Newspaper Page Text
oomuuzoirAi.
SPEECH OF MR. BERRIEN.
Th* I>tll f- ir the relief of certain surviving Officers
of the Revolutionary Army being under con
sideration—in support of the bill.
Mr. Berrien addressed the Senate, as follows:
1 have, said be, hitherto abstained from taking any
part in this debate. Har'ng satisfied myself that
the memorialists hare a claim on the justice of this
Government founded on the most rigorous legal
principles that cun be invoked for the decision of
questions of private right, sustained and enforced,
if such support were necessary, by that high and
ennobling feeling of gratitude for tueiitorious
service, which ought to destinguish us as a nation,
aud which, as individuals, we should be proud to
cherish : having listened to the very lucid and im
pressive exposition of the subject, which has been
given by the Chairman of the Committee, 1 have
not heretofore permitted myself to believe, that
this measure was fated to encounter the opposi
tion by which it has been recently assailed. Even
now,'when under the influence of feelings thus
called into exercise, and yielding to the wishes of
my associates. I present myself to the notice of
the. Senate, I entreat ge.ntlem* n to believe, that it
fs in the discharge of my duly, as a member of
the committee, that I am induced to make even
this brief trespass on their time.
I owe it to myself to make one preliminary
remark. Educated in feelings of deep and habit
ual reverence fur those illustrious men, by whose
exertions, under Providence, this great Republic
was ushered into existence, I have, nevertheless,
silenced their suggestions, in the decision of this
cjuestion. I came to its consideration with u per
tect and unchangeable conviction, that, to eutitle
these memorialists to the allowance of their claim,
it was necessary to do something more than mere
ly to make out a case, which should appeal to the
gratitude of the Ameiicun People, however mer
itorious and brilliant the services on which that
appeal was founded. The claim was upon the
Public Treasury of that People, preferred to agents
of limited authority, who must allot or reject it,
tn the exercise of their constitutional functions,
not under the influence of individual feelings. J
presumeuot to question the motives of any Ben-
ator, who ntay differ from me, when I say, that
we are not the almoners of the American People
the dispensers of their charity, hut ngeots, with
limited powers,entrusted with the control of the.
public purse, for the sole purpose of applying it
to the current exigencies of the Government, in
thu advancement of great principles of public pol
icy connected with the exercise of powers sub
stantially conferred upon us, and in tlie discharge
of individual claims arising from our own, or the
engagements of our predecessors, lam very well
aware, that this limited construction of our pow
ers will often be productive of embarrassment;
that many cases will arise, in which nty feelings
will strongly urge a more extended interpreta
tion. In my view, however, it is forbidden, by
< ons'deratiuns higher even than charity—by con
siderations of fealty to the Constitution, which we
‘nave sworn tn preserve.
it I u—, ... «uin u ; 3 r,um my
incapacity to estimate a claim of mere right, to
determino an ordinary question of meum and (tmm,
on the principles of that science, to which I have
devoted (negligently, if yon will, .Sir, but still with
Mime little ardor, however transient,} the best
years of my life. Why should I repress the. ex
pression of the feeling which rises unhidden to
my lips ? The proudest privilege wliieh that pro
fession has ever aeeorded to me, is that which I
tills day enjoy, of vindicating, on this tl >or, under
the dearest conviction of my judgment, the claim
"f tliesu gallant veteran i upon the justice of thu
country.
In the formation of my opinion on this subject,
! have excluded every consideration of the char
acter of the service on wliieh this claim is found
ed ; of the individual or collective meiils of those
w;ho performed it. For all the purposes of this
inquiry, that question \srts judicata. It has pass
ed into judgment by the decision of our prede
cessors, in the Congress of 1780, and 1783. The
elaitu is of record, aud the single question fur
uurdetermination, is, whether it has been dis
charged ?
While, however, in order to exclude from this
•nqniry every consideration which does not legit
iniately belong to if, I alis'aio from speaking of
the sen ice which it is the object of this bill to com
pensate, with any view lo invoke your gratitude
in aid of your justice, I cannot listen, in silence, to
observations, of wliieh the tendency, however un
intentional, is to diminish the just estmiatu of its
value. I present this as a claim of right, resting
in contract, und having the character of an ex
press conventional obligation. But, if gentlemen
will look behind that contract, to the considera
tion on w hich it is ftiunih d, for the purpose of in*
stituiing an unfavorable comparison between
these memorialists, and tliusc of their companions
in arms, although 1 cannot lie tempted to say
might which may detract from thu merits of the
Utter, it is my right, it is my duty, to defend
1fiuse who have defended us ; lo rescue from all
unfriendly judgment, tlie hard-earned reputation
of those gallant mt n, vv ho breasted the storm in
the perilous struggle of our Revolutionary con-
fl.ct. If I could shrink from the performance of
such a duty, {should be faithless to (he best and
purest feelings of my heart. That eye is forev
er dimmed, whose living indignant ga/.e I could
nut brook, if I were thus recreant from the claims
of nature and affection.
Sir, is it, at this day, n question, whether those
gallant men, whom Washington so often led to
victory and renown, with vvhoni he so often shar
ed privations and siiflerings, infinitely moru trying
to the spirit of the soldier, than danger in its most
appalling form ; is it,at this day, a question, w heth-
er they have nr have not deserved all that a great-
ful country can bestow - Fifty years have rolled
on, amid the annual reel tuts of their achievements,
while they themselves have, fur the most part,
passed aw ay, leaving to us the rich legacy of their
heroic deeds. Sir, the reputation of the Revo
lutionary patriot is the moral tiuasure of the na
lion. In ages yet to come, it will constitute that
nation's strength.
I repeat the declaration. I do not found the
claim which I am now advocating before you, on
the consideration that it was dearly nobly won. I
do not assume for these memorialists any pre-em
inence of merit over their companions in arms,
or their fellow laborers in the councils of that dark
and trying hour. I can turn with an enthusiasm
ns glowing as that of m.V respected fiiond on my
'••ft, to the brilliant scenes of Bunker’s Hill, of
Bennington, and of King’s Mountain ; to thusc
illustrious men, who led our militia to victory iu
-many a stormy light ; ay, and to the militia them
selves, vrhose individu.il valor has often snatched
victory from the disciplined phalanx which op
posed them. 1 can deplore the mutability of for
tune which th" victor of Burgoyne was destined
io experience on thu plains of Camden. But I
am a Southern man : and need I remind him that
some of the most brilliant scenes of our Revolu
tionary strife were exhibited iu tbe campaign of
tli I'iarolinas, under the auspices of Greene, em-
pauiically denominated the second saviour of his
country? Sir, while I cheerfully accord the
meed of merited praise lo Sumpter, and Marion,
and Pickens, I cannot forget that Wayne, and
1 ,ee, and Howard, and Williams, and Morgan,
end Moultrie, and a host of other worthies of
the regular army, were foremost in tbe struggle of
Southern strife.
1 But why this unprofitable comparison between
• tue merits of the regular array and the militia, in
the vvar of the Revolution r Why distuih the re
pose of the tomb, or mantle the cheek of the sur
vivors with the glow of hone-i indignation r The
reputation of both is the common property of the
,country. Is it our interest to diminish either ?
‘The effort would be as gratuitous as it would be
unwelcome and unjust. I will proceed to state,
as briefly as l may, tbe legal view which I have of
ithis claim.
Iu May 1778, Congress passed a resclutiun, pro-
•mistng to give seven years half-pay to officers
"who were then io the army, and should so con-
uioe until the end of the war. In October, 1780,
ey resolved that all officers, who r houl'I eont'n-
ue iu service until tne end o ftfte Wit’, flould be
entitled to half-pay during life, to commence from
the time of the redaction.
Here, for a moment, let us pause, The present
memorialists were embraced in these resolutions.
They were officers of the American army and
served, with fidelity, until the close of the war.—
With them, these resolutions, that of 1780 par
ticularly, constitute n contract, a promise thatthey
should receive half their regular pay, during their
lives, un thepeiformance, by them, of the stipula
ted condition. That condition they have per
formed and the contract has become absolute on
the part of the Government. The single ques
tion fur our inquiry is. Has it been fulfilled?—
Unless this can be affirmed, its obligation remaios,
however successfully you may resist its enforce
ment, by applying the statue of limitations as a
bar to the remedy, or by the exercise, for any oth
er cause, of your power lo refuse this applica
tion.
Has this contract been fulfilled ? How, in vvliat
manner, has it been fulfilled? In March 1789,
Congress resolved that these oflicers should lie
entitled to receive five years’full pay, in money
nr securities, at six per cent, pvr annum, as Con
gress should find most convenient, instead of the
half pay for life, promised by the resolutiott of
October, 1780, under certain provisions, to which
1 vvill hereafter advert more particularly. The
Confederated Government was then without funds,
and without the means of raising them, other
wise than by the enntrihntious of the Slate. Nev
ertheless, the eeitifinitcs were issued lo the offi
cers, in 1784, for the amount of this commuta
tion and their arrears of pay ; and as well in that
year as in 1783. Congress resolved that requisi
lions should he made on the several states, to pro
vide funds for the discharge of the demands ol
the Hrmy. But, these requisitions were not com
plied with by the States. The inevitable consa-
quence was, that the certificates fell to about one-
tenth of their nominal value, and, at this depreci
ated rate, the necessities of the officers compell
ed them, for the most part, to dispose of them —
Then came the funding act of 1780. The arrears
of interest were funded at 3 per cent, instead of
six, and payment of one-third of the principal was
deferred for ten years, without interest.
Upon this state of facts, my proposition is, that
the originnl contract of October, 1780, is still sub
sisting und obligatory under the Government ;
that payments made under the resolution of 1783,
ure applicable to it as credits, but cannot he plead
ed in tlischarge.
Those who deny the continued subsisting obli
gation of this contract, must affirm one of two
things—Either that the resolution of 1784 be
came obligatory upon these memorialists, by
their acceptance of it, ns a substitution for tbe
contract of 1780, and by the performance, on the
part of the Government, of its stipulations; or
that the certificates issued und received in 1784,
were, of themselves, and independently of the res
olution of 1783, a sufficient satisfaction of the
contract of 1780. The latter ground has not been
taken by the opponents of this bill. It is too ob
viously indefensible to he maintained. It will suf
fice, therefore, to direct our attention to the inqui-
t y, whether (lie resolution of 1783, and the sub
sequent transactions between the parties, are suf
ficient to discharge the contract which it created ?
On this subject, I maintain these positions:
1. That the propositions contained iu the reso
lution of 1789, never were obligatory on these
memorialists, because, after the period limited for
their acceptance, and within which time it is not
pretended that they were uccepted, they ceased
to he obligatory on the Government, und recipro
city of obligation is of the very essence of such a
contract.
2. Thut there was no acceptance of these pro
positions by these memorialists at any time ; and,
8. That the receipt by the memorialists of the
certificates issued in 1784, cunnot he pleaded in
discharge of the contract of 1780.
I.et us look very briefly at this subject in the
first view. The resolution 1783, which proposed
the allowance of fire yeats’ full pay, instead of
the half pay due by the original contract, express
ly subjected it tu this condition—that tlie election
of the officers to accept it, should, in the manner
specified in the resolution, “ lie signified to Con
gress through the Commander-in Chief, from the
lines under his immediate command, within two
months, and through the Commanding Officer of
tbe Southern Army, within six months from the
dateof the resolution.” It is unnecessary to en
ter into details upon this point. It suffices to state,
generally what is, on all hands, admitted, that the
condition attached to the offer contained in the
resolution of 1783, was not, in fact, perfoiniedhy
those to whom the offer was made, within the
time prescribed. At the expiration of that time,
it ceased to he obligatory upon tbe Government.
The contract between the parties was in precisely
the same condition us if tbe resolution of 1783
had never been passed, and consequently the con
tract founded on the resolution of 1780 was in
full force and operation. An ineffectual attempt
had been made to substitute for thu original
contract, one, the terms of which were specified
in the resolution of 1783—hut the failure to ac
cept those terms in thu manner, and within the
time, prescribed in the offer, necessarily prevent
ed its consummation. No legal obligation could
attach to the party making thu offer, because of
the failure of the party to whom it was made to
accept it, according to the specified terms. Each
party was, therefore, remitted to his rights as they
existed anterior to this unsuccessful attempt to
modify them. I submit to ray professional asso
ciates on this floor, whether this would not he. the
legal effect of such a state of things between in
dividuals ; and to all, the inquiry, whether this
Government can, with propriety, absolve itself
from the obligation of those principles, which,
through its judicial department, it would inforce in
transactions between its citizens ?
I maintain then, that, on the failure to accept
the oiler made by the Government in 1783, on the
terms, and within the time prescribed, the resolu
tion containing that offer became fundus officio ;
that the original contract between the parties still
subsisted, unaffected by this unsuccessful attempt
to agree upon a substitute; and that all subse
quent transactions between them, in the absence
of express individual stipulation) are necessarily
rcfcrruble to tliis as the only subsisting contract.
I have said that there was no acceptance of the
offer contained in the resolution of 1783, within
the time presetilicd for its acceptance, and, con
sequently, that it was not binding upon the Go
vernment ; ami if not binding upon the party ma
king the tender, certainly not so upon the party to
whom the tender was raude, since reciprocity of
obligation was of the essence of such a contract.
I now assert, that the acceptance of Ibis offer by
those to whom it was addressed, within the time,
and in the very terms specified in the resolution,
would not have operated as a legal bar to the
dames of these memorialists. The contract en
tered into by the United States with the officers
of the Revolutionary army, the terms of which
are set forth in the resolution of October, 17b(J,
was a contract with the several individuals des
cribed in that resolution, which gave to each of
them no indiv idual right to half-pay during life—
of which right he could only be deprived by his
own free consent, on the receipt of a fair equiva
lent. I inquire of gentlemen of the profession, if
this proposition can be denied ? If the individual
l ight of an officer thus acquired by this resolution,
could have been surrendered by the conjoint act
of evfty other officer in the American army,
without the individual asscent of that officer? 1
presume no one will assert this as a proposition
rapablaof being maintained on legal principles.—
It might as well he affirmed that the release by a
majority of the officers of their right to their reg
ular and current pay, would hove operated to
discharge the claims to such pay, of those who
did not concur in tho release. But, if I am right
in contending that the contract of 1780 could only
he released by tbe individual nsspnt of those with
whom it was made, then I maintain that the reso
lution of 1783 was, from its very terms, incap.%*
ble of becoming obligatory upon these memorial-
i-ts. It was not addressed tn them. They could
not become parties to it in the only character in
which their acceptance of it could baie operated
tn descharge the contract of 178". It was ad-
dressed to the Hr,r3 Sbd corps of the army. Tf it
had been accepted in time, and in conformity to
its own precise terms, it would still have been a
contract between the Government and those offi
cers of l lie army who accepted it—not bet w eefi the
Government aud the individuals of which that
army was composed—and could no more have af
fected the rights of those individuals, than it could
have influenced your rights or mine. Unless, then,
it can lie successfully asserted that tbe act of a
majority of the officers of any line pf the army,
without any spicific authority from the individuals
composing that line, can operate tu release the
rights of those individuals, it cannot be pretended
that the acceptance which is relied upon, even if
it had been made within the time prescribed by
tlie resolution of 1783, could have operated tore-
lease the obligation imposed upon tht Govern
ment by the resolution of 1780. If this could be
it would follow that the right of an individual,
resting on the plighted faith of the Government,
might be divested without his consent. Who is
prepared to affirm this proposition? In despotisms,
sir, the subject reposcson the word of Majesty—
and, in general, repusi s securely; because the hon
or nf the Throne is the interest of the Throne.—
In Republics, the free citizen places his reliance en
the principles of justice, which emphatically be
long to such a Government. But if it can sub
stitute its own will fer the. obligations which it bus
assumed to the individual, and coerce that indi
vidual hy the acts of those to whom be has del
egated no authmity to represent him, the differ
ence between these Governments is but iu name,
and its practical operation is to his disadvantage.
I repeat, then, that, up to the issuing of the cer
tificates in 1784 the original contract, created by
the resolution of October, 1780, remained unim
paired and unchanged ; that neither the resolution
of 1783, nor the agreement by certain lines and
corps of the army lo accept thu proposal it con
tained, could operate to divest the rights of theso
memorialists, as derived frum that original con
tract. These remained tinehanged and unchan
geable, except hy their own consent, freely given,
and for a fair equivnlcnt. We may refuse their
allowance ; hut it must be—I speak it with great
respect—by a perversion of the principles of jus
tice. We may presume the acceptance, by these
memorialists, of the offer contained in the resolu
tion nf 1783, and require them to negative the pre
sumption ; but it must be—I spaak it with great
respect—by a perversion of the rules of evidence.
Will the Government of the United States avail
itself of its power to do this In its own peculiar fo
rum ? And against whom ? Against the war
worn veterans of the Revolution—your champi
ons in the day of their strength,—suppliants be
fore you now—not for charity, but for justice, in
the season of their poverty and decrepitude.
We have thus traced this inquiry up to tbe pe
riod of theissne of the certificates in 1794 ; did
now this question presses itself upon our attention.
Assuming the fact, that these memorialists were
among those who accepted those certificates, and
not such acceptance operate as a ratification nl
the proposal contained in the resolution of 1783,
and a release of the contract of 1780? The an
swer to this inquiry will he found hy consideiing
these questions :
Was the acceptance voluntary ?
Did the Government pay a fair equivalent J
Were these certificates received on account, or
in full satisfaction ?
No one will pretend that th? constrained am
involuntary acceptance of .bat which ■(■•"» t
fair i quivalent for the stipulations of thu contract
of 1780, could, either ut law or in equity, lie con
sidcrcd us a release, or discharge, or satisfaction,
of that contract. The questions recur. Let us
look lo the situation of the contracting parties, at
the moment when these transactions occurred —
That examination will prove that the issue of the
certificates, as well as their acceptance, were alike
acts of necessity on the part of (he Government
and the officers. At the moment of passing the
resolution of 1783, promising the half pay for life,
the Confederated Government, exhausted hy the
Revolutionary struggle, and entirely destitute of
funds, and of the means of commanding them
relied upon being enabled to comply with their
engagements, by requisitions upon tlie States.—
These requisitions were accordingly made, and
urged with great earnestness in ibe Summer of
1783. But the States themselves were not in a
condition to meet the exigency. They, also, were
in a state of exhaustion. It in difficult, at this day,
to realize the extent of the exertions, the suffer
ings, and the privations, of our forefathers, in the
dark and trying hour of their struggle for the
right of self-government, which we now tnjov.—
Thu requisitions were not complied with. The
Confederated Government found itself without
funds. It became necessary to disband the army.
The officers had claims for arrearages of pay, and
the stipulated half-pay for life was to he provided
for. While this question was pending, incendiary
letters, clothed in language the most persuasive
and seducing, had been circulated in the army.—
The officers were eloquently urged, hy every con
sideration which could appeal to their feelings ot
to their interests, never to lay down their arms,
until their demands were complied with. It was
an hour of deep and awakening interest; hut the
patriotism of the, army was equal to the trial.—
Their conduct was duly appreciated by the Con
gress of 1783 It was no longer a question whether
the just expectations nf such men should he satisfied
to the utmost extent ofthe resources of the Confed
eration. The commutation fov half-pay wasstip
ulated. Requisitions oil the States were made
•mil urged with the energy which belonged to the
occasion; and, when these failed, Cnngriss gave
—it was all they had to give—the certificates of
1784. They were not given in full payment, in
satisfaction of the claims of thu ( Ulcers, iu dis
charge of the obligations of tlie Government.—
They were expressive of the sense which the Go
vernment had of the services of the army ; an
acknowledgement of their actual inability to com-
pensate them as they had stipulated to do. The
vary terms of the receipt which was taken, are
strongly indicative of this, it was not a receipt
in full, a clear and express acquittal of the Go-
vernmentof all demands upon it. No. It was a
simple acknowledgement, in each esse, of the
mere fact of tho receipt of the certificate—clearly
implying that the question of final compensation
was open, and subject to future adjustment. It
could not have been believed by Congress that
theso certificates, not letting on any adequate
funds for their redemption, could he considered
as even u legal compliance with the engagement
of the resolutions either of 1780 or 1783. They
were aware that securities, thus issued, must be
liable to constant and excessive depreciation.—
These views of the Government were common
to the officers ; but even the miserable pittance
affoidcd liv this depreciated paper, was demand
| ed by their necessities, and they received them
with a simple acknowledgement of tho facts of
I the receipt—confiding in the jiibtien of the Go
| comment for future aud adequate coinpeii-ation.
I do not trouble you with a repetition of those
calculations which prove the magnitude and ex
tent of the losses thus sustained by the memori
alists, from this operation : for they have been
clearly and satisfactorily stated by the Chairman of
the Committee, and cannot indeed be the sub
ject of controversy. I speak not now of the loss
sustained by the otlieers, from thedeprcc ation of
the public paper, which, in common with the pri
vate soldiers, and with all the classes of our citi
zens, they were destined to bear, and which they
have hurne without complaint : but of that w hich
arose from the failure to comply wall tlie stipula
tions of the coatruct of 1780, from ihe inade
quacy of the allowance of five years’ full pay, as
a commutation for the half-pay for life, and from
the iigor and injustice, as it related to these me
morialists, nf the funding act of 1790.
Can it then be pretended, that these certiflrarrs
were given and accepted in full satisfaction of the
claims of the officers ; that they were voluntarily
accepted ; that they constitute a foil and fair i -
quivalent fin the claims of these memorialists, un
der cither of the resolutions so often referred luin
this discussion ? I do not ask, if it was an eipii
table fulfilment of your contract ? I inquire rot
if it was such n fulfilment, as it will comport w th
the dignity of a great, and free, and flourishing
nation, to urge agginst the veterans in herltevolg-
ftmarj* strife, Lending under the presure of pov
erty and decrepitude? I make no appeal to your
gratitude ; to those high and ennobling feelings
which spontaneously swell in our bosoms, when
nur thoughts are thrown back upon that interest
ing struggle. For all the purposes of declamation,
the theme is most fruitful ; hut it is not my pur
pose to declaim. I inquire simply, and I address
the inquiry particularly to my professional asso
ciates on this floor, if in law, or on principles of
strict right, as between individuals, the acts done
by Ihe Government, and submitted to hy the. me
morialists, can he considered as a discharge of
the contract of 1780 ? The clearest convictions
of my judgment assure me, that they were not;
that those memorialists have still a subsisting
claim for half-pa)^ subject to all fair deductions
for what has been received ; or, at the option of
both parties, to two years’ full pay, with an al
lowance for the loss sustained by the failure to
provide adequate funds for the redemption of the
certificates, and frum the provisions of the fund
ing system.
But. here its in objected to the provisions of this
bill, that the claims of the rt presentutives of tht
deceased officers, as well as that of the private sol
diers, and of the militia, are equally strong with
those of the memorialists, and yet, are not provi
ed for. There are various answers to this objec
tion. In the first place, the supposed claimant-
are not applicants for relief. They have made
no demand upon the Government ; and havt,
thereby, afforded a silent, hut emphatic evidence,
of their own opinion oil tbe subject. It will he
time enough to announce our view of such a claim,
when it shall he presented.
Hot I propose an enquiry to Senators, hy whom
this objection is urged. Admitting, arguminti
gratia, the equal claim with these officers, ol the
various classes refei red lo, is that ari answer to the
claim of the. former ? Because there are other
classes of persons, who have just clairm upon you,
which have not been presented, are you absolv
ed from the obligation to pay those, of which the
payment is solicited ? I thank Gud,sir, this Go
vernment is now solvent, and competent to the
payment of all just claims upon its Treasury.
I propose another inquiry. Senators who so
strongly and feelingly urge the claims of l!i"?e
other classes, are of course satisfied of their cor
rectness. They cannot doubt the. solvency of the
Government, or the willingness nf the American
People tn discharge all just claims upon them, es
pecially those contracted in the war of Indepen
dence. Sir, that People are always in advance of
us in those questions which appeal to their juslici
or to their liberality. Are those Senators willing
to provide for those claims ? Will they support
the present hill, with an amendment which sh ill
provide for them ? If they will not, let the obji-e
tion stand upon its real ground, which is co-ex
tensive with every claim for Revolutionary service.
Let us, however, for a moment examine the
character of these claio's ; and first, of those o'
the representatives of deceased officers. Cnnsid
er their claim to Imlf-pay, under the resolution »f
1780. Half-pay is in the nature nf an annuity for
life. It is designed by the Government for thi
eninfortnlile support of the officer, und not as a
provision for his representatives. It is agreed,
however, that any arrears which maybe due at
the time of his death, constitute a part of his p> r
smial estate, and will descend to those represen
tatives. But the half-pay was limited to the life
of the officer; and those whom these claimants
represent are dead. When they died, wbethei
the amount of half-pay lo which they were then
entitled, exceeded or fell short of that sum which
they had received, in Ihecertificates issued in 1784,
are questions which you are not prepared to dc
leriiilne ; and your inability to do this, furnish, s
no excuse for postponing the just clainiB of nth
era, who still survive, and are consequently still
entitled.
Then consider it upon the footing of the com
mutation, under the resolution of 1783, and
the discrimination is still stronger in favor of the
present memorialists.
The Congress of 17CS, fixed upon five years’
full pay, asa commutation for half-pay forlife. How
was this done? To the junior oflicers of the army
—to men between twenty and thirty years ol
age, it was not manifestly not an equivalent A
refcrrence to the annuity tables, and thu reflec
tions of every one who hears me, will conceive us
that they were entitled to full pay for a longei
term of yp.irs; that, in the ordinary calculations
of human I fo they were authorized to expect a
prolongation of it, beyond the terra which was as
sumed in the. estimate. For the senior officers of
the army—for those of forty five years and up
wards—the estimate was, perhaps, too large—it
was probably more than an equivalent for half pay
for life, calculating the probability of its duration
in their rase, in the same manner as in that of the
junior officers. What then was the piinciple ad
opted in making the estimate ; It was by taking
a single life, tlie age of which was ascertained by
the average of tbe ages of all the officers of the
army, and calculating its probable duration, as the
measure of the projected communication. Now,
the Chairman of the Committee has satisfactori
ly shown, by a reference to the most approved
annuity tables, that, even on this assumption, the
commutation actually allowed was too small.—
But that is not the point of the present inquiry.—
The complaint of the junior officers is this ; that
the amount of the coinmu’utien, to which they
were entitled, was diminished, and that of the sen
ior officers was increased hy assuming an aver
age In truth, the only fair principle on whichsuch
commutation could have been regulated, would
have been by establishing different rates of allow
ance for different ages, and then applying them
according to the state of the fact, when the cer-
lifieates were issued, in the same manner iu which
annuities for life arc converted into sums in gross,
in transactions between individuals. Instead ol
this, the junior oflicei was deprived of a portion
of the benefit of the prolonged life, which he w as
authorized to rxpt-ct, which was given to his sen
ior. It hy no means, therefore, follows, that be
cause the claims of these mcmurialsts, who were
among the juniors of the army, are sustained, on
the ground that they did not receive an equiva
lent, that a like claim exists in behalf of the sen
ior officers, or their representatives. On the con
trary, although the commutation, on the average
assumed, was inadequate, it is a very reasonable
presumption, that, to the senior officers, it was a
fair equivalent. It is in right nf these senior of
ficers, that representatives would, for the most
part, claim—and to them, therefore, in general,
this answer might be safely and justly given. Ma
ny Senators may recollect individual instances,
which will srem to be variant from this view ; a
closer scrutiny will, however.show that they are
exceptions, which do not conflict with the rule;
and that they donut exist to any important ex
tent.
It is thus, then, that theso memorialists distin
gni ‘h their ease from that ofthe representatives
of the dic ased ( Hirers. That they Were among:
tli*'junior officers of the American army, is prov
ed hy the fact, that they are. at this (lay, applicants
at the bar of an American Senate. They tell you,
that, iu settling the commutation allowed, you
toukjfroni them, to give to their seniors, without
their consent, in the only way io which that con
sent could have heen given—namely, hy their in
dividual voice They tell you, that the accept
ance of that commutation was hy (heir seniors,
who derived a benefit at their cost; aud they de
ny that the allowance of their claim, now, to vvliat
was then taken from them, tn he given to those
seniors, can constitute the basis of a claim on
the part of the representatives of those seniors,
to a similar allowance. In truth, Sir, it would
seem that all to which those representatives could
make any claim, w ould be to the amount of tbe loss
sustained by the short funding of the certificates,
under the act nf 1799.
The claim of the memorialists would be either
for the arrears ( f their half pay, deducting what
was realized from the certificates, or to the dif
ference between five and seven years full pay, with
simple interest, and to the amount of the loss sus
tained hy the funding.
The deficiency of the commutation, with sim
ple interest, would amount to 3931 000
One years’full pay, hy short funding and simple
interest; $179,900
It is only to the latter, that the representatives
of deceased officers could make claim, on the
principles, and subject lo the conditions, which I
have attempted to ixplain.
It is objected that this hill contains no provis
on for the private soldiers ofthe American Army,
and S> niters have spoken of ihein in terms of
well-merited eulogy, which it would lie delightful
to hear, if it were not pronounced in opposition to
the just claims of these memorialists But the
discussion is wholly gratuitous and irrelative.—
The character of the service rendered hy the A
merican officers, was determined by the Coogres-
of 1780 and 1783. They adjudged it to be faith
ful service, and they stipulated to reward it by a
specific compensation. The memorialists ask
from you, in the discharge of your constitutional
obligation, the performance of that stipulation.—
Whatever may be tlie claims of the American
soldier on the gratitude of the country, and it is
cheeerfully admitted that they are founded on dis
•inguished valor, and the purest patriotism, unless
they can show the contract of the Government,
their claim is on its gratitude, hut they cannot
appeal to its justice ; and the effort to assimilate
it to the claim of theBC memorialists is merely
nugatory.
But, independently of your contract with the of
ficer, would the analogy contended for exist? The
soldier received a bounty on his enlistment, and
was clothed by tho Government, by whom the
deprecation of the purchase money was borne.—
The officer, out of the monthly stipend which
was paid to him in this depreciated currency, wa«
compelled to provide for himself Your contract
with the soldier has heenenmplied with on its face
Nevertheless you have made a destinction in bi-
favor in your pension law. The soldier tigs re
ceived land, bounty, pay, pension. What have
you done for the officer ? If he will approach
you as a suppliant, in forma pauperis, yon admit
him on your pension list But, when he presents
himself before you as a claimant, and asks the
fulfilment of your contract, you turn a deaf ear t'
his demand.
But, the bill does not provide for the. militia,
and. therefore, it is objectionable. Sir, I am at
all limes willing to accord to the militia of the
Revolutionary army, whatever distinguished val
or. and the loftiest patriotism, can enti le them to
claim. But, I repeat, this application is based on
your contract with these memorialists. They do
not urge upon you the pre-eminence of their ser
vices, or Heck tn disparage those of their as«oei
ales in arms, who belonged to the militia. They
ask the fulfilment of your contract with them.—
With the militia you have no such engagements.
They were called into service hy the States, by
whom they were compensated, and the States
have received an allowance for these disburse
ments in the general audit and adjustment of their
accounts with the National Treasury. It cannot
he, therefore, that (He omission to provide for
the militia can constitute a tenable objection to
this bill.
Sir, the enquiry recurs : if provisions for al
these various classes were included in the hill un
der discussion, would the difficulties of the nbjec
tors he removed ? Or, are the claims of the?,
classes urged upon us, to give an alarming view nf
the magnitude of Ihe obligations of the Govern
ment, and thus to defeat the present claim, with
nut any view to ultimate provision for them ?
apprehend the latter, is the n al state of the fact.
I trust, therefore, that this discussion will not
cite expectations, which are too surely destined
to he disappointed ; and my earnest hope and dp
sire is, that the Senate will decide the present op
plication with a sole view to its own intrinsic mer
ts. Whatever is d ie to justice, the Government
is competent to perform. Whatever justly be
longs to these gallant veterans, we ought to ai-
cord tn them freely, promptly, and with grati
tude. *
But the appeal of these memorialists is not ad
dressed to our gratitude ; it is a claim upon mn
justice. TIip demands upon the former, is lie
yond -ur power lo conceal. The claims upon
'he latter, we are competent to fulfil. These vet
eran soldiers do not—it cannot be too often re
peated—they do not come before us as suppli
ants for oor charity. No, sir ; struggle with ad
versify, bending under the weight of years, they
still retain enough of the sturdy independence , >
their youthful spirit, to avoid this humiliation.—
They claim the fulfilment of a contract. They
demand, respectfully, hut earnestly, the award of
justice.
Sir, let it be the honest pride of this Govern
tnenl autim cuique tribuere. Render every mar,
his due; fulfil your plighted faith ; redeem th,
solemn pledge which you gave at a moment, wher.
besides that pledge, you had nothing el-e to give.
Enable os to meet the little remnant of this hand
nf heroes, who yet survive, the object of th
country’s reverence, with the conscientiousness of
h ring at last dealt justly with them.
Smooth their descent to the tomb,by giving '
them the means of providing those comforts '
whirh the.y are justly, and of right entitled. D
not allow the senseof their country’s persevering
injustice to give an added pang to the last struggle,
»f expiring nature. Be just and fear not. Th,
universal acclaim of a greatful People, w ill const,
crate the act.
«... ID ln
transactions of its concerns.
Article 9 This Society shall hold its annual mec
•••ft in tho city of Nmv-Yiuk on tho Tuesday mimed
ately preceding the second Thursday in May, at 1
o’clock A M and no alteration shall bo made' in it
Constitution except at an annual meeting, and by
vote of two-thirds of tho members present 1
LIST OF OFFICERS.
It will be seen from the list of Officers, that the ac
lections woro made agreeably to the broad piinciol,
specified in the Constitution Tho Vice-President
represent no loss than nma religious denominations
the Directors six, and tho Executive Committee ai
equal number.
PRESIDENT :
Hon. Stephen V’an Rensselaer, of Albany
VICE-PRESIDENTS.
Rev Ashbell Green, D D Philadelphia
Hon. John Cotton Smith, Sharon, Conn ’
Rev Alexander Proudfit. D D Salemj N. Y.
Rov. Robert Semple, Virginia,
Rt Rev Alex, V. Griswold, Bristol, R. I.
Rev. James Milnor, D. D. New-York
Rev. Joshua Soule, Bp. Moth F.p, Church
Rrv. Alvan Hvdo, D D. Lee, Mass. ’
Rev. Francis Wayland, D D. Pros Brown Uni.
Hon. Albion K Parris, Portland, Mo.
Hon. Nathaniel W. Howell, Canandaigua, N. Y.
Hon. Joseph Noutso, Washington City,
Francis S. Key, Esq Georgetown, D. C.
Hon Duncan G Campbell, Georgetown, D. C.
John Griscom, LL. D. Now York,
Rev. J G. Sclunuckcr, D. D York, Pa.
Gan. John II. Cocke, Fiuviann Co. Va.
Guvemor Butler, Vermont,
Rt Rev. Bp Chase, Ohio.
Rov. Win. McKondreo.Bp Moth Ep. Church-
Rev. Henry B Bascom, Prca. Mad Coll. Pa.
Rev. Benjamin Mortimer, New-York.
Rev. John Standford, New-York,
Rev. P Millcdoler, Pros Rutgers’ Coll. N. B.
Rev. Lucius Belles, D D. Salem, Maas.
Col. Morgan, U. S Army,
Rov. Dr. Fishiiack, Kentucky,
Capt. Charles B Thompson, U. S. Navy.
SECRETAKIKS :
, Corresponding Secretary,
John Stearns, M D Recording Secretary.
TREASURER .-
Mr. Arthur Tuppan, New-York.
DIRECTORS:
Hon. Samuel M. Hopkins, Albany,
Rev. Duvid Porter, D. D. Catskill,
Rov. Nathan Bangs, D. D
Mr. George Suckley,
Elijah Pierson,
John II. Hill,
John D. Keuso,
Arthur Tuppan,
Dr. Jainos C. Illiss
Dr David M. Reese, New-York,
Rev J. Matthias,
Rov diaries G. Sommers,
Rov. Thomas Do Witt,
llov Henry Chase,
B. Badger, |
Rov. M Bruen, )
Rev. W. A. llallor.k, New York,
Hon. Fredrick T Nash, North Carolina.
Hon llico. Frchnghuyson, Newark, N J.
Jonah Biasell, J Rochcsicr, N Y
Rov I.yman Beecher, D. D. Boston,
Hon. Roger M Sherman, Fairfield, Conn.
Hon Charles Marsh, Vermont,
Robert Ralston, Esq Philadelphia,
Rev B B Smith, Vermont,
Rev Dr. Aydelot, Cincinnatli,
Rev. J. H. Church, D. D. Pelham, N. II.
Ilcv. J. H Rice, D. D. Un Tlieol. Scm. Va.
Kev. Dr. Wylie, Washington, I*a.
Wm G. Pendleton, F.sq Richmond, Va.
Capt. Charles VV Skinner, U. S. Navy
Hon Wiliamson Dunn, Crawfordsville, Ind.
Lieut. Benjamin Paige, U. S Navy,
Mr Frederick Erringer, Philadelphia,
Rev.Ch P. Mcllvaine, Brooklyn, N. Y.
executive committee:
&BZ.XOZOV8.
From the New York Observer.
GENERAL UNION,
For Promoting the Observance of the Christian
Sabbath.
A» we intimated in our last, a Society of tlie above
character was formed in this city on Friday, tho 11 tl
mat. with tho most encouraging prospects It was the
third meeting which had been held on the subject dut
ing the week—all of them crowded by an oager assem
blagn, whoso ardent feelings had attracted them to tho
spot. A more animated and thrilling debate wo have
seldom, if ever, heard. It arose, nut from any dif
ference of feeling in respect to the sacredness of the
Hubbntli and its previous profanations, but from hon
06t doubts concerning the best means of promoting iti
observance. Happily, thore was but one heart and
mind in the result Tho formation of a Gcnetal So
ciety, which should ho to its various branches, Auxil
iarios and friends, what tho heart i9 to tho human sys
tem, seemed now to be regarded with universal favor
Such a Society was accordingly organizod, and the
following Constitution unanimously adopted :—
CONSTITUTION
.Article 1 This Society shall be denominated “The
Gf.nerai. Union foe Promoting the Observance
or the Christian Sabbath.”
Articled. It shall consist, indiscriminately, of the
friends of morality and religion, of all denominations,
who may choose to combine tkeir influence for tho
promotion of this interesting object
Article 3 As the weapons of tho Christian war
fare are not carnal, but spiritual, the means employed
by this Society for Affecting their design, shall bo ex
clusively tho influence of personal example and per
suasion, with arguments drawn fiom the oracles of
God, from tho existing laws of our country, und ap
peals io the conscience und hearts of men.
Article 4 The Union shall annually elect « Board
of Directors, consisting of a President, Vice-Presi
dents, a Corresponding Secretary, a Recording So
tary, a Treasurer, and at least twenty four Managers,
eight nf whom shall constitute a quorum.
Article5. The Board of Directors shall annually
elect an Executive Committee, to consist of not less
than five nor more than nine members, who shall
conduct the business of the Society, and make an an
nual Report to the Society of their proceedings. The
Board shall have power to fill vaeances which may
occur in the list of Oflicers or in the Euutive Com
initteo.
Article f». Any person may become a member of
this Union by subscribing the Constitution and sign
ing the following pledge, viz :
“ \V® whose names arc undersigned, do hereby ac
knowledge our obligation to keep the Sabbath accor-
ing to the Scriptures ; and we pledge ourselves to
cadi other and to the Christian public to refrain from
nil secular employments on that day; fiom travelling
in fteam boats, stages, canal-boats, or otherwise, ex
cept in cases nf necessity or mercy, and to mm nt dis
charging the duties of that sacred day ; and also that
we will, afAcircumstances admit, encourage and give
a preference to those lines of conveyance whoso own
ers do not employ them on the Sabbath.”
Article 7. Any Society formed promising the sane-
titiration of the Sabbath may become Auxiliary to
this Union by sending to tho Corresponding Secretary
copy of its Constitution and Annual Reports.
Article 8. Tho officers of each Auxiliary shall be,
ci-officio, Directors; and the luembets of each Aux-
Lewis Tappan,
Dr D. M. Reese,
Dr. James C Bliss,
Rev. M Bruen,
B Badger,
Dr John Stearns,
John Griscom, L.L. D.
Elijah Pinson,
John II Hill.
domestic.
Major General of the Army.
The N Y. Com Advertiser understands “ that thn
other Major Generals do not acquiesce in the right of
Gen. Macomb to command them ; that General Hur-
rison denied it on tho flooi of tho Senate ; and Gon.
Scott intimated that he does not hold himself bound
to respect tho orders of the Major-General command
ing.”—The N Y Enquirer is told that “ one Gener
al has applied to the President to arrest Gon Macomb,
for issuing bis orders, taking command of tbe army .”
The expressions of the N Y Enq. are rather more
precise and accurate than those of the C. Advertiser—
for,the words “ tho other” would seem to embrace Gon|
Gaines ; and we suspect that he will acquiesce in tho
appointment of Gen. M—We understand the truth
to be, that Gen. Scott either has applied for the arrest
of Gen. M or that he will apply ; upon tho ground
that his brevet as Major-General supersedes the com
mission of Gen. M—Should the President decline to
arrest Gen. M , it is said that Gon. S will take such
a course as will bring the arrest upon himself, so an
to try by a regular court martial tho question of bro-
vot. Had tlioro been a tnan of energy at the hoad of
nation, such as A. Jackson, the question would long
since have been scttlod. [Richmond Enquirer.
Tho publications in Kentucky about the mortgages
of Mr. Clay’s property have called forth various expla
nations in our Atlantic newspapers -The National
Gazotto states hy authority of tho Bank of the Uni
ted States, that Mr. Clay has paid ofT all the debt,
which he owed to the Branch Bank nt Lexington, of
$23,666 66, except to about $4000 of it—which ho
is securod The Gazotte adds, that the reduction was
effected bv actual payments ; and that these engage
ments of Mr. Clay were originally incurred through,
endorsements for the benefit of others.—Mr. 8. j.
Donaldson of Baltimore (as trustee for the creditors of
tho lato Messrs. 8 &. R Purviance,) acknowledges
to have roceivod from Mr Clay two thirds of the
$15,527 86, originally due that firm, and also a part
of tho last instalment —Mr. John Jacob Astor, U>
whom Mr. Clay was formerly indebtod $20,000, states
that he received it in full several years ugo ; and that
Mr. C. docs not owe him a cent [ft.
Although wo abstain altogether from tho party pol
ities of the day, in reference to tho Presidential Ques
tion, yet we are not inattentive observers of tho “signs
of tho times,” and of the manner in which a portion
of tho editors on either side conduct the contest—a
manner, wo are constrained to say, not only highly
disgraceful to the parties who resort to it, but deroga
tory to our character as a moral people Wu are Jed
to these few remake from observing in tho National
Gazette an article in rolaMon to certain publications
recently Wade in Kentucky, respecting tho private
pecuniary affairs of tho Hon II. Clay, Hecrutary 6f
State Their appositonesH will be admitted by all re
flecting men of both parties. Wo therefuro present
them to our readers :—
From the National Gazette.
Moro than once we have taken occasion to animad
vert upon the wanton introduction of private and do
mestic concerns into political controversy. When
accusation and obloquy are not confined to that which
is public and political, or which has the character of
some cortainty and public intnrest, rights and feelings
are gratuitously anil cruelly outraged, aud unlimited
scopo and inflections example given for the worst
license nt malevolence nr levity. We were particu
larly struck with a column in tlie Washington Tele
graph of tho 20th inst. consisting of a most acrimo
nious recrimination pursued in two ofthe Kentucky
papers, concerning tho private debts of Major Barry,
who is. we believe, an eminent politician and lawyer,
an I those of the Hon. Henry Clay, Secretary of State
Tho editorial head, too, of the Washington Tele
graph, is dishonored hy vory severe und invidious re*
marks on ‘he same topic, directed of course against
the Secretary
One of tho Kentucky articles is “ a list of mortga
ges made by Mr Clay" followed by a senes of arbi
trary questions tending to destroy bis reputation for
probity A solvency. Tbe injustice & harshness of his
mode of hostility must be apparent to every observer
who has uny knowledge of the ordinary business of life.
Mortgages may remain on record though the mortgager
possess an ample surplus iu the aggregate of his re
sources, or though the greater part of their amount
may have been discharged ; just as promissory notes,
bonds, bills, &r may bo outstanding, when it is cer
tain lhalthov will he paid, nr could be at once settled
without difficulty out of an exuberant fund. Any
man, of whatever substance, who has been active in
the transactions of property, might tremble if ono
side only ©f his situation were thus investigated and
proclaimed. Let us take an illustration o! this spe
cies of wrong from the case of Mr. Clay, which WO
have been at the pains to examine