead; many live, the oppressed subjects of infirmity and extreme poverty. Too many live, witnesses of the injustice and ingratitude of that government, in defence of which they have so gallantly fought. But it may be that their claims are transferred to strangers. Would the existence of such a fact discharge the United States from a strong moral and political obligation to pay these claims? Surely not, Then why withhold, yet longer, from these claimants, what they had a right to receive at your hands, thirty years ago? How has Georgia deserved such treatment? She has ever been devoted to the American Union, true to the American character: she has gallantly defended the Union, long barred the approach of the infuriated savage to the interior states, while she received the death stroke of the Indian tomahawk in her own bosom. Her frontier has been deluged by the blood of her citizens, slaughtered in defending the United States: and still justice, sheer justice, is withheld from them. Once more she appeals, on behalf of her neglected, suffering citizens, to the just ice, the magnanimity of the American people; and in making this appeal, even I, (a very humble American,) VOL. I.-6 Mr. T. then went into a consideration of the principles of national law, as they had been laid down by the gentleman from Virginia, with the most of whose positions he felt inclined to coincide. He did not think, he said, of maintaining that government was bound to pay for all losses suffered in a state of war-but only in the very case in which the gentleman from Virginia had admitted this obligation, viz: when the character of property was changed in consequence of military occupancy He might, indeed, object to the gentleman's doctrines, that a government such as ours is not bound by the same rules as the ancient despotisms of Europe. He would meet the genBut this was not necessary. tleman on his own ground. If Government changed the character of the property, and in consequence of this change, it was afterwards destroyed, the Government is bound to pay. On this ground he was willing to rest the claims of the Niagara sufferers. He here referred to the report of the committee printed at a former session on this subject, as containing evidence that the destruction was in consequence of the connection that government had with the property. He insisted that the sufferers were not bound to show that the destruction was on the allowed principles of civilized warfare; and to sustain the title to indemnity by individuals who suffered loss, it was sufficient to show that it was caused by the public use of their property. He confessed himsel unable to discover, with any precision, what the usages of civilized war were, as applied to this subject. |
