the insertion of his name in that bill was of itself || principle applicable alike to nations and individthe most irrefragable testimony that he was a pa- | uals, and the application of this rule, if ever proper, was in this instance, where the fund was abund triot and a Whig. The gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS]antly ample, and where the new trustee had been is witty about the scars of George Galphin; says they were only the scars of property lost-not such scars as entitle to a pension. Will not the gentleman excuse an old man on the borders of seventy, if he did not engage in battle and receive a wound there? The gentleman sneers at the perseverance of the owners of this claim; wonders why they did not get discouraged; and seems to forget that it was the unjust withholding of this claim that reduced their father to poverty and took from them their paternal estate. Honest men will excuse the perseverance of the heirs of George Galphin, if that perseverance was in a just cause; and perhaps men of correct taste will think that the claim is none the less just because the gentleman from New York has seen fit to bestow on it a nickname. In 1833, the representatives of George Galphin employed the Hon. George W. Crawford, one of the most talented men in Georgia, to prosecute the claim; and so great had been the expense and so disheartening the results, that they proposed that he should exact nothing if nothing was obtained, and was to have half that should be recovered. As to the propriety of this bargain, it is not for us to determine, or complain; it was lawful, and made by parties understanding their business; if they are content, we should be; it did not add to or detract from the justice or validity or merits or amount of the claim. I think that it is now established beyond cavil, that in 1773 George Galphin had a debt against the Creek and Cherokee Indians, of £9,791 15s. 5d.; that he discharged that debt on their paying that amount to the King of England in land; and that the King held that land in trust, to pay that debt. That the war of the Revolution deprived the King of the power of discharging the duty of that trust, and that the duty devolved on the State of Georgia. That Georgia took upon herself the burden of the trust, and promised to fulfill it, and in 1780 enacted that she would use the trust estate for her own benefit, and pay the amount to George Galphin in two, three, and four years, with interest at 6 per cent., provided he was a patriot and a Whig-a friend to America; and all the world admits that he was a Whig-even the gentleman from New York admits that. It is a universal rule of law and equity, that when a trustee appropriates to his own use the trust fund, he becomes liable for the principal and created by the personal exertions and patriotism of the cestui que trust, and where the trust fund was created by his means; Georgia, by her act of 1780, recognized these principles, that principal as well as interest was due; and she vindicated her own sense of justice in agreeing to pay both. That act is still in force-it never has been repealed; the inference, therefore, is irresistible, is undisputed and indisputable, that Georgia was liable in 1780 to pay to George Galphin £9,791 15s. 5d., and the interest thereon. The allegation of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] that this claim could not be enforced in a court of law-that there was nothing on which to start a suit, is only an assertion of the fact that an individual cannot sue a State, and has not, and should not have the slightest influence on the justice of the case. The existence of this fact, however, is the reason, and the only reason, why this claim has not long ago been collected, principal and interest and cost, by judgment and execution. At the first session of the Twenty-ninth Congress, the representatives of George Galphin presented this claim to the Senate of the United States, and it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, and received (so says the report) a full and particular examination by that committee, who fully set forth their views in the following report. As this report has much to do with the passage of the law under which this claim was paid, and the construction to be given to that law, it may not be amisa to state the names of the Judiciary Committee. First session of the Twenty-ninth Congress they were, Messrs. ASHLEY, BREESE, BERRIEN, WESTCOTT, and WEBSTER. Second session Twentyninth Congress, Messrs. ASHLEY, BREESE, WESTCOTT, and DAYTON. First session, Thirtieth Congress, Messrs. ASHLEY, BUTLER, BERRIEN, WESTCOTT, and DAYTON. Mr. ASHLEY was chair man. These are the names of the Senators who, for three successive sessions of Congress, gave a full and particular examination to the claim of George Galphin, under the treaty of 1773, and adopted this as their report: IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, December 29, 1847. Mr. ASHLEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the petition of Milledge Galphin, heir and legal representative of George Galphin, deceased, made the following report: That this case was before the Senate at the last Congress, and received the favorable action of the Committee on the Ju the interest due to his cestui que trust. It is a "diciary, to which it was referred during both sessions. At the first session of the 29th Congress, it received a full and particular examination by the Committee on the Judiciary, whose views, as set forth in the annexed report, are adopted by this committee and made a part of their report. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, July 7, 1846. Mr. ASHLEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 10 whom was referred the petition of Milledge Galphin, legal representative of George Galphin, deceased, made the following report: That George Galphin was, prior to the year 1773, a licensed trader with the Creek and Cherokee Indians in the then colony of Georgia. That he was also, by the assignment to him of their several claims, the representative of other traders, to whom, with himself, those Indians had become largely indebted. In the same year Sir James Wright, governor of the colony of Georgia, in pursuance of instructions from the British Government, concluded a treaty with the said Indians, by which a considerable extent of territory (now forming the counties of Wilkes and Lincoln, and portions of the counties of Oglethorpe and Green, in the State of Georgia) was ceded to the Crown of Great Britain; and by an express provision inserted in the treaty the debts of the Indians to these traders were secured to be paid from the proceeds of the lands ceded, which thus became charged with their payment. The King afterwards, in the year 1775, ratified the treaty, and directed instructions to be issued for the appointment of commissioners under it, to liquidate the claims of the traders, with a view to their payment out of the fund thus provided for that purpose. Before these commissioners Galphin's claims were proven, to the amount of £9,791 15s. 5d. sterling money of Great Britain, and would unquestionably have been paid by that Government had not an event occurred which totally changed the relations which existed between the colonies and the Mother country, and arrested and, as it has resulted, entirely destroyed all prospect of a settlement in that quarter. That event was the war of independence, which broke out in the year 1776, the year after the liquidation of Galphin's claims by the commissioners; and di regarding all other considerations than those of patriotism and love of liberty, he, with a magnanimity and self-devotion, the extent of which was proved by the entire loss of his claims, threw himself into the ranks ofthe opponents of tyranny and oppres sion, and manfully and faithfully adhered to them and their cause throughout the trying period during which that struggle continued. And such was his devotion to his country, and the efficiency of his services against her enemies, and so important did the British Government regard his destruction to the success of their cause within the sphere in which his services were rendered, that a resolution passed the Parliament attainting him of high treason, and a price was set upon his head as an outlaw and a rebel. The price of his patriotic devotion to bis country was the loss of his claim against the Britsh Government, which was liquidated, and would have been paid but for this cause. Other Indian traders, whose claims rested on precisely the same grounds as that of Galphin's, and were provided for by the same treaty, but who adhered to the British side in the Revolution, were paid by that Government; while that of Galphin's heirs, he being now dead, was rejected because of his adhering to the side of popular rights against an arbitrary and unjust Government. The lands ceded by the Indians in 1773 to the Crown of Great Britain, for the sole purpose of discharging their debts to the traders, on the success of the struggle for independence, passed into the possession of the State of Georgia, and now constitute several counties and parts of counties within her limits. Believing the liability of those lands for the payment of their d bt still to follow their change of ownership, the heirs of Galphin prosecuted their claim before the Legislature of that State, but were never able to procure its recognition by more than one or the other branch of that body; for while all agreed in its justice and equity, doubts enter As there can be no question as to the justice or equity of this claim, the question presents itself, Who is bound to pay it--the Government of the United States, or that of the State of Georgia? Here was a debt secured by expre-s treaty stipulation between the British Government and certain Indians, and no ob-tacle remained in the way to its payment as provided for in the treaty; it had become a vested right, and but for the Revolution which intervened, would have been acquitted and discharged. The Revolution was not the act of the State of Georgia. She was merely a participant in what was the common, glorious act of all; it was by no special act of hers that the treaty by which this debt was secured was set aside; and it would seem that, being only a sharer in the act which caused the rights secured under it to be disregarded, she could scarcely be called on to meet the whole responsibility, which should be the joint responsibility, as its benefits were the joint benefits, of all who contributed to its accomplishment. As well might any single State be called on to indemnify a citizen of the United States against the act of the General Government, because he resided within her limits, as that the State of Georgia should be called on to discharge this debt, which was arrested in its payment by the Revolution; which may, considering its consequences, be called a national act, and which transferred from the British Government, against which Galphin's heirs could now have no claim, to that of the United States, their right of appeal for its settlement. By the act of the Revolution the Government which followed, and of which Galphin, as he had contributed to its establishment, claimed the protection, transferred to itself all the obligations which existed prior thereto on the part of the Government which by it was set aside, as far as the claims of a similar character with the present were cone rned. The Government of the United States now stands in the relation to the Indian tribes that Great Britain did prior to the Revolution. And the obligations of the treaty entered into by that Government with the Creek and Cherokee Indians before that event, which had for its object the payment of the just debts of the traders, would seem to devolve on the United States, wherever it could be shown that the claimant had fixed that obligation by his support of the Government substituted. That the obligation runs no further is sufficiently manifest, and needs no argument. The Government of Great Britain paid the debts of the Indians to such traders as had espoused her cause, and rejected Galphin's, who opposed it. And it was the duty of the United States, of whose Government Galphin's heirs were now the subjects, to prosecute theirs, and, failing to do so, have made themselves justly liable for its pay ment. Apart from the considerations above set forth, the State of Georgia appropriated these lands-set apart as they were by the treaty of 1773, as a fund for the payment of these debts-to the public defence, and the bounty warrants of the officers and soldiers of the Georgia line in the revolutionary army were located upon them. By an act of Congress approved July 5, 1832, the Government of the United States p ovided for certain claims, which Virginia had assumed to the officers of that State engaged in the publie service during the revolutionary war. It is believed that the principles of that act are applicable to the present claim, which the committee think ought to be allowed, and accordingly report a bill for relief. This committee is a standing committee of the Senate, and is not subject to the sneer of the gentleman from New York, "that it was packed, an "amiable committee, ready and willing to make any report which an interested chairman might dictate." It was a committee of the Senate of the United States, all lawyers but one, profoundly learned lawyers-statesmen of the highest rank, the great | Webster is of their Webster is of their number. On this report the tained by many as to the obligation of the State to pay it following law was passed, without discussion, objection, or amendment--unanimously passed on the operated to defeat its success. 14th day of August, 1848, and was approved by Presi- changed his opinion, and concluded that a part of dent Polk: "That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and required to examine and adjust the claim of the late George Galphin, under the treaty made by the Governor of Georgia with the Creek and Cherokee Indians, in the year 1773, and to pay the amount which may be found due to Milledge Galphin, executor of the said George Galphin, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated." the interest should be paid. Mr. Whittlesey, the Comptrollor, was of opinion that interest ought not to be paid. Mr. Attorney General Johnson is of opinion that interest should be paid. Glorious uncertainty of lawyers, if not of the law-six for the payment of interest, six opposed to the payment, and one, Mr. McCullough, betwixt and between. Four that the claim was equitably due from the United States; five that it was not equitably due from the United States, but became due by the passage of the act of the 14th of August, 1848. In the midst of this glorious uncertainty, this babel of opinions, I invite the attention of the House to certain plain rules for the construction of statutes generally. One rule is, to ascertain the evil or wrong, which sought for redress, and so to construe the law as to redress the evil complained of. On this law, Mr. Secretary Walker, on the 28th of February, 1848, paid the principal of the debt or claim. Being greatly pressed for time, it being within four days of the expiration of his office as Secretary of the Treasury, and not being fully advised as to the propriety of paying interest, having an impression, but not a decided one, against | the payment of interest, he left the question of interest open. It was a question which he should, (thus he testifies,) if he had remained in office, have submitted to the Attorney General, and should have abided by his opinion. He has read the argument submitted to Mr. Meredith, the Secretary of the Treasury; it has produced a much more favorable opinion in his mind as to the propriety of allowing interest; and if he had had the advantage of that argument he should have referred the question of interest to the Attorney General, and should, under his opinion, have allowed it. Thus it is clear that the late Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Walker) would have al-three thousand seven hundred and twenty-two lowed the interest. But let us examine for ourselves this law. The evil complained of, in this instance, was, that a citizen of South Carolina, under the authority of the King of England, had traded with the Creek and Cherokee Indians till they fell in his debt £9,791, 15s. 5d.; that the Indians, being grateful and honest, were willing to pay this debt in land, and did pay it by ceding to the King of England, in trust to pay it, five hundred and forty acres (that is the share of Galphin in the lands) of the most valuable land in Georgia; that the war of the Revolution, in which Galphin took a part in favor of Georgia, prevented the King from executing the trust, and Georgia became trustee in place of the King; that Georgia appropriated these five hundred and forty-three thousand seven hun dred and twenty-two acres of land to her own use, and by a solemn act of her Legislature, bound herself to pay Galphin's debt, with interest at six per cent.; that for fifty years the representatives of Galphin had appealed to Georgia to pay this claim in vain; that in 1848 the United States, con What was the Secretary to do under this law? The gentlemen from New York [Messrs. BROOKS and CONGER] say, that it was his duty to pay neither principal nor interest-viz: to do nothing at all; and so they bestow a sweeping denunciation | on Mr. Walker, Mr Meredith, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Crawford; both insisting that the law of August 14, 1848, only authorized the Secretary to ascertain and pay what was due from the United States. Five of the committee (Messrs. BURT, JACKSON, DISNEY, FEATHERSTON, and MANN) insist that the principal was properly paid, un-sidering that the claim ought to be paid, passed der the law, but that it was not due originally from the United States, but from Georgia, but that the interest was paid without authority of law. Four of the committee, (Messrs. BRECK, CONRAD, KING, and GRINNELL,) are of opinion || that the claim was just against the United States, || and that the interest was paid in conformity to law and precedent. Mr. Jones, First Auditor under Mr. Polk, and who first examined the claim, was of opinion that both principal and interest should be paid. The Comptroller, Mr. McCullough, thought the principal and not the interest should be paid, but this law, determining to do justice, full, ample, and complete justice. By this law the Secretary was commanded to examine and adjust the claim of George Galphin, under the treaty of 1773. What claim was that? A claim to £9,791, which was secured on lands worth four times the amount, which lands the trustee had appropriated to his own use seventy years ago. What was the amount of that claim? The same as if it had been against an individual, the principal and interest of the debt-provided the trust fund was adequate to pay it, of which last fact there is no doubt. But the gentlemen was. lina, [Mr. BURT,] in his report, it was not a just demand against the United States. The gentleman from South Carolina, who thus reports to this House, when acting as its committee to investigate the conduct of a public officer, was a distinguished member of that Congress which passed the law to pay this "unjust" claim, aided in its passage, and congratulated Dr. Milledge Galphin on the happy event, and assured him that the President would approve of the law. Hear him: results of his labors, and the gentleman from South Carolina finds not the slightest fault with him. By some sad mistake or oversight, the dentist has passed by the tooth that aches-the tooth that is palpably carious, it being on the southern side of the jaw-and tugs with merciless energy at the good, sound tooth he was not invited to touch. from New York [Mr. BROOKS and Mr. CONGER] || aids in making the brief in the case, pockets the say, that it was not a just debt against the United States. Grant it, for argument's sake. The law directed the claim to be paid-no matter against whom—it was the claim of George Galphin, under the treaty of 1773. No matter whether it was against Great Britain, Georgia, or the United States, it was the claim that was to be paid; the claim that was to be examined and adjusted; in Nothing is further from my intention than to other words, adjudicated or judged on, and the impute partial or dishonorable intentions to the amount paid. What amount? The amount that gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. BURT,] the Secretary should find justly and equitably due || either in the passage of the law of August 14, 1848, on that claim-no matter against whom the claim or in his report to this House on the meaning and But, says the gentleman from South Caro-intention of that law, or the mode in which it was executed. The strong contrast, however, between the vote of the gentleman when, in August 14, 1848, he directed the Secretary of the Treasury to examine and adjust this claim, and pay the amount of it out of the Treasury of the United States; and his report of the 17th May, 1850, when he says that it was not a just claim against the United States, would seem to show that he had derived his information when he passed the law from one source, and when he made his report from another. When he passed the law, he no || doubt referred to the report of the committee of the Senate accompanying the law. If that was a seeming justification to him, it is by reason and practice and law, an obligatory rule for the accounting. officers. He had a right to go behind the report and the bill: the Secretary was bound to obey the law, and to use the report as a key to its meaning. is a principle advanced by this committee that deserves comment. It is the sweeping principle that the United States never pay interest. This principle is predicated on the false idea, on the legal fiction, that the Government is always able and ready and willing to pay. I take occasion to say, that there is no justice in the principle, and very little truth in the alleged facts on which it is predicated. The Government is the most slack paymaster in the world; is rarely, if ever, ready and willing, and sometimes is unable to pay; and hence it is, that for most things done for the Government, a higher price is claimed than of individuals. "WASHINGTON, August 14, 1848. "DEAR SIR: I have the pleasure to say that the bill in which you are interested has just been signed by the Speaker of the House, and will be approved by the President. "With great respect, your obedient servant, "Dr. M. GALPHIN." "ARMISTEAD BURT. There This tardy discovery that the demand is not a just one against the United States, will not now save the nation a dollar. It will not obstruct the passage of a single dollar into the pocket of his southern neighbor and friend. It is a great calamity that the gentleman [Mr. BURT] did not make this discovery at the time of the passage of the law, when his own single objection would have defeated it—it would have saved the United States | $230,000; but in that event his friend Dr. Gal phin would not have been paid, and the chance would not have occurred of criticising a northern public officer, who was a Whig. The result, therefore, in one point of view, is not so disastrous after all. His constituent, his personal and political and southern friend, gets the money; and his northern political opponent, and he only, gets the rebuke; and all by the aid of the gentleman from South Carolina. The Secretary of Warthe recipient of one half of this sum, and who urged its payment, and whose conduct it was the special duty of the committee to investigate-escapes rebuke entirely-not a criticism is lisped against him in the gentleman's report. The Secretary of War urges the payment "in behalf of his Georgia friends;" gives Judge Bryan $3,000 It is in effect saying that the United States have (three thousand dollars) to push the claim through; || set up a prerogative to exact interest, but not to I take occasion to say, that the allegation of the committee that sovereigns do not pay interest to each other or to individuals, is entirely contradicted by the executive, judicial, and diplomatic history of the country. Is not the mode in which the United States settled with Mexico fresh in all our memories? Do not we all know that the United States exacted interest on all those claims against Mexico, whether liquidated or not? pay it—one measure of justice for the Government, bill, were made in the same words for three succesand another for the people. sive Congresses. This opinion of Mr. Wirt, that the report of a committee is a legal key to the construction of an act passed without amendment, is fully sustained by Mr. Attorney General Butler, who says, (Attorneys General's Opinions, page 1159:) "The reports of committees should be taken as a guide in 'deciding the construction to be given to a law.' The assertion of such a principle is derogatory Attorney General Wirt, on the 7th March, 1823, to the principles of justice, the rights of the people, in reply to questions propounded by the President, and degrading to the character of the Government. page 448 of the "printed Opinions of the Attorneys The committee unanimously, and most of the General,” says that the accounting officers, in setworld besides, (except the two gentlemen from Newtling the accounts and claims of the Vice PresiYork, Mr. BROOKS and Mr. CONGER,) agree that dent, have a right to adopt the report of the comthe principal of the debt was correctly paid by Mr. mittee, as establishing the principles which are to Secretary Walker. We shall therefore be excused govern them in the examination and settlement from curiously inquiring, whether this amount is thereof, for "I consider (says Mr. Wirt) the bill correct, and whether it was due to the representa- 'which accompanies the report as a part of the retives of George Galphin. That was a foregone port, and the passage of the bill into a law as a conclusion-the amount and the right and obli- 'virtual adoption of the report, of which it was a gation to pay it was established by Mr. Secretary mere consequence; and that it would not be Walker, and that decision was binding on his suc- proper on the part of the President, in the exercessor, Mr. Meredith, and was beyond appeal. 'cise of his revisory powers, to reject the princiStill it may not be amiss to say one word as to 'ples established by the report of the committee, the amount. The claim was against the Indians, and adopt others in conflict with them. Considerand they paid it. They had an interest of course 'ing the report as a preamble to the law, its printo make the amount as small as they could. It ciples ought to be respected so far as they go." was their land, not ours, that paid the debt; and we have no right or reason to dispute the amount. Besides, this amount was certified to be due by the King's commissioners; and as the King held the residuary interest in the land after paying the || claims of the Indian traders, they had an interest in behalf of the King, their master, to make the balance as small as possible. The claim of Galphin, therefore, has undergone the closest scrutiny by parties interested to make it less-seventy-five years ago; the amount has been undisputed ever since. If we felt disposed to question the amount, the effort would and could amount to nothing. The Indians kept no account-books, and the wit- Now this report, which is a key to the meaning nesses of the transaction must be, if living, a and intent of the law-which furnished a legal hundred years old. It remains, therefore, only to and obligatory guide to the executive officers in examine whether interest should have been paid; the execution of it, which they were bound to obey and before I go into this question, I assert the||---lays down the principle, that the United States, principle-that it is the right and duty of execu- by the Revolution, assumed the position of Great tive officers to refer to the report of the committee || Britain as to the ceded lands, and became liable to that reported a bill to ascertain the meaning and pay her Whigs interested therein, as Great Britain intention of Congress, and the construction that is paid her Tories; and that was, principal and into be given to an act. It is in essence a preamble terest. terest. The report also asserts the fact, that the to the bill, and is the reason and the justification United States have made themselves justly liable of Congress for passing the law. We every day to pay this claim. The report also refers to the refer to the debates in the Convention that formed act of Congress of July 5, 1832, and asserts, that the Constitution of the United States, for the mean- the principles of that act are applicable to the claim ing and intention of the Convention in forming it,|| of George Galphin. By that act, the Secretary to enable us to construe the Constitution according of the Treasury was required to pay to Virginia to its true intent and meaning. We have also the amount of certain judgments that had been renperfect, conclusive, and uniform authority for this | dered against that State in May, 1779, for services practice. It will be borne in mind that the bill rendered in the revolutionary war. Under this accompanying the report in the Galphin case, law, the Secretary of the Treasury allowed interpassed into a law without amendment, and the re- est from the date of the judgments. The phraseport on which that law was predicated and theology of this law does not direct interest to be Mr. Attorney General Gilpin says, (at page 1343, Attorneys General's Opinions,)"that the report of the committee accompanying the bill, • should be taken as a guide in deciding any ques'tion that may arise on the construction of the 'law." |