Part 47

The SPEAKER said this amendment was not in order.

Mr. NICHOLSON said that under such circumstances he must vote against the whole amendment.

The question being taken, the amendment as amended was lost without a division.

When the resolution for appointing a committee of inquiry was carried--yeas 81, nays 40, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, jun., Nathaniel Alexander, David Bard, George M. Bedinger, Phanuel Bishop, William Blackledge, Adam Boyd, John Boyle, Robert Brown, Joseph Bryan, William Butler, Levi Casey, Joseph Clay, John Clopton, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, William Dickson, John B. Earle, Peter Early, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, Wm. Eustis, William Findlay, John Fowler, James Gillespie, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Josiah Hasbrouck, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Wm. Kennedy, Nehemiah Knight, Michael Leib, John B. C. Lucas, Matthew Lyon, Andrew McCord, David Meriwether, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon Olin, Beriah Palmer, John Patterson, Oliver Phelps, John Randolph, jun., Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, Erastus Root, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford, Ebenezer Seaver, Tompson J. Skinner, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith of Virginia, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, John Stewart, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Isaac Van Horne, Joseph B. Varnum, Daniel C. Verplanck, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill, Marmaduke Williams, Richard Wynn, Joseph Winston, Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--Simeon Baldwin, Silas Betton, John Campbell, William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, Clifton Claggett, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Thomas Dwight, James Elliot, Thomas Griffin, Gaylord Griswold, Roger Griswold, Seth Hastings, David Hough, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Joseph Lewis, jun., Thomas Lewis, Henry W. Livingston, Thomas Lowndes, Nahum Mitchell, Samuel L. Mitchill, James Mott, Thomas Plater, Samuel D. Purviance, Joshua Sands, John Cotton Smith, John Smith of New York, Wm. Stedman, James Stephenson, Samuel Taggart, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, George Tibbits, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, and Lemuel Williams.

Ordered, That Messrs. JOHN RANDOLPH, jun., NICHOLSON, JOSEPH CLAY, EARLY, ROGER GRISWOLD, HUGER, and BOYLE, be appointed a committee pursuant to the said resolution.

MONDAY, January 9.

Another member, to wit, WILLIAM HELMS, from New Jersey, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

WEDNESDAY, January 11.

Virginia Yazoo Company.

On a motion made and seconded,

“That the agent or agents of the Virginia Yazoo Company, ‘claimants of compensation under the late cession and convention between the State of Georgia and the United States, and the acts lately passed by Congress thereon, as purchasers of land in the Mississippi Territory, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, from the said State of Georgia,’ be heard in person, or by counsel, at the bar of the House, on Monday next:”

The question was taken thereupon, and resolved in the affirmative--yeas 61, nays 49.

On a motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following resolution:

Resolved, That the South Carolina Yazoo Company be heard by their agent, on Monday next, at the bar of the House:

And the said motion being twice read at the Clerk’s table, a motion was made and seconded to amend the same, by striking out all the words from the word “Resolved,” in the first line, to the end of the motion, and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following words: “That this House will, on Monday next, hear all the agents of the different companies claiming lands south of the State of Tennessee, who may choose to speak at the bar of this House.”

And on the question that the House do agree to the said amendment, it passed in the negative. And the main question being taken that the House do agree to the said motion, as originally proposed, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 67, nays 46.

FRIDAY, February 3.

Georgia Militia Claims.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims, on the petition of John M. Randolph and Randolph McGillis, which is unfavorable to the prayer of the petitioners.

The petitioners claim their pay as militiamen, called out in the State of Georgia for the protection of that State against the Indians. They allege, that, being called out under the authority of the Government of the United States, the General Government is bound to compensate them and the other men called out for their services.

The Committee of Claims report that the petitioners are to look for compensation to the State of Georgia, who, by the articles of cession recently concluded, had agreed to receive one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, in full for all demands for military service.

Mr. EARLY.--Mr. Chairman: I cannot but be sensible of the difficulty which opposes itself to the present claim after an unfavorable report from the committee to which it was referred. And it is impossible not to discern that this difficulty is increased by the opinion of the Attorney General upon the construction of the articles of cession from Georgia to the United States. But as to that opinion, it may not be improper to observe, that so far as it applies to the case of the claimant, it is repelled by the positive certificates of two of the Georgia Commissioners, gentlemen of veracity and legal talents equal with himself. To give to the opinions, or rather the “private ideas and recollections” of that officer, the weight and authority which have been thereunto attached by the Committee of Claims, would be to adopt in practice a principle at war with the maxims of all free Governments; it would be to constitute the framer of an instrument the judge of its construction. This is the essence of despotism. But I apprehend that neither the principle laid down in that opinion nor the facts therein stated do bear upon the case; but that the facts do negatively prove that the claims now under discussion were not included in the compensation stipulated to Georgia in the articles of cession and agreement. The principles are, that the term “territory,” as used in the instrument, meant not only the territory ceded, but that retained. Now, Mr. Chairman, as I cannot possibly comprehend what bearing this has upon the question before us, I must be excused if I leave the Attorney General in the undisturbed enjoyment of his premises and pursue the discussion.

So early as the year 1787 the State of Georgia, being sorely distressed by the violence of the Indians, passed a law directing the establishment of two regiments of troops, to serve until a restoration of peace could be secured. But the enlistments not having been completed, in the following year a law was passed holding out additional inducement, and in the year 1789 the present federal constitution having gone into operation, and the rights of peace and war thereby vested exclusively in the General Government, the Legislature of Georgia passed a law discharging the troops which had been enlisted, and declaring the rate of pay which they should receive. For this pay certificates were directed to be issued, and these certificates constitute a debt unredeemed to this day. [Mr. E. turned to the several laws above referred to, and read from each extracts as proofs of his statement.] Here, Mr. Chairman, you have unfolded a debt, which, without the least violence to construction, fills up the description given in the articles of cession. Here are expenses incurred by the State totally distinct from and unconnected with the claims now under discussion. It is important also to observe, that every attempt made by the State of Georgia prior to the cession to dispose of her vacant territory, appears from the face of the acts to have been dictated by a view of discharging the public obligations to those troops. No less than three attempts at a disposition of her territory were made prior to the cession. The first was an offer to cede to the General Government, in 1788, provided Congress would pay the expenses which had then accrued in defending the frontiers, and would yield the wonted protection in future at their own expense. This was rejected. In the following year a law passed for disposing of a part of the territory to companies, notoriously with a view to raise money wherewith to meet the same engagements. This also failed, for causes which have been amply unfolded to the House on another occasion. The next attempt was in the year 1795, which, in the very title of the law, is expressed to be made to meet the particular engagements to the same soldiery. Of the result of this transaction the House is also possessed. The last attempt was by the articles of cession. Thus it appears that in no instance were the present claims ever thought of as a debt to be met by the State of Georgia out of the proceeds of her unlocated lands, but that the expenses incurred by, and the engagements made to the troops in the years 1787, 1788, and 1789, were uniformly the moving cause toward a disposition of her territory.

The Committee of Claims however, sir, notwithstanding they have throughout their report endeavored to rest upon the Attorney General the responsibility of the construction given to the cession, have at the same time erected a pillar of their own to support it, where they saw it must fall. They well perceived that all reasoning upon the subject was idle, unless one principle could be established; this they have boldly advanced to, and, instead of proving, have assumed as the groundwork of their whole superstructure. It is, that the State was bound in the first instance to compensate the soldiery, notwithstanding the ulterior responsibility of the General Government. From this they infer that the State had a right and by the cession did exercise the right of exonerating the latter Government. Now, Mr. Chairman, grant to the Committee their premises and there is an end to the question between us; their consequences must result. But, sir, I must supplicate their pardon if I refuse my assent to their position until my judgment is convinced. And I must be pardoned for saying that the reasoning to which they have resorted for the purpose of proving it, strikes my mind as the reverse of sound; that it proves too much to prove any thing. It is, that the State Government is in the first instance liable, because the troops were called into the field by the State Executive. This reasoning, Mr. Chairman, would go to prove that in every instance in which militia have been called into the service of the General Government, the States from which they were drafted were in the first instance liable for their compensation, because, in every case which has taken place, they were called into the field by State Executives. The truth is, sir, that in every case the orders have issued from the Executive of the General Government to that of the State Government, and that orders have from the latter issued in consequence thereof, for making the requisite drafts; so that the troops engaged in service under the immediate directions of the State, but under the mediate directions of the United States. This was the course pursued in both the insurrections in the State of Pennsylvania; it was the course in the State of South Carolina in relation to Indian invasion, at the same period at which the services were performed in Georgia for which we are now claiming compensation. It was the same course the other day with the troops ordered down the Mississippi to occupy New Orleans and its dependency. In all these cases the troops were compensated by the General Government in the first instance. It never entered the heart of any man that the States from which the drafts were made, were in the first instance liable, and that resort must afterwards be had by the State Government against the United States. I have always been taught that precedents established principles, but it now seems that the Committee of Claims in the profoundness of their researches have discovered that by assuming premises, principles may be established in the face of a uniform current of precedents.

There are, Mr. Chairman, two modes marked out in the constitution in which the militia may be called into service. The first is a case where from necessity the war attribute of sovereignty is left in the individual States. It is the case of invasion or such imminent danger thereof as will not admit of delay. The other mode is that of issuing orders from the Executive of the General, to the officers of the State Governments. This is the usual method by which the militia of the States are drawn into the service of the United States. And it is of importance to observe here, that the act of Congress which was intended to give effect to the constitutional powers of the General Government to “call forth the militia,” authorizes the President “to issue his orders for that purpose to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper.” For, inasmuch as there can be no other difference in a military point of view, and for military purposes, between the Governor of a State and the next highest military officer, than the difference of rank, the one being first, the other second, in command, it must follow that if the militia are to resort for pay to the State Governments because their orders have passed through the Governor, they must also resort to the same source in case their orders should pass through the second or third in command; the principles upon which the committee found their reasoning apply equally to both cases. The soundness of conclusions drawn by the committee is, therefore, not merely questionable, but to me it appears not difficult to prove that the conclusions themselves are at war with the most obvious principles of justice.

I hold it, sir, accordant with the most common rules by which individuals are regulated in a state of society, that when service is performed the party for whom it was performed is the only one responsible for the compensation. The rule applies with equal force to the case of Governments, who are moral agents. Happily, Mr. Chairman, there is no difficulty in ascertaining the party for whom the service was performed in the case under discussion. Fortunately for the States in general, it is made the constitutional duty of the General Government to “protect each of them against invasion.” And fortunately for the State of Georgia in the present instance, there is the recorded sanction of the Executive of the Union, couched in the following words--“If the information which you may receive, shall substantiate clearly any hostile designs of the Creeks against the frontiers of Georgia, you will be pleased to take the most effectual measures for the defence thereof, as may be in your power, and which the occasion may require.” If, therefore, the principles and reasoning of the committee be correct, it must follow that troops engaged in performing the constitutional duty of the United States must resort for their compensation in the first place to the States. To premises leading to such conclusions, I will not, cannot yield assent.