prior to 1796. Many of them were soon afterwards tle these claims for half pay, on the principles of allowed by her Legislature. And yet, though || the half-pay cases already decided by the supreme she had paid them out of her own treasury, she court of appeals, they are rejected because the did not ask to have them refunded; and she prob- word commutation is not contained in the act. ably never would have done so, but for the heavy additional liabilities to which she was subjected by the decisions of her courts in 1830. These decisions, too, were made before there had been any agreement on the part of this Government to assume these debts. If Congress had refused to pay them, the State would have been obliged to discharge them herself. I beg leave, sir, to read, in further illustration of this subject, an extract from a report submitted to this House some ten years ago, by Mr. Hiland Hall, a gentleman who was distinguished for his bitter and unrelenting opposition to the claims of Virginia. He says: "The provision of half pay for life being viewed in an unfavorable light in many of the States, and apprehensions existing in the army that it might not be paid, the officers petitioned Congress that it might be commuted for its equivalent in a compensation for a limited term of years, or for a sum in gross; and on the 22d day of March, 1783, Congress came to the resolution that the officers of the army, to whom half pay for life had been promised, should be entitled to receive five years full pay in lieu of it; which full pay for five years is familiarly denominated "commutation" or "commutation pay." The act of July, 1832, was passed in pursuance of this application. It provides for refunding to Virginia the money which she had actually paid in discharge of these claims of her officers, and directs the payment also of the judgments which had already been recovered against her, but which had not yet been discharged. It does not stop there. The liability of Virginia in all similar Familiarly denominated commutation pay. cases, having been fixed by these decisions of her || And yet, sir, gentlemen here employ this familiar supreme court of appeals, the act also provides expression as if it was a word of deep meaning; that the department at Washington shall settle and because they cannot find it in the act of 1832, and adjust all claims remaining due, upon the prin- they conclude that it could not possibly have been ciples already decided in that court. This act, the intention of Congress to provide for the comsir, covers the whole ground taken by Virginia.pensation or equivalent which Virginia granted to It meets every exigency of her application. The her officers in lieu of half pay for life; and that, first section refunds what she had already paid; too, in the very teeth of the act which refunded to the second assumes the payment of the judgments her the money she had paid on this very account. recovered, but not paid; and the third directs that Nothing, say they, is authorized by that act but those claims "which have not been paid, or prose- half pay for life. The complaint, sir, was forcuted to judgments," shall be adjusted and settled merly the reverse of this. Mr. Hiland Hall, in a by this Government. It would be difficult to report made upon this very question to the Twentyframe a law better adapted to the object in view, seventh Congress, found it convenient to assail which was to relieve the State of every liability these claimants because they would not be satisshe had incurred to these revolutionary officers. fied with the commutation they had already reImmediately after its passage, claims were pre- ceived, but when the half pay for life amounted ferred at the department for the payment of the to a larger sum, claimed the difference from this compensation of half pay," with interest, due Government. He says: under the act of 1790. I have shown, sir, that this compensation" was a gross sum, equal to ten years half pay, and of course equal to five years full pay. But, inasmuch as the compensation of five years full pay, which had been granted by Congress to continental officers, was familiarly called commutation, and as the word commutation was not used in the act of 1832, the department decided that the expression half pay in that act, meant half pay for life, and not half pay for ten years, or full pay for five years. In other words, sir, In other words, sir, they refused to pay what they called commutation. The judgments obtained against Virginia, prior to 1796, had been nearly all for claims of this descrip-sumed were at the time satisfactory to those officers." tion. This very act of 1832 refunded to Virginia the money she had paid to discharge them, and yet, because the word commutation is not used in the law, it was decided that Congress did not intend that the department should pay any demands but those of half pay for life. 1.6.6 "A portion of the claims to half pay had been settled and paid by the State of Virginia. The money paid or those claims had been refunded to Virginia by the appropriation under the first section of the act. It could not have been the intention of Congress to authorize the Secretary to open the settlements which had been made by that State for the purpose of readjusting the claims. Nevertheless, the Secretary of the Treasury in 1832, decided that he would do so in relation to all settlements made since 1796. The allowances by Virginia to those officers had been for the commutation of five years full pay in lieu of half pay for * * life, and in all cases in which the officers lived over ten The ground now taken by the select committee seems to be the very reverse of that assumed by Mr. HALL. He complains that in certain cases half pay for life had been allowed, when the parties ought to have been satisfied with the commutation; while the committee contend that in no case can any allowance be made, except of half pay for life. Mr. HALL was understood to say that Mr. MILLSON had not correctly stated the position of Mr. Hiland Hall. Mr. MILLSON. I have read his very words. The House can judge of their force and meaning. What, sir, is commutation? It is a familiar phrase, and not a technical expression. The term is nowhere used in the Virginia act of 1790. It simply means an equivalent in ready money, for half pay for life. The State of Virginia granted to her officers this equivalent in ready money and called it "compensation of half pay. "She gave them the same compensation of half pay that Con- The gentleman from Indiana says that Virginia gress gave the continental officers. The courts of wants to put her officers on a better footing than Virginia decided that this meant a gross sum, equal the continental officers. Virginia, sir, has never to five years full pay; and yet, though the act of 1832 asked or desired any such thing. She put them, declares that the department shall adjust and set-by her act of 1790, on precisely the same footing they gave up their half pay for life, for a sum equal only to half pay for ten years. with the continental officers. He says, also, that these officers want their half pay for life and commutation besides, and he has gone so far as to de- But they endeavor to make it appear that this clare that they have thus even claimed interest on sum in gross-called by them commutation-is the very money they had in their pockets. I will much larger than the half pay for life, because inonly say that the gentleman labors under a singular || terest is payable upon that, and not upon half misconception. I undertake to affirm that neither pay. Well, sir, if interest is payable upon it, it is Virginia nor any of her citizens has ever presented only because the principal was not paid when it a claim which justifies such an imputation. became due. Suppose the half pay, as it fell due, year by year, had been paid off by the State, and this Government had refunded it to her sixty years ago, as it was bound to do: What difference would years' interest on the commutation, it is, as a mere it have made? it have made? If the United States pay sixty settlement of accounts, just the same as if they had paid the principal sixty years ago; and if the principal sum due for commutation be less, as I have shown it to be, than the principal sum due for half pay for life, they gain rather than lose by paying the former rather than the latter. It is true the United States do not allow interest upon the claims of half pay for life. And why? Simply because the Virginia court of appeals decided that interest is payable upon commutation and not upon half pay, and Congress has ordered these claims to be settled upon the principles established by that court. If Congress did not approve these principles, why did it adopt them? The committee may, if they please, call the construction adopted by the department an unnatural one, but I say that any other construction would have been I must now, sir, briefly notice some of the positions taken by the committee in their report. They tell us that "half pay is one thing, and commutation in lieu of half pay is another and an entirely different thing." No such thing, sir. It is all one and the same thing. I grant you that half pay for life is one thing, and half pay for ten years is another and a different thing; but the provision made in the third section of the act of 1832 is not confined to cases of half pay for life, as the committee everywhere seem to take for granted. It provides for half pay generally, whether it be for ten years or for life. forced and unnatural. Again: they say that half pay was given by the act of 1779, and commutation by the act of 1790. This, sir, is a most uncandid, not to say disingenuous, way of stating the fact. It is true that half pay for life was given by the act of 1779, but there is no such expression as "commutation" in the act of 1790. The phrase, as I have stated, is, "compensation of half pay." I have shown that this meant ten years' half pay. Gentlemen declare that it meant five years' full pay. They are very anxious to get rid of the expression half pay, if they can, because the act of 1832 provides for paying claims for half pay, and it is very necessary for them to show that five years' full pay is very different from ten years' half pay, and then to argue that the Virginia officers claim the former and not the latter. Really, sir, if gentle-understand this statement, it is correct? No, sir. men can see the distinction they talk about, they are blessed with a keen discernment. I confess that to me it sounds like a denial of the simplest mathematical truths, that the whole is equal to the parts, and that the parts are not greater than the whole. I rather think that if these gentlemen were claiming as grantees of the four quarters of the earth, they would be very apt to consider themselves entitled to the whole earth. Sir, to attribute to Congress the purposes ascribed to it in this report, is to suppose that in performing a simple act of justice, it meant to "Palter with us in a double sense: To keep the word of promise to the ear, They say, also, that "half pay was a war debt, and commutation a bounty after peace. Sir, I deny it. What they are pleased to style commutation was not a bounty. It was never intended as a bounty. It was only an equivalent for the half pay for life. It was only a mode of paying off a debt due to the officers. Virginia was at that very time contesting the claims of many of those officers, and denying her liability for them; and she never supposed that the act of 1790 increased the amount she had to pay them. Nor did it; it, in fact, lessened it; for at that very time eight years of their half pay was in arrear, and as it was not at all likely that these officers, or the greater part of them, would die within two years, it was clear that she must gain by an arrangement in which The committee, for the purpose of showing that Congress never supposed they were allowing commutation by the act of 1832, comment upon a ginia never commuted the half-pay claims of her statement in Mr. Gilmer's memorial, that "Vir officers." Do they mean to contend that as they They themselves insist that Virginia, by her act of 1790, did grant commutation. Can they suppose that Mr. Gilmer was ignorant of that fact, when his own memorial contained a list of the commutation claims that Virginia had allowed and Mr. Gilmer mean? Why, sir, he could only have paid? They cannot believe it. What, then, did meant to say, what was the fact, that Virginia never commuted these claims, as Congress had done, by directing that the officers should take the sum in gross, and that half pay for life should be discontinued. Virginia only authorized her officers to take the one or the other at their election, while Congress wholly changed or commuted the mode of payment. Mr. Gilmer is speaking of the reason why he could not precisely state the amount the United States might have to pay, since some of the officers might have refused to give up their yearly pensions for life, and it could not be known at what precise time they died. But, Mr. Speaker, if there ever could have been any reasonable doubt as to the construction of the act of 1832, it seems to me that the action of the Government since that time must remove all difficulty. As soon as it was ascertained that the department had declined paying to certain claimants. the full amount for which Virginia was liable to them, upon the ground that what they demanded was commutation, and that commutation was not payable, a joint resolution was introduced into the House of Representatives for the purpose of ex... plaining the objects and meaning of the act of 1832. Its title was, "A resolution explanatory of the to refund to her these payments, amounting to third section of the act of the 5th of July, 1832, about eighty thousand dollars, and they were reentitled ' 'An act for liquidating and paying certain funded to her under the act of August, 1848. claims to the State of Virginia.' I will not trou-This was the civil and diplomatic_ appropriation ble the House by reading the whole resolution, bill; and the clause providing for its repayment, but it recites the principles decided by the court of expressly refers to it as money paid by her "for appeals of Virginia, granting to certain officers of half pay and commutation of half pay." If, as the army the commutation of five years full pay in the committee argue, commutation was a bounty lieu of half pay for life, and to officers of the State for which this Government was not liable, why navy and supernumerary officers half pay alone, did it, after full consideration, so recently adand directs that these principles shall be applied to mit its liability, by ordering the return of this the settlement of the claims of these officers. Let money? it be remembered, sir, that this was the same House of Representatives which had passed the act of 1832, and surely the members must have known what had been their own intention and meaning. The resolution was adopted on the 7th of February, 1833, by a very large majority, but owing to the late period at which it was passed it was not acted upon by the Senate. 36 Mr. Speaker, I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into a discussion of the question as to the payment made to the heirs of Commodore Barron. I have already said that I believed the decision of the Secretary to be erroneous, and it ́s my duty to vote in accordance with my convictions. The courts of Virginia had decided, wheth er rightly or not I will not say, that the officers of the State navy are not entitled to commutation. This is certainly one of the principles declared in Markham's case. Congress has sanctioned and adopted the principles of decision established by our supreme court of appeals, and directed that all these claims shall be settled in accordance with them. In departing from these principles, I think the Secretary committed an error. But this is not all. An act was passed by Congress in March, 1835, transferring certain duties from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of War; and it expressly transfers the duties in relation to Virginia claims for revolutionary services and deficiency of commutation." Here was a clear recognition of the propriety of allow ing these claims for commutation. The commit tee, however, argue that the act simply transfers But, sir, while I feel myself bound to express certain duties, and does not "alter in the slightest my personal opinion of the decision of the Secre degree, the act of the 5th of July, 1832." But theytary, I take pleasure in saying that I know the forget that an act simply transferring duties may, at the same time, use terms that interpret the objects of other laws. I do not contend that the act of 1835 granted the authority to settle these claims, but that the expressions used in it show that the power was already granted in the act of 1832. But, sir, there is one other view which seems to me conclusive of this whole question. The department still refused to pay more than the half pay for life. The claimants then went back to their remedy against Virginia, and recovered judgments against her for their commutation and interest, giving credit, however, for the half pay received. Virginia called upon this Government parties well who have received the benefit of it. They are all gentlemen of very high standing, and of the most honorable character. They would scorn to prefer any claim against the Government which they supposed to be unfounded or unjust. They have exercised their undoubted right of submitting their case to the consideration of the proper authorities of their country. The decision, after a full investigation of the case, has been favorable to them; and whatever may be the opinion of this House upon it, they doubtless feel that they may conscientiously retain what has been awarded to them by a tribunal, not chosen by them, but to which the Government itself referred them. Printed at the Congressional Globe Office, REMARKS OF EDMUND RICE, OF RAMSEY COUNTY AS TO THE RIGHT OF MESSRS. B. H. RANDALL AND A. FARRIBAULT TO SEATS, AS MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Delivered January 27 and 28, 1851. Mr. Rice said he felt himself under peculiar embarrassment in presenting his views upon this subject. He was upon the unpopular side, and acting with a hopeless minority. But it was important that the questions involved in the report of the committee should be settled, and settled now; if they were passed over without examination and consideration, we, (said Mr. R.) may establish a precedent that will lead our successors upon this floor, and our people generally, into interminable difficulties. Preliminarily to an organization, objections were made, in good faith, to the members from Dahkota county taking seats, until others, about the legality of whose election there was no dispute, should be sworn in, who would then constitute a tribunal to decide judicially upon the rights of the claimants. These objections, however, were over ruled, the House was temporarily organized, and then the matter might have again been brought up, but the minority knowing how strongly their motives were misrepresented, and how strong the determination was to prevent an investigation lest it should weaken the majority, did not then press the objections, but permitted the Speaker and other important officers to be elected, and the most exciting, and perhaps most important measures of the session, such as the election of printer, the location of the public buildings, &c., to be passed upon before bringing the question to a vote; so that the unjust suspicions and charges that the minority were actuated by ulterior and sinister motives must fall to the ground. He read from "Cushing's Manual" to show, what all must have seen, that a foul wrong was perpetrated by the majority when the objections were taken, by insisting that the claimants should be sworn in and participate in the organization without any legitimate-in fact without any evidence of their election. It was important that those holding seats, should hold them by right, and agreeably to law. If a contrary practice should obtain, a door would be open to designing men, destructive of all law and justice. The principle had been frequently decided in the Congress of the United States, and from their decisions it would be perceived that claimants had been obliged to yield in almost every case of doubt even, to say nothing of their yielding in the numerous cases in which the spirit of the law had not been complied with. To show that these questions had not been regarded 1 |