1ST SESS.] WEDNESDAY, September 25. The Galphin Claim. The Galphin Claim. The joint resolution from the House of Representatives to authorize the President of the United States to cause suit to be brought against George W. Crawford, late Secretary of War, was read a first time by its title. The joint resolution was read a second time with a view to reference. Mr. BADGER. I can see no reason why that resolution should not be passed without reference to a committee. It is a measure which was introduced into the House at the request of Mr. Crawford. I suppose there can be no objection to gratify his wish on the subject, and I hope the resolution will be put upon its passage. Mr. BUTLER. I hope the resolution will be acted on at once, with a decided opinion on my part that it ought not to pass. Mr. DAWSON moved to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee, which motion did not prevail, and the resolution was considered by the Senate as in Committee of the Whole. Mr. TURNEY. I have but a single remark to make. I think the resolution itself will not raise the question which it is proposed to raise and to investigate before the courts: that is, to test the correctness of the decision of the departments here in paying the interest upon this claim. It cannot do it, in the first instance, because Mr. Crawford only acted as agent or attorney for the Galphins, and if he received the money in the character of agent or attorney, the presumption is that he has paid it over to the owners, retaining, no doubt, the fee which was to be paid him by the contract with them. If this question is to be tested, you must sue the parties who received the money, and not the attorney who prosecuted the claim. It is mere humbug to say that Mr. Crawford was justified, or that the departments were justified in paying it, on account of any decision which the courts might make under this resolution. The suit must be brought, not against the agent or attorney who prosecuted the claim, but against the man who recovered the money. And besides, from the provisions of this resolution, I take it, that even if Mr. Crawford was the proper party to be sued, you could not get behind the decisions of the auditors and comptrollers, and of the treasurer who paid the money. Their decisions would be final and conclusive before the courts. Thus it would be a mere matter of mockery to authorize the President to bring a suit in order to whitewash the character of some man. I am opposed to passing this resolution to authorize a judicial investigation for the purpose of whitewashing the character of Mr. Crawford in this transaction. You cannot reach the question of the correctness of the decision of the department in paying this money by any suit that can be instituted under this resolution, because you cannot sue Mr. Crawford, [SEPTEMBER, 1850. the attorney, and, secondly, because in any such suit the decision of the auditor and treasurer would be conclusive upon the court. The court would have no right to reverse it. Their decision would be the law of the case. An act of Congress confers the duty of making such decisions upon these accounting officers, and there is no law authorizing the courts to correct or reverse them. No appeal can be taken, nor is there any mode of revising the decisions of the accounting officers; and hence I say this is a mere mode of whitewashing the character of Mr. Crawford, without any possible hope even of submitting to the court the correctness of those decisions. The court would have no power to reverse or revise them and render judgment against Mr. Crawford, even if he was the proper man to be sued to recover this money back. I hold that it is utterly unnecessary, therefore, to pass any such resolution. In fact, I think it is " throwing good money after bad" to incur the expense of a lawsuit merely for the purpose of whitewashing the character of these parties. Mr. EWING. I think the Senator from Tennessee is entirely mistaken in all the positions he has taken in this matter. In the first place, he says that the proposed suit is not against the proper individual, and that the suit cannot be sustained against him, because he is only the attorney, and not the party. Now, sir, this attorney received the money, or a portion of the money, no matter how much; but whatever portion of that money he received, if he be sued for it, and if in his pleadings he do not set up the defence that he was attorney, the suit can be sustained. The case has to be decided upon the declaration and the plea, and you can sustain the action against him if he admits that he received the money, and does not plead that he received it as attorney. Now, he says in his communication to the House, that he will not put in that plea. If he does, he is a dishonored man, as a matter of course, and there is no "whitewashing" of character at all. But I undertake to say that he will not plead nor set up as a defence that he received this money as attorney. So that, as to that particular point, it settles it without any difficulty at all, just as if you sued the individual party instead of suing the attorney. As to the next position, that the settlement of this account by the accounting officer is conclusive, Mr. Crawford says in his letter that he will not set up that as a defence, nor will he set up any thing as a defence except the legal right, conferred by law, to pay this money, and every part of it, over to the parties. He will not set up as a defence the fact that the accounting officers have acted upon it at all. In his pleadings, he will present the single and sole question, that the law of 1848 and the previous obligations of the Government gave him the right to receive this money. Well, if he does not-if the pleadings are presented in that form, I need not say to every lawyer that the question will be settled by our courts upon the pleadings, and settled, therefore, upon the law of the original case. It is no matter of whitewashing at all. If the pleadings be made fairly -if the pleadings be set forth bona fide, as he says he will cause them to be set forth, the actual law of the case will be presented; and if there has been blackballing by the decision of the committee, there will be nothing more than the wiping off of that blackballing by the decision of the court, entitled to decide upon the question of law, and having the direct question before them, and nothing but the question. Mr. BUTLER. I was one of those who thought that this resolution ought not to go to the committee. I think it unnecessary, because the subject is well understood. I object to the bill upon this obvious ground, that we have no right to make use of the courts of the United States to perform the office of arbitrator. We have no right to devolve upon them the office of arbitrator between gentlemen who may conceive their honor involved in any matter in the administration of the Federal Government. To say the least, this mode of proceeding is unusual. Candor requires me to say that I believe that Mr. Crawford, as a man of honor, would be guided by what he has said, because I know the man: I believe he is willing to have the matter fully investigated before a court. But the court derives its jurisdiction from the Constitution and laws of the United States, and ought not to be made a reviewing power of the executive decisions; and no matter what he may say with regard to what he will do or will not do, it will, to all intents and purposes, be making use of that court as arbitrator to decide between him and the Government. Now, how would the matter stand? Mr. Crawford, in good faith-and his parole would go very far with me, and I would regard his word as his bond-says that he will not plead any thing in bar, but will go into a full and fair investigation, and let the judgment of the court turn entirely on the validity of that judgment made under an authoritative decision of the Treasury Department. Well, it may be so, or it may not be so; but suppose the judgment of the court below is against Mr. Crawford, in honor he would be bound by the state of the pleading on which the judgment was rendered. His sense of honor, and not legal obligation, would lead him. In the event of his death-the suit abating-it could not be revived; or if revived, his executors might be under a high duty to file a plea in bar to defeat the action. Mr. EWING. No, sir. I need not say to my learned friend that they would have to abide by the pleadings below. [31ST CONG. | it would be so in this case. I know very well that the pleadings and judgment in appellate tribunals must rest entirely on the pleadings and the judgment upon them in the court below. But I say that this mode of entertaining a matter of this kind, is making use of the courts for purposes not contemplated by the Constitution of the United States. It never has been done. Now with regard to the present state of the law: This money was paid over under the adjudication of the auditor, and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. That judgment or proceeding is final. It was paid, therefore, on a judgment, or that which has the operation of a judgment, and that judg ment secures Mr. Crawford against any right, per lege, of the Government to recover it back, and I have no idea of interposing. Mr. Crawford has given his word, and as I have said, I believe he will abide by it, but there is no security that Milledge Galphin or others may not be sued by the Federal courts, and brought within the scope of the judgment. I conclude as I began, by saying that it is making the court an arbiter, which is not a part of its office, nor within its usual and proper jurisdiction. It will, in effect, give it the office of review over a distinct department of this Government. Mr. DAWSON. I regret very much the tone and manner of the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. TURNEY) on this subject. Mr. Crawford has had a great deal said in relation to him in connection with his particular claim; and when gentlemen use the term "whitewashing" in relation to this character, they ought first to understand the nature of the imputation that they are making, and whether they can sustain the accusation against Mr. Crawford in relation to this matter. I demand, as the friend of Mr. Crawford, to know what part of his conduct in relation to this matter needs" whitewashing?” What infamy or impropriety has been attached to him in relation to this matter? Where are the occasions upon which he has not acted openly, fairly, and boldly, in relation to this matter? When was it that he ever forfeited his honor or his character either as an individual or as a politician? What part of his conduct during his administration of the War Department needs "whitewashing," even by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States? I know the Senator from Tennessee did not, in using the word "whitewashed," intend to convey a charge inconsistent with honor; at least, I think not. Mr. TURNEY. If the Senator will allow me, I will say that I made no charge-I intended to make none when I spoke of whitewashing. Mr. Crawford himself feels that there is something hanging suspended over him, otherwise he would have never made the application to Congress. He felt it when he first asked an investigation in the House. That investigation resulted unfavorably to him, and now to get Mr. BUTLER. I do not undertake to say that rid of that-for it only plunged him lower in Mr. BUTLER. There are a great many ways of amending the pleadings below. Mr. EWING. No, they cannot do it. [SEPTEMBER, 1850. 66 why? Because the Supreme Court may sup port the construction of that law given to it by the departments of this Government, and their sanction would be a protection to the past Administration from this slander, and that is the thing to be feared. It is not a whitewashing," but it is subjecting the vindication of Mr. Crawford and the last Administration to the decision of the Supreme Court as the final ar biter; and their decision, when pronounced, will give satisfaction to the entire country, where party motives and personal feelings do not interfere to prevent. I did not expect, at any time, to be called up in relation to this claim. I was not in Congress when it passed. Other gentlemen passed the law, and they passed the law subject to that construction which had been made by the proper departments of the Government, and we are willing to abide by it. But others are not, and the only way to give the whole matter a proper bearing, is before the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Crawford abandons his legal right to defend himself against any suit whatsoever. He abandons all that, and comes here and says, I will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court, and not put in any plea- Mr. GWIN. Will the gentleman give way for a motion to postpone the bill till to-morrow? Mr. DAWSON. No, sir; I have but a few Mr. TURNEY. They speak for themselves. Mr. DAWSON. And they cast no imputation. Sir, it is ungenerous and unkind, in the absence of this gentleman, where he has not the opportunity of vindicating his own honor by taking part in the debate, to insinuate any thing against him, calculated to do him injury before the country that he has served. Mr. Crawford, in this transaction, has acted with a marked honor and propriety. His hand, his finger has not been laid upon this claim improperly. The claim was passed by the proper departments of the Government, and its payment was sustained by the late Attorney-General of the United States, who, with an honor and magnanimity which I trust will always accompany him, said that if there was any blame in relation to this matter, it was upon him, and he published it to the world. The late AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Johnson) has published his opinion and evidence, and assumed the whole responsibility like a man. Then how can it be brought up here, before the American people, and charged that this is a measure to "white-more remarks to make. I did not know before wash " George W. Crawford? But, Mr. President, what is he to do? When the bitterness of party, and the unkindness of personal relations will circulate reports throughout the country injurious to his reputation, how is he to meet it? He can only to do it by the mode he has adopted. What is it? He comes before the country, and notwithstanding that he is shielded by the constitution and laws in the possession of the money, yet as doubts have been expressed whether that money went honestly and justly to the representatives of Galphin, he says, so far as he is concerned, here is every dollar of that money. Now, adjudicate it before any tribunal you may select. Congress proposes to select the Supreme Court of the United States, commencing in the district court and carrying it up to the Supreme Court. What for? To "whitewash" the character of George W. Crawford by a decision of the Supreme Court? And will the Supreme Court make a decision to whitewash his character, against their oaths and the high obligations of their dignified position? Why, it is a charge against them. And, when Mr. Crawford has pursued only the course which justice, honor, and propriety demanded of him, he is charged here as coming with a view to whitewash his reputation, stained of course by some previous conduct? But, as the Senator from South Carolina said, Mr. Crawford's honor is known, and his parole would carry weight wherever honor and honesty are to be found. Gentlemen say they will not grant this investigation. And of the existence of the report of this committee, nor did I know what its contents were until I heard it read by the Secretary. I wished to have the resolution referred to the Judiciary Committee, for the purpose of placing before that intelligent committee, having a full knowledge of the laws of the country and of the constitution, the question whether, by an agreement between the parties, this suit could be ordered. As it has been declared by the immediate representatives of the people that a suit shall be instituted against Mr. Crawford, I go for the institution of it, and if Mr. Crawford is not sustained by the decision of the Supreme Court, then let him pay back every dollar, as he will do without a moment's hesitation. Mr. COOPER. I have but a word to say. I desired to obtain the floor after the Senator from Tennessee, to say that I did not concur with him in the views which he has expressed. And I desired to suggest, what was very properly suggested by the Senator from South Carolina, that in the event of Mr. Crawford's decease, there are pleas that may be taken advantage of that would preclude recovery on the part of the United States, notwithstanding originally there was no right on the part of the Government to pay the money to Mr. Crawford. There is a distinction, well known to every lawyer, between the recovery of money paid through a mistake of law, and that paid through a mistake of fact. Here, if there is any mistake at all, it was a mistake of law, and accord SEPTEMBER, 1850.] The Galphin Claim. [31ST CONG. which A is in possession of, belonging to them. I believe there is nothing to prevent it. It would be very strange, indeed, if, when there is in the possession of an individual money belonging to the United States, the Government would not have the faculty which every individual or corporation has, to institute a suit for its recovery. Then, that being clear, the only difficulty that could arise with regard to the institution of a suit against Mr. Crawford, would arise from the proceedings in the executive department. That is all. The nature of the claim is properly a judicial one, the right is properly assertable in a court of law. The United States is a proper and competent party to assert such a claim, and the only reason why there is any embarrassment on the subject, arises from the proceedings which have ing to the decisions of the courts, both of this country and of England, money paid through a mistake of law cannot be recovered back, and if advantage of this be taken by the executors of Mr. Crawford, of course the merits of this question could not be inquired into. On that point, the case would turn, and it would turn in favor of the defendant in the suit. If Mr. Crawford lives, under his letter he would not take advantage of that plea, or any other of that nature. And no doubt, as the gentleman before me (Mr. EWING) stated, the money was received by him, he would not set up that it was received by him as attorney, or plead any plea that would prevent the merits of the case from being investigated. But, as life is uncertain, he may die, and as his administrators and executors would feel bound themselves to take every legal advantage, the bill before us there-taken place in the executive department. Now, fore is imperfect. It does not present, under all the circumstances which may occur, an issue to decide what was intended by Mr. Crawford to be decided when he addressed his letter to the House. I believe him to be a man of high honor, and have no doubt whatever that he would be governed by the propositions in that letter; but if he should die, the case would be different. Mr. GWIN. I move to lay the resolution on the table, so that we may proceed with other business. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. BADGER. I desire to engage for a moment or two the attention of the Senate on the question presented in this joint resolution. In the first place, I desire to say that I do not agree with my friend from South Carolina, that there is any objection in the form proposed by the House of Representatives to be given to this investigation. I do not understand how it is, in any sense, making a court of the United States an arbitrator to decide this question. There is a very clear general principle, that if a man is in possession of money which belongs to the Government of the United States, that Government has a right to institute a suit, and by that suit in the proper tribunals to compel the payment of the money which this individual holds, and which belongs to them. they have nothing more to do with the subject than they would have in an ordinary case of a claim by a party, or a release which might be pleaded in law against him. The fact of the existence of the release would not change the nature of the claim. Quite the contrary. It is still a legal claim, and the release is a legal impediment to its recovery. If the release be moved out of the way, the legal claim, in its own character, still subsists; the legal right is retained, and the action can be supported. Now, Mr. Crawford comes here and proposes that he will withdraw, and not insist upon any bar which technically he might have a right to plead against the claim of the United States to recover this money, supposing that the facts that constitute that legal bar did not exist. It seems to me, then, clear that the commencement of this action is perfectly analogous to the case I have supposed, of one man having a claim against another, and his supposed debtor having in his possession a release. If he surrenders that release, if he does not plead it, there is no more difficulty in testing the merits of the original claim than if the release had never been executed. This is, then, a proper investigation for this claim, in a proper court. In its nature judicial, the functions to be exercised by the judges are functions which are exercised by them in the regular discharge of their ordinary official duties. So, in no aspect and shape in which I can see it, is it the establishment of an arbitration. The action is to Mr. BUTLER. I will, with the Senator's permission, ask him a question, which perhaps may shorten this argument. It is, whether the Government could at this time sue Mr. Craw-be brought in the circuit court of the United ford? Mr. BADGER. My friend generally anticipates. An argument consists of steps, and I was going on step by step to present my views on this question, when my friend asks me a question which I must inevitably answer before I get through, and while I am stating premises which lead to that conclusion. The general principle is, as I stated, that if A is in the possession of money belonging to B, B has a right to sue and recover it; and I suppose there is nothing clearer than that the United States have the same right to recover the money States, and if that was constituted an arbitrator, all know that its decision would be final; but the same writs of appeal and error are to be allowed as in every other cause of action brought in that court. I am not going to enter into any of those investigations brought here in regard to whitewashing and other matters, but I desire, however, to say this: In the first place I have ne personal acquaintance with Mr. Crawford. It so happens that I have not had even an introduction to that gentleman; and I know noth ing of him, except as I know from his general reputation in the country. One thing is certain, however; he has been most cruelly assailed in regard to the particular transaction to which this resolution relates. When I say that, I do not refer to any thing which has taken place in the Senate; I mean abroad throughout the country. Mr. Crawford thinks he has a right to this money, but he is not willing to retain it unless he has that right; and he comes to the House and asks that an action shall be brought to ascertain whether he is entitled to the money or not. [SEPTEMBER, 1850. tion to lay the resolution on the table, and resulted as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Atchison, Benton, Bright, Butler, Cass, Chase, Clay, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Felch, Foote, Frémont, Gwin, Hale, Hamlin, Houston, Jones, Norris, Pearce, Rusk, Sebastian, Soulé, Sturgeon, Turney, and Whitcomb-27. NAYS.-Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Clarke, Cooper, Davis of Massachusetts, Dawson, Dayton, Ewing, Greene, Hunter, King, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Seward, Smith, Spruance, Underwood, Wales, Walker, Winthrop, and Yulee -25. So the resolution was laid on the table. MONDAY, September 30. Bounty Land Bill. My own opinion, from the examination I have given to the case, is, that all that was done in the executive department of the Government was rightly done, and that under the act of Congress, this claim was adopted and made one against this Government, in the same condition and in every respect as it formerly stood against the Government of Georgia. Against the State of Georgia it was a claim valid for principal and interest both, and thereMr. WALKER. In consequence of an unforfore when adopted by the United States, it be- tunate error in engrossing and enrolling what came a just claim for principal and interest is called the bounty land bill, it becomes necesagainst the United States. When this gentle-sary this morning to pass an explanatory act. man comes and asks that this question may be investigated, and proposes to put every obstacle out of the way, and submit this legal question to a legal court, it would be cruel and harsh treatment to him for the Congress of the United States to refuse what he thus asks, and what I think a fair and just respect for his character and standing requires. Mr. FOOTE. Mr. President Mr. BUTLER. I understand your object is to move to lay this motion on the table. Mr. FOOTE. I understand that my friend desires to close his remarks with a motion to lay this subject on the table; and so understanding, I give way to him with pleasure. Mr. BUTLER. I have but two propositions to state, and those very briefly. I did not understand that under any law we may propose, Mr. Crawford may not release the judgment, so far as he is concerned, under which this money was paid. If it was paid, it was to all intents and purposes a proceeding having all the validity of a judgment, and so far as he is concerned, he may undoubtedly release the judgment, but he has not a right to release it so far as the other party is concerned. But that was not the gravamen of the remarks I made. I say that Mr. Crawford has no right to bring the Supreme Court of the United States into collision with the executive departments of the Government. It is not in accordance with the genius of our Government, and I believe it to be inconsistent with the independence of those two departments of the Government. I believe they ought to be kept separate, and that neither should have any supervisory power over the other. I move to lay the resolution on the table. Mr. EWING demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. The question was then taken on the mo- I therefore ask unanimous consent to introduce an act supplementary to an act entitled "An act granting bounty lands to certain officers and soldiers who have been engaged in the military service of the United States." Unanimous consent to introduce the bill was granted, and it was read a first and second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole. Mr. WALKER. The bill, as it finally passed, was intended to provide that no warrant should be assignable prior to the issue of the patent. In engrossing and enrolling the bill, the words "of the patent" were left out; so that these warrants will be assignable. This supplementary bill is only to correct that error. It provides that the act shall be construed as if the words "of the patent" were inserted after the word "issue." That is all. There will be no sense in the section if this amendment is not made. Mr. HALE. If I understand it, this amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin is to prevent the assignability of the warrant. Mr. WALKER. It was an error in the engrossment, which cannot now be remedied. The only way to correct that error is to pass this bill. The departments, the President, and everybody else connected with the matter would be in an embarrassed situation if the bill should be left as it now is. After an objection made by Mr. DAWSON was withdrawn, the bill was read a third time and passed. Adjournment. The Senate appointed a committee to wait upon the President of the United States, in conjunction with a committee of the House of Representatives, to notify him that the two Houses, having finished the legislative business |