REMARKS

OF

MR. CONGER, OF NEW YORK,

ON THE

PAYMENT OF THE GALPHIN CLAIM,

DELIVERED

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MONDAY, JULY 1, 1850.

WASHINGTON ;
PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE.
1850

PAYMENTOF THE GALPHIN CLAIM

The House having under consideration the re
port of the Select Committee, made on the letter of
the Secretary of War, concerning the payment of
the " Galphin Claim," and Mr. Burt and Mr.
Toombs having addressed the House —
Mr. CONGER said:
Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to make use of
this occasion to discuss at length and in detail the
various questions embraced in the several reports
of the select committee. That committee was
raised at the instance and request of the Secretary
of War, for the purpose of an investigation into
the conduct of that officer as connected with the
prosecution and payment of the claim of the rep
resentatives of George Galphin. The House very
properly gave to the committee full and compre
hensive instructions, embracing other matters con
nected with this case; and, in obedience to those
instructions, we now have a report or statement
of facts in the case, agreed to by a majority, and
in addition, three minority reports, severally con
taining the arguments and conclusions of different
members. Were I disposed so to do, I have not the time
to go over the whole ground occupied by this
committee, and I shall, therefore, content myself
in discussing such questions alone as seem to lie
in my way in declaring the opinions that will gov
ern my vote on the several resolutions reported.
At the time these reports were made, and while
the question of printing was under consideration,
I was indebted to the courtesy of my colleague,
[Mr. Brooks] — who has discussed this whole sub
ject submitted to the committee with an elaborate
ness, fearlessness, and ability that have done him
great credit and honor — for the privilege of saying
that, while 1 most heartily concurred in the views
expressed by him, I should seek an occasion to
express my own opinion before I might be called
on to record my vote. That opportunity has now
occurred; and without going into a history of this
claim, the history of which has become renowned
throughout the country, both for its antiquity and
doubtful justice, it is proper briefly to recapitulate
what all concede to be the main facts upon which
it rests. In 1773, the Creek and Cherokee Indians had
become largely indebted to certain traders. With
a view to an adjustment of the claims of these
creditors, the Indians made a cession of a large
extent of land in Georgia to Great Britain, then

the Government of this country, with the stipula
tion that the moneys arising from a sale of the
lands should be applied in satisfaction of such
debts as might be found due from them to the
traders. George Galphin was found to be a cred
itor, and his claim, to the amount of nine thousand
seven hundred and ninety -one pounds fifteen shil
lings and five pence, was acknowledged by the
British Government on the second of May, 1775.
Commissioners were appointed by Great Britain
to make sale of the lands and pay the debts; but
the war of the Revolution breaking out before
much had been done, the execution of the trust
was defeated, the title of Great Britain in the lands
extinguished, and her right and power to control
them destroyed. The Colony of Georgia then
asserted her claim to the lands, and proceeded at
her own option and pleasure, acknowledging no
incumbrance on them, to grant them away as
suited her own purpose; but in 1780, when for
mally asserting her right to the land, she passed
the following law in relation thereto:
"Whereas, certain persons, citizens of this, aniTof the
State ot" South Carolina, and friends to the independency of
the same, claim that the lands in the county of Wilkes were
originally given up and ceded to the Government of Great
Britain by the Creek and Cherokee Indians in satisfaction
and discharge of certain debts and arreats due by the said
Indians to said certain persons, commonly called Indian
traders : Be it therefore enacted, that any person having,
or pretending to have, any suck claim, do lay their claims
and accounts before this, or some future House of Assem
bly, to be examined ; and whatever claims shall be found
just and proper, and due to the friends of America, shall be
paid by treasury certificates for the amount payable within
two, three, and four years, and carrying six per cent, ia-
terest." George Galphin died about the same time this
act was passed, but whether before or after does
not appear. At all events, he did not present his
claim under it; but, in 1789, Thomas Galphin, his
son and executor, presented it to the Legislature of
that State, and though a favorable report was
made upon it by the committee, it was not acted
on by the Legislature. From that time down to the
year 1840, or later, the claim was continued before
the Georgia Legislature; but notwithstanding the
law of 1780 and the fact that committees had sev
eral times brought in favorable reports, payment
was not made nor was the claim recognized by
the State. In 1836 it first made its appearance in
Congress, whence, by proper nursing for twelve
years, after having met with at least two adverse
reports, it emerged on the night of the 12th of

Angust, 1848, and was transferred from the legis
lative to the executive branch of the Government
for examination and adjustment. The law of this
date thus transferring the claim, is as follows:
J5." Be it enacted, Sec., That the Secretary of the Treasury
fcc, and he is hereby, authorized and required to examine
and adjust the claim of the late George Galphin, under ihe
•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, ex
ecutor of the said George Galphin, out of any money' in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated. "
Under this law the then Secretary of the Treas
ury (Mr. Walker) paid the sum of $43,518 97,
being the same amount (.£9,791 15s. 5d.) which
the British Government had acknowledged was
due in 1775. The question of interest on this sum
was not formally passed upon by Mr. Walker;
and when Mr. Meredith came into office, the claim
for interest was pressed upon him for decision. It
was finally allowed, and the sum of $191,352 89,
being the interest from 1775, at six per cent., paid.
The connection which Mr. Crawford has held
towards this claim has been that of agent or attor
ney, under an agreement with the heirs, made in
1833, by the terms of which he was to receive for
his services one half the amount obtained.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I propose to inquire, in the
first place, upon whom rested the obligation of
payment in this case? That Galphin had an
equitable, subsisting claim that ought, long since,
to have been paid by somebody, will not be seri
ously doubted; and he made his claim, first,
against the Indians, as the original debtors; second,
against Great Britain, who by her agreement be
came the trustee of a fund for tbe payment of the
(Claim; third, against Georgia, who usurped the
fund; fourth,, against the United States, because
everybody else had refused to pay. I am disposed
Ip believe that, subsequent to the Revolution, the
claim was not good against Great Britain, and
that that Government was under no obligation to
pay it. Certainly, she was not liable, unless her
commissioners had previously sold such quantities
iof the land as, under the trust, entitled Galphin
to his debt, or some portion thereof; and though
there is some reason to believe that such sale was
made, there is not sufficient proof on the point to
charge Great Britain, particularly when it is con
sidered that the greater poriion of the lands, at least,
were appropriated by Georgia. If Great Britain
was not, because of the Revolution that wrested
the lands from her control, drove her from their
possession, and made it impossible for her to dis
charge the trust, liable to Galphin, then Georgia
alone must have been.
Sir, I am aware of the presumption, if notarro-
igance, I show in expressing this opinion, for in
entertaining it, as I do, I find myself in opposition
not only to all the Whig members of this select
committee, but to the Attorney General of ihe
United States. Notwithstanding this array of
talent and station against me, however, I hope to
express my views with becoming independence,
and such dignity as allows every man to think
end speak for himself and as he shall choose.
Whatever shall be thought of my argument, it
¦shall not be said that party shackles and political
alliances control my speech or vote. There are
no party attachments, as there is no personal
friendship, that will induce mo to restrain a
thought or disguise a syllable. A member of the

Cabinet and a Whig has asked an investigation.
An investigation has been made, and I, for one,
cannot shut my eyes to the eonviction that it has
placed that officer in a most unfortunate position
before the countiy. The same investigation has
brought the official acts of two other Whigs and
members of the Cabinet in question; and I am
free to say that they, too, do not stand blameless
and exempt from censure. -Entertaining these
views, I cannot sustain the report of the Whigs
composing the minority of the committee, nor
shall I hesitate to declare my disapprobation of
the official acts into which an investigation has
been sought.
The liability of Georgia to pay this claim is
founded in the clearest legal and equitable princi
ples. In the language of the very able report of
the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Disne*,] " The
proceedings of the war of the Revolution placed
the Slate of Georgia in the stead of the British
Crown, and she became seized of the latter's title
and subject to its liabilities." Georgia, knowing
the claim Galphin and others had on the lands,
not only asserted her right to them, but she pre
vented Great Britain from executing the trust,
while she appropriated the lands for her own pur
pose in defiance of the lien. Georgia, however,
never directly acknowledged her liability, and it
is less a matter of moment, whether she who has
not paid ought to pay, than that the Government
that has paid was not liable to do so. If the claim
of Galphin was just, it is difficult to apprehend the
argument that should exempt Georgia from pay
ment under her law of 1780. It is true that law
is guarded in its terms, and under it payment
could not be made; unless, first, the claim was
found just; and second, that it was due to one
who fought on the right side in the Revolution;
and Georgia has never acknowledged either the
one or the other, but in her own Legislature doubt
and suspicion have been cast over both. However
much this might prejudice the justice of the
claim on Georgia, I submit that it could not ereatf
a claim against the United States. Georgia had
no title to these lands save what she derived by
the conquest of the Revolution from Great Britain,
And shall it be said that she can appropriate the
lands to her own use and then require the United
States to pay off an incumbrance to which she has
herself succeeded? Every principle of honesty
and fair dealing is violated by the assumption.
The Whig minority of this committee, as well
as the Attorney General, seek to show that the
United States, prior to the passage of the law of
1848, weieliable for the payment of this claim;
and one of the arguments made use of to this end,
is drawn from the law of 1802, by which Georgia
ceded to the United Slates certain territory. I am
unable to see how the provisions of that law can
aid such an argument. Georgia ceded the territo
ry, and in consideration for so doing, the United
States agreed to extinguish the Indian title to the
residueof the lands in that State. Did this bind
the United States to pay Galphin ? Not at all.
The Indians had no title remaining to the lands
embraced in their cession to Great Britain in 1773,
and they were in no manner in possession of
them. Many of the lands had, at this time,
already been granted away by Georgia, and so far
from there being any title in opposition to that
which she as: erted, nobody was even interfering

with her disposition of the land. All the title of
the Indians had become vested in Georgia, and
the lien was the lien of Galphin. Nobody, there
fore, could have understood that these lands were
included among those to which it was necessary
to extinguish the Indian title. But it is asked,
in the report of the Whig minority, made by the
gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Breck,] " Could
' Georgia, before tbe claim of Galphin was paid,
'say the Indian title to those lands belonged un-
' conditionally to the State ? or, was it not a living,
' unextinguished title, which Georgia, to the ex-
' tent of this lien, in equity and good faith, had no
' claim to ?" The lien of Galphin and the Indian
title, as the gentleman from Ohio, in his report,
has well said, are two quite different things. The
Indian title was made perfect in Great Britain;
Great Britain gave Galphin a lien on that title to
the amount of his debt acknowledged by her; and
Galphin released all claim upon the Indians, rely
ing only on the lien given him by Great Britain;
Georgia succeeded to these rights and obligations,
and has never pretended that the Indians had title
or claim to a single foot of the lands.
Again, this minority of the committee say, " be
sides, the Indians, as a party to the treaty of 1773,
had a just right to insist and require that its stip
ulations shoul I be performed." The answer to
this is, that the cession to Great Britain was not
only for the benefit of the traders, but being ac
cepted by them in satisfaction of their claims
against the Indians, the Indians, to whom they
had executed discharges, had no right or power to
require the execution of the trust, for they were
parties to no executory contract.
Another ground on which the Attorney General
and the Whig members of the committee have
placed the liability of the United States is this: It
is alleged that these lands were appropriated by
Georgia in donations and bounties to her soldiers,
for services in the public defence in aid of the c<iuse
of the Revolution; and that the case comes within
the principles of the act of 1832 in relation to pay
ment of the pension debt of Virginia. Now, sir,
admitting that the lands were appropriated in pay
ment of services rendered the whole country in a
common cause, the case does not come within the
principles of that act. Virginia, by an act of her
Legislature, had paid out of her own treasury a
large amount in pensions to eertain of her officers
who had served in the Revolution. These payments
having been made by Virginia for services ren
dered in the cause of our national independence,
Congress, by the act of 1832, assumed this pension
debt, and reimburse! her precisely as other States
had been allowed for advances made on account
of the public service. At best, then, this can be
regarded as nothing more than a precedent for the
passage of a law to pay Georgia the amount of the
claim whenever she herself should pay it. By
the act of 1790, funding the debts of the several
States, each State was allowed its advances on ac
count of the United States; but Virginia's pen
sion debt not having been funded, Congress passed
the law of 1832, and directly authorized its pay
ment. If these lands, then, were donated as is
claimed, it is fair to presume that they were cred
ited to Georgia in the settlement of her accounts,
and that she was allowed all they were worth.
But whether they were credited and allowed or
not is immaterial, so long as the debt of Galphin

was not the debt of Georgia. Georgia never made
it her debt. She has neither paid it nor acknowl
edged her liability to pay it. Nor would she ever
admit the liability of the United States to pay it:;
but on the contrary, she has at all times and on
all occasions repudiated it as a fraud upon this
Government alike as upon herself. Georgia, then,
does not come here to ask tbe benefit of the prin
ciple of the law of 1832, and Galphin has no right
to ask it for her — much less had he a right to ask
it for himself.
But 1 do not admit that the lands were appro
priated for the support of the common cause of aU
the States. I have not seen the proof of this. Col
laterally, they may have aided that cause, so fat
as they were donated to the State troops of Geor
gia, by making those troops more effective, but
they were not used for the benefit of the United
States. They were granted, to some extent, but
to what is quite uncertain, to her own State troops
as gratuities in addition to the donations made by
the United States. In this, Georgia did no more
than many other States did for their own troops.
Such States as had land made donations to their
own soldiers, but it was on their own account and
at their own option. The land was their own, and
they could use it as they saw fit. If Georgia thus
used any of these lands, it was an appropriation
of the fund which could make nobody but herself
liable for the incumbrance charged upon it.
Thus far, sir, in the discussion of these ques
tions, I have found my own opinion fortified, my
judgment enlightened, and my argument approved,
by both the report of the gentleman from Ohio
and the report made by the chairman of the com
mittee, [Mr. Burt.] But, sir, I must now leave
these gentlemen, differing as I do with every
member of the committee on the most important
of all the questions involved in this investigation.
That committee have reported to this House, as
embodying the conclusions to which they have
come, the following resolutions:
" 1st. Resolve,}, That the claim of the representatives of
George Galphin was not a just demand against the United
Slates. " 2d. Resolved, That the act of Congress made it the duty
of the Secretary of the Treasury to pay the principal of tho
said claim, and it was therefore paid, 'in conformity with
law ' and ' precedent.'
" 3d. Resolved, That the act aforesaid did not authorize the
Secretary of the Treasury to pay interest on said claim, and
its payment was not 'in conformity wilh law' or 'prece
dent.' "
The first resolution is agreed to by the Demo
crats on the committee and disagreed to by the
Whigs. There were, therefore, five votes in its
favor to four against it. The third resolution is
agreed to by the same vote, while the second is
agreed to unanimously by both Democrats and
Whigs. He who should charge that the vote on
the first and third resolution was controlled by
party considerations, indicating that political pre
judice demanded censure from Democrats and ap
probation from Whigs, could not fail to see that
the vote on the second resolution much more
strongly justifies the suspicion of party prejudice.
To justify the late Secretary of the Treasury,
(Mr. Walker,) in the payment of the principal of
the Galphin claim, this resolution was necessary.
To justify the present Secretary (Mr. Meredith)
in the payment of the interest on thatclaim, it was
equally necessary. In uniting in the support of
that resolution, therefore, the Democratic major-

6

ity and the Whig minority have each done what
it found itself compelled to do in making a defence
of the one and the other of these men, and in this
resolution they have found common ground upon
which to predicate a defence. The majority hold
that there was no liability on the part of the
United States except such as the act of 1848 cre
ated; and while they find in this act alone the au
thority under which their Secretary paid the prin
cipal, the minority are compelled to establish the
liability of the Government prior to that time, and
to bring it to the aid of that act for the authority
under which their Secretary paid the interest.
Now, sir, I repudiate the doctrine of each and
both, while I deny that that act either made it
the duty of Secretary Walker to pay the princi
pal, or that it was in any manner a recognition of
the liability of this Government. I go further than
this, sir. I say that Mr. Walker, in paying the
principal of that claim, committed an act for
which he not only ought to have been censured,
but impeached and removed from office. It was
a payment not only without authority of law, but
in corrupt contravention of justice. None of his
friends pretend to place his justification on the
ground that anything was found due Galphin
from the United Slates. On the contrary, the ma
jority of the committee say that it was not a just
demand against the United States. The gentle
man from Ohio, in his report, says, " there was
neither a legal nor an equitable obligation on the
United States to pay this claim;" the chairman
of the committee says, that " upon none of the
grounds relied on could the United States be justly
held liable for the claim;" nor does Mr. Walker
himself pretend that anything was found due from
the United States, nor that he even examined the
laim for the purpose of ascertaining. Sir, I re-
gret'that my general approval of the argument of
the gentleman from Ohio must be so far qualified
as to except that portion of his report which as
serts that the act of 1848 made it the duty of the
Secretary of the Treasury to pay this claim. And
in this connection, inasmuch as I regard that re-
port as a most able and dignified paper, worthy
the occasion, and highly creditable to the position
of the gentleman, I desire to except another thing
from any measure of praise and approval that 1
have bestowed, or shall bestow upon it. I mean
his covert insinuation that the President of the
United States had connected himself with the
transaction, so far as to sustain and approve the
mode in which the claim has been prosecuted and
adjudicated. Indeed, the insinuation is more than
this; but to whatever extent and in whatever de
gree it is intended to be charged that the Presi
dent has participated in this fraudupon the Treas
ury, I am sure it is without truth or foundation.
1 agree with the gentleman in the disapprobation
he expresses as to the official acts of Secretary
Meredith, the Secretary of War, and Attorney
General Johnson. No word of mine shall be ut
tered in defence of those acts, and I now denounce
and condemn them as unjustifiable and dangerous;
but no part of their responsibility is shared by the
President; nor is there authority for connecting
him with the transaction, in an attempt to sully
his fair fame and bring reproach upon his charac
ter. Sir, he needs no defence from efforts like
these. His character is everywhere a guarantee
against corruption and dishonesty, both in his

own acts and in his counsels to others. What
ever individual members of his Cabinet may have
done in this matter, has been done on their indi
vidual, official responsibility, and not as the act of
the Administration. The friends of the claim
who may represent that it has the approval of the
Executive, for the purpose of clothing it in more
comely garb and to save it from utter infamy, will
be sure to cast odium on the Administration,
whatever strength the representation may give -
Galphin. No discreet friend of the President will
make such representation. Whenever Galphin
shall be admitted into the household of the Ad
ministration as a friend, it will be in the day of the
dishonor and defeat, the prostration and infamy of
that Administration. Let the responsibility rest
where it belongs; but let not gentlemen on the
other side of the House attempt to make party
capital out of this question, until they can relieve
their own Secretary (Mr. Walker) from the
weight of odious responsibility resting on him by
reason of his having first opened the Treasury to
this antique and hoary-headed relic of the colonial
time. Why did not the gentleman from Ohio de
nounce the first attack and draft upon the Treas
ury ? That was the first great error, and he who
committed it was first deserving the gentleman's
denunciation. It will not do to condemn Mr.
Meredith for the payment of the interest, and hold
Mr. Walker blameless for paying the principal;
and those gentlemen who dose can find less justi
fication for their conduct in the act of 1848 than in
the prejudices of party.
Sir, what is the act of 1848? I recollect the
bill, and I recollect the time it passed this House,
though it has been said that it passed sub silentio
on tbe last night of the session, when but few
members were in their seats, and fewer still knew
what the bill was. It was, indeed, on a hot night
of a dog-day session, when almost the business of
a session was crowded into a few hours, and no
time was left for examination. But I voted for
the bill, as I had done for other bills of alike char
acter, time and again, and a3 I have sicce done,
because, without assuming, admitting, or recog
nizing a liability on the part of the Government,
it transferred an examination and adjustment of a
complex claim from Congress to a department
where an examination and adjudication could the
better be made. Such being the bill, 1 could have
no objection to its passage; and the views which
governed my own vote, I cannot doubt, induced
others to vote for it.
What, sir, is the true, natural, and common-
sense construction of that act ? Mr. Walker says
he "considered that the law clearly recognized the
obligation of the United States to pay the claim,
whatever it might be." But does it bear that con
struction ? Did Congress so intend? If so, in
what position is the gentleman from South Caro
lina, [Mr. Burt,] the gentleman from Mississip
pi, [Mr. Featherston,] and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, [Mr. Mann,] three of the majority
of this committee, placed? They, each and all,
say the claim was not a just demand against the
United Slates, but that the law made it the duty
of the Secretary of the Treasury to pay it. Now,
sir, these gentlemen were, with myself, members
of the last Congress, and with me they voted for
that bill; or, at least, they did not oppose it, nor
did either of them even object to its passage. If,

then, their construction of the law is correct, how
do they stand excused for their action in binding
the United States to pay what they say was an
unjust claim which the United States ought not to
have paid? _ By their action they assisted to make
valid and' just what they say was before invalid
and unjust ! By their aid the United States be
came bound to pay what they hold she ought al
ways to have repudiated. This is the position in
which these gentlemen are placed by their con
struction of the law; for it will hardly be denied
that they gave the bill at least a negative support.
For my own sake, more than theirs, and, more
than all, for the sake of a just accountability as
between Congress and the Secretary of the Treas
ury, I rejoice in the conviction that their construc
tion is unwarranted and erroneous. If Congress
had intended to recognize the justice and validity
of the claim, and to pay it at all events, wherefore
the necessity or propriety of referring it to the
Secretary of the Treasury for examination and
adjustment? If they meant to bind the Govern
ment, what was there for the Secretary of the
Treasury to examine and adjust? And why an
examination after the Government was bound ?
An examination was of no. importance for any
other purpose than to ascertain if the United States
were liable to pay, and an adjustment by the Sec
retary was entirely unnecessary after that had
been determined by Congress. It was the exam
ination in reference to liability,, and not adjust
ment as to amount, that Congress desired to trans
fer. The question of liability being settled, the
adjustment of the amount was not difficult. As
proof of this, it need only be mentioned that Mr.
Walker paid the same amount that was liquidated
by the British Government in 1775, only reducing
the same to our own currency.
Mr. Speaker, I am not altogether ignorant of
the strength of party prejudices; I know how
they are accustomed to influence and control the
judgment and the actions of men. I know, too,
with what effect official patronage and power may
be used to procure support for such measures as
it is for the interest and credit of officials should
be sustained, and it is by no means matter of sur
prise to find those who are active in sustaining
Mr. Walker, on the one hand, and Messrs Mere
dith, Johnson, and Crawford, on the other. If the
law of 1848 is not construed according to the
second resolution, then is Mr. Walker disgraced.
That construction will save him; and his friends
hold him in too high regard not to insist upon
that construction. The same construction is ne
cessary to save Mr. Meredith from odium, and
his patronage and good will, just at this time, are
abundantly sufficient to procure opinions in favor
of that construction.
In saying this, 1 do not mean to imply that there
are gentlemen on this floor that can be influenced
by such considerations. I do not thus judge the
motives of members. But there are scribblers,
pettifoggers, and hangers-on, out of this Hall,
who, in their devotion to power that dispenses
patronage, have gravely argued that Congress in-
ended to authorize the payment of the claim, no
matter from whom due; and that the law plainly
and fairly directs the payment, though found to
be due from the Indians, Great Britain, or Geor
gia, instead of the United States. This argu
ment is so preposterous that it need only be stated

to refute itself. Has this Government become
so rich and liberal that it is willing to pay the
debts of others? Has she become so lavish of
the hard-earned treasure of the people that 3he
will pay what the committee say she was not
legally, equitably, or morally bound to pay ?
But, it is said, if it was not intended that
we should pay it unless it should be found due
from the United States, it should have been
so expressed in the law. The answer to this is,
that as we are hot in the habit of paying any
body's debts but our own, a law which in terms
authorizes the examination and adjustment of a
claim, and the payment of what shall be found
due, can only mean that it shall be paid if found
due from us. Affirmative words making payment
dependent on this condition would be entirely
useless; while, for the reason that nobody can
suppose we intend to pay another's debts, affirma
tive words absolutely and unconditionally assu
ming the debt could alone be sufficient to au
thorize such construction.
Sir, I maintain that the plain duty of the Secre
tary of the Treasury, under that law, was to ex
amine and inquire, 1st, Whether anything was
due on that claim from the United States; and if
so, 2d, To adjust and ascertain the amount that
was due. That there might have been individual
members who knew that the Secretary of the
Treasury would construe it as he did do, I will
not pretend to deny; for the claim had its special
friends on this floor and around the Capitol. But
if there were such, is it not reasonable to presume,
that they had beforehand been informed of the
construction that Mr. Walker would give it ? I
do not allege that the bill was artfully drawn for
the purpose of securing the payment of the claim
beyond mistake or peradventure, while all but its
peculiar friends regarded it as merely instructing
the Secretary to pay whatever should be found
due from the United States, on a thorough exam
ination of the justice of the claim, and the liability
of the Government. Were that true, there would
be more of fraud and corruption in this case than
the evidence proves. Whatever the friends of the
claim, however, might have known or thought in
relation to the construction that would be given to
the act, it cannot be believed that anybody else,
who consented to its passage, entertained any idea
that it could bear the construction of Mr. Walker,
or that any attempt would be made to give it that
construction. Sir, there was no chance for mis
construction, except such as might be found in a
disposition to set Congress at defiance, and to ap
propriate the public funds without authority of
law. It was no part of the duty of the Secre
tary of the Treasury to pay the claim, however
just and meritorious, unless he should find that it
was due from the United States. The liberality of
Congress had not been exhibited by investing him
with any such power. As the gentleman from
Ohio has, with slight variation, well remarked in
reference to another officer — whatever may have
been liberal or illiberal, was not within his prov
ince to determine. He was not the almoner of
the public bounty; nor had he a right to superadd
to his duty of executing the law the kinder office
of dispensing the liberality of the Government.
He was the legal custodian of the public treasure.
As the guardian of it, the people had a right to
look for its protection.

8

Now, sir, another question involved in this
matter, is the payment of interest by Secretary
Meredith. I do not propose to discuss it as a legal
question. It has been most ably discussed al
ready, and I have no desire to run over the
authorities that show most clearly and conclusivly
that there was no authority in law or precedent
for its allowance. Nor is it necessary for me to
do so. Under the true and proper construction of
the law of 1848, I hold that interest was not due
unless it was first ascertained and determined that,
outside the law, the principal was due from the
United States. Nor even then should interest
have been allowed. That law required the Sec
retary of the Treasury to examine and adjust the
Galphin claim. What was that claim? Whatits
extent? The specific, exact amount' fixed' by
Great Britain, and none other. There was no
claim for interest; it was for the principal alone.
Again: no liability for interest rested on the Govern
ment, for the reason that the principal was paid,
not because it was found due, but on the ground
that the Government had assumed the claim. But
if the claim was assumed, it was only the claim as
made, and that did not include interest. The
principal could not carry interest, unless it was
paid as a just and valid debt; and those who hold,
as I do, that the Government was neither liable for
the claim, nor that she assumed it in the law of
1848, will not need the authorities to satisfy them
that interest was improperly paid. But whatever
the view taken of this question, I can find no
groundon which interest could have been allowed,
and Secretary Meredith in paying it, and Attorney
General Johnson in advising it to be paid, have
taken a responsibility that cannot be sustained,
and ought not to be tolerated.
When this claim for interest was first presented
to Mr. Meredith, he found the opinion of two of
the late accounting officers of the Treasury against
the allowance. He thereupon referred the case to
Mr. Whittlesey, the Comptroller of the Treasury,
by whom the question was again examined with
great attention and ability. Mr. Whittlesey also
reported against the allowance; but determined, as
it would seem, to find some excuse or pretext for
overruling these several able opinions, Mr.
Meredith at last presented the case to the Attorney
General, who finally delivered an opinion so much
sought for, and of which he has himself the mod
esty to say, that it was " the only one which any
lawyer of well-earned reputation could have
given." With such amiable assurance I do not

desire to come in conflict, but I will dare to say,
that it will be most fortunate for the pockets of'
the people, when legal opinions on questions of
interest shall be given by a law. officer who has
earned his reputation by practice in courts where
justice has precedence over generosity, and the
action of executive officers is held subservient to
the control of Congress.
What Mr. Meredith ought to have done, in my
judgment, was this: Having doubts upon the
question, as he professed to have, and the amount
involved being large, he should have submitted it
to Congress, and taken their opinion as to what
was their meaning two years ago, and not relied
on an opinion of the Attorney General as to what
it ought to have been or might have been. Con
gress holds the key of the Treasury, or should
hold it, and if money may be taken from the pub
lic purse on the mere opinions of executive officers,
then indeed is Congress a useless appendage to
the Government. One " lawyer of well-earned
reputation," under such a system,^ would do all
the necessary legislation of the country, as well as
attend to his other minor duties.
Of Mr. Crawford's connection with this case, I
am disposed to say little in addition to what I have
already said. The relation he holds towards the
Government is one that made it highly indelicate
and improper, that he should allow a claim in
which he was himself so largely interested, to be
prosecuted before- either of the executive depart
ments while he should remain the head of one of
them. I care not whether his interest in the claim
was known either to the Secretary of the Treasury,
or the Attorney General, or both. The fact that
he had an interest in the claim, and that he con
tinued to aid, though not openly, in its prosecution
for his own benefit, remains. I do not say he
made use of his position to get this claim for in
terest allowed; nor does the impropriety of his
conduct depend on this circumstance. He, with
out doubt, holds it to be proper, while in his offi
cial character he is required to pass upon claims
and watch expenditures in one department, that
he should continue the feed attorney for the prose
cution of claims in another. But I cannot so re
gard it. It is something more and worse than im
propriety; and as one humble Representative of a
constituency who have a common pride and a
common interest in a just, honest, faithful, and
honorable administration of every department of
this Government, I raise my voice against it now
and ever.

YALE UNIVERSITY L

3 9002 08305 4370