Newspaper Page Text
dur feet two, and lias linir like n |)Oney.‘
All men nrenot so handsome ns Mr. Fer
dinand Fit/.roy !’ was tlic reply. A way
goes our hero to lie present at the opening
of his unele's will. * I leave,' said the
tier and uudor suc.h rules, rccuidiiou.", end
restrictions, hs hr should prescribe. A full
nnd final telease, of all claims, of every
description. «as accordingly exceeded by the
Georgia Conunissioners, to the Crock Nati-
I on ; ii purported to lie in consideration of
testator, (who I have before said was a hit i £ 250,(MIO ngreeil to he paid hy the Unit
of satirist,) ‘ my share of the hank,' and | e<) States, nnd was witnessed hy their Com
♦he whole of my fortune, legacies excep
ted, to’—(here Mr. Fit/.roy wiped hi.s hoau-
mis«inners.
I For the settlement of these claim*
thus
tiful eyes with a eunibnck handkerchief, referred th the President, a Commissioner
exquisitely hrode)—‘ my natural son, John
Spriggs, nil industrious,pains-takingyouth
who will do credit to the hank. 1 did
once intend to have made my nephew,
Ferdinand, mv heir : hut so curlings head
eon have no talents for accounts. I want
iny successor to lie ,a man of business.
was appointed, who procee.iled to discharge
Ins duty under certain instructions, emana
ting from the War Department.
Claims amounting to $ 182,30ft were pre
sented to him. ef which $ 80,844 were al
lowed, and $ 00,538 rejected. Subsequent
ly a further reference to die lifili Auditor
was authorised, and some ether sums wore
not heautv ; and Mr. Ferdinand Fitzroy j admitted
' The whole amount allowed nnd paid, a
little exceeds $101,000, leaving upwards of
is a great deal too handsome for a hank
er; his good looks, will, no doubt, win
him any heiress in town. Meanwhile, I
leave him, to buy a dressing case, a thou
sand pounds.’ ‘ A thousand devils !’ said
Mr. Ferdinand Fitzroy, hanging out of
the room. Me flew to his mistress. She
was not at home.— 1 Lies,’ says the Itali
an proverb, * have short legsbut truths,
if they are unpleasant, have terribly long
ones! The next day Mr. Ferdinand Fitz
roy received a most obliging note of dis
missal. * I wish you every happiness,’
Said Miss Helen Convolvulus, in conclu
sion—‘ hut mv friends are right; you arc
much too handsome for a husband !’ A nd
the week after, Miss Helen Convolvulus
became Lady Rufus I’umilion.- ‘Alas!
sir !’ said the bailiff, as a day or two after
tlie dissolution of parliament he was jog
ging along in u liaekney coaeh hound to
the King’s bench— 1 Alas ! sir, what a pi
ty it is to take so handsome a mnn to pri
son !’
TWENTIimi CONOK*i*B,
SF.COM) 8F.SRION.
$148,000 of the $250,000 still in die hands
nf the II. Stales, nnd applicable, as Georgia
contends, to the payment of the just claims
of her citizen*. It is wort hy of remark dial
of the rejected claims, n very inconsiderable
amount indeed, were condemned as fraudu
lent, or refo-ed payment for iu-sutiiciciicy
of proof, [ly far the greater number were
denied indemnity, because they were fur
properly destroyed, and according to the
decision of the Commissioner, in eiinforim
ly with his instruction from the Department
of War, are nlledged not to lie provided for
hy the Treaty.
This construction seemed to him an extra
ordinary one. It was not his purpose to re
fleet on the Commissioner or the Depart
merit, hut in justice to himself and Ins con
stituents, lie must he permitted to make, and
hot refer them ta fin* Presfilcni. 'the Pre
sident dues not consider the claims less fa
vorable than the committee, but intimates
tbat he cannot act upon them. The platin
ums then come back to Congress, on whose
wisdom and justice is their only reliance.—
The reference to the I’, esident was in Ins of
ficial, not in his personal character, nnd
while the oflire remains, it is never too late
to do jus]ire or correct error. Open the
commission ilien. Place the fund again un
der the control of ike President. Subject
these elairns to the most rigorous examina
tion you choose, as to their fairness, but al
low s ieli us are within the provisions of the
compact.
He loro leaving this part of the subject,
lie would advert to ihe terms of the. sever
al comparts or treaties, recognizing these
claims. The first in order, was the
Trkaty or Auuusta — Made with Geor-
gia in 1783. The third Article provides —
“ Tliut all just debts due by any of the saiil
Indians to any of ihe merchants or trailers
of the said Hlato, shall he fully and fairly
paid, nnd all negroes, horses, rattle,or other
property taken during the lute war, ahull
ne restored.”
The next was the
Tiu:.\ty os GAi.rtiiNToi—Made will'
Georgia in 1785. The Htli Article stipu
lates; The said Indians shall restore nil the
negroes, horse*, or other property, that are
or may lie among them, belonging to any
citizen of this State, or any other person
or person* whatever, to such person as the
Governor shall direct.
Then succeeded lho
Treaty between Georgia and llic Creels at
Should)r-Hone,— in Efld, wich recognized
wbethel* fhe United State* have nno measure'
of justice when they demand it of nn adver
sary, nnd another when they are to rentier
it to a friend ?
The claimants contend, nnd with great
apparent reason, that they ore entitled to —
Payment for property destroyed ;
An allowance for the increase of negro
property; and
An nllownncp for the uhp nr hire of pro
perty lint susceptible of increase ; nr,
Interest in lien of these allowances.
The first class of claims bar! already been
considered. The justice of them, and the
futility of the verbal distinction between
‘‘taken” mid 11 destroyed,” is indirectly ad
mitted by the majority of the Committee on
Indian Affairs themselves. Then, ns to the
other allowances claimed—upon what foot
mg do th 'j stand ? 'flie savages, immedi
ately upon the conclusion of each compact
or treaty, were hound to restore the proper
ly comprehended in it. Had the restoration
been made in good litilIi, according to the
tientv, the owner would have had the use
nnd increase of his property from that peri
od : t. e,. from 1783,’85,’8fi,’lift, or’1)6, as
the case may be, to the present time. Hut
the Indians, m defiance of llie treaty, keep
Uih slaves. They retain them III, 20, or 30
years, enjoying the fruits of llieir inborn
and that of their offspring. This is no ima
ginary case. It is notorious that the planta
tions of many of the chiefs were slocked
with negroes stolen liom the whites.
The question, then, is this: Are the In
dians, m consequence of their bad faith,
to be placed m a better situation, and ihe
owner of i he property in a worse, one ? This
would lie to rewind hip savage vicesol'fraud
to defend that assertion. First, it is to hi
observed that ihe reference to the President,
is of all claims on Dot Ii sides. The submis
sion is general, not restricted. Next, the
release is unlimited ; and in that p'spect
it conforms to the compact. That instill
ment requires the Conunissioners of Geur-
pre existing hostilities, and renewed pacific and perfidy with the spoils of nn innocent
relation*. Hy the second Article, it is agreed I ( ,ta| srifl'ering people. Upon the failure to
that " All negroe*, lior-es, cal tin, and other | restore, according lo the compact, wlmt
property, now;in the nation, nnd which were were the claimants entitled to receive ? Pit
taken from the inhabiiaritsof Georgia, shall ojselt wlmt the United Stines demanded mid
he restored lo such person or persons, as Ins , receive: under the treaty of Ghent — a ju*t
honor th- Governor, or the Commissioners | indemnification for the, property not restor
shall direct. All white or oilier Iree people fi ,|
gm to execute a release for all property ta- in the nation, who ere held as prisoners nr
HOUSE OF R E PR EB E NT ATI VIC8.
Fain ir, January 1C.
MR WILDE’S SPEECH.
On the Hill Jar indemnifying tlic Citizens of
Georgia. Jar di predations on their property,
committed by the Creel Indians, prior to the
year 1802.
The House resolved itself into a Commit
tee of the Whole, Mr. Condict in the Chair.
The question was upon the adoption of
the amendment proposed by Mr. Thomp
son. to substitute, in the report of the Com
mittee on Indian Affairs, the word “expe
dient,” in In ti of tlie word “ inexpedient,”
in relation to the propriety of further le
gislation on the subject.
Mr. It'ilde addressed the Committee. He
observed that, in rising to ledeein liiH pledge,
it would lie impossible to avoid entering
somewhat into detail. These claims bad
never been acted upon hy the House. The
facts respecting them were ns yet imper
fectly understood. The questions they pre
sented had not been examined. Tlic argu
ments in their favor were still unheard. It
was not his wish, however, to say more than
the occasion absolutely retired. He should
be satisfied if be could procure a patient en
quiry into the merits of the claims ; beyond
that, lie bod nothing to hope or «sk. When
the rights of the claimants were under
stood, the measure of justice to which they
Were entitled would he readily settled hv c-
tery gentleman, accordiug to his own jti’dg
ment.
In 1821, one of those compacts or ngree-
rfients, which have been familiarly, hut not
properly, called treaties, was entered into
between the United Stales, the Creek Irilie
of Indians, and ihe State of Georgia.
A cession nf laud from the Indians was
then obtained by the United Stains, for tin
use of ihe State, the consideration of which
was to he paid by the United States, in con
formity with the obligations imposed by ihe
articles of agreement and cession of 1802.
At tin- time of these neguciations, there were
existing claims of the citizens id' the State
of Georgia against the Creek nation for de
predations committed, prior lo the net of re
gulating intercourse with tlie Indian tribes.
These claims formed one of thesubjeets of
the negoeintiou, nnd for the purpose of pro
curing payment of them, Commissioners on
the part of Georgia, had been appointed.
Registered from time to time ns they arose,
In ihe proper department, according to law,
wi'li the profef by which they were estiib-
fished, an abstract of them from the hooks of
the Comptroller’s Office was in tho hands of
the Commissioners, and exhibited at the
conferences. They amounted to $280,000
and were principally for properly plunder
ed or destroyed, by Indians of the Creek
tribe, in some of those predatory incursions,
with which our southern frontier was so of
ten harrnssed. Reparations for these inju
re s had been often stipulated but Devcr
Hi'ide.
Repented acts of hostility, attended with
all the horrors of savnge warfare, had been
succeeded by repeated proinsies of pence
and indemnity, which m turn were as re
peatedly violated with all the recklessness
of savage perfidy. Theso outrages could
not be denied. The obligation to repair
them had been often solemnly admitted
The breach of that obligation was notorious.
Under these circumstances the compact of
1821 was made.
Hy the4ih article the payment by the U.
S'utts to the Indians, of various sums, at
different limes, amounting in the whole to
$ 200 IWO, is stipulated ; and tho article then
proceeds :
'• And as a further consideration fur said
(jetsam, the United States do hereby imroe
to pay.'o the State of Georgia, whatever
balance may he found due by the Creek Nn
tiotl to ihe citizens of said State, whenever
the same shall he ascertained, in conformity
with the reference made by the Commissi
on* rsof Georgia, ami the chiefs head men.
ami warriors of the Creek Nation; to lie
paid in five annual instalments, without in
terest, provided the same shall not exceed
the sum nf two hundred and fifty thousand
dollars; the Commissioners of Georgia >*x-
ecutmg to the Creek nation, a full and final
relinquishment, of all the claims of the citi
zens of Georgia, against the Creek nation,
for property taken or destroyed, prior to the
ae.t of Congress of one thousand eight hun
dred nnd two, regulating intercourse with
the Indian tribes.
By the articles of agreement made at the
same time, between the Commiasioners o'
Georgia, and the chief's, head men, and wnr
riors of the Creek Nation ; all elairns on ci
ther side, of whatever nature or kind, prior
to the act of Congress of 1802. with the do
CUtnenls in support of thern, were referred
to the decision of the President of the Unit
ed States, hy him to be decided upon, ad
justed, liquidated, ond eettled iu such man-
lieu or destroyed. Can it he imagined that
the renunciation, anil the obligation to in
(Intimity, were not intended to tie co-exten
sive ? Why ask us fl> release all claims fur
property destroyed, if such claims had al
ready been extinguished? What is the
principle upon which these claims for pro
perty destroyed Imve been disallowed ? 11.
his fourth instruction, the Secretary of War
directs the Commissioners to exclude all
claims, ntiginniing during a period of tins-
lilities, which was followed hy a treaty i f
pence, unless they arc provided for by that
treaty.
This, lie says, is a principle perfectly w ell
established between civilized nations, anil is
believed to lie equally applicable to savages
Now why should the maxims of internati
onal lnw, established among civilized peo
ple, lie extended to Indians, to whom they
are unknown and hy whom they would tie
ver lie regarded ? They are not an hide
pendeut people. In the progress of the ne
gotiations of Ghent, our Government have
expressly declared, they ure not to he deem
ed so. That pretension Ims again been re
pelled by the President in his late message
Hie agreement* entered into with them ure
not treaties. The Bennie have so derided.
I vrn if they were independent, they are
uncivilized. They do not abide liv the rules
of civilized warfare. Why then should we
apply to them the rules of civilized parcili
ration ? Nations claiming to be civilized,,
do not usually plunder, or destroy private
property nn land. Savages never respect it.
I'o exempt them on the return of pence from
nil responsibility for such murages, is to en
courage them in their haibarity.
Shnll a citizen of Georgia, whose fields
have been ravaged—Ins property plundered
—his wife nnd children butchered, or driven
to seek refuge in a savage wilderness, from
the pursuit of men still more savage - Shall
such n man lie told, when he conics to ask
indemnity for Ins losses and sufferings
will any member of this Committee tell him
“ the usage of civilized nations in the con
■*iruction ol treaties excludes your claim ?”
lias any man the heart to utter so cruel and
hi11 nr a mockery ?
Hut, if the npplicniipn of this principle he
corn "t, why was it not followed out? Win
were the claims of 178.5 ami I78li allowed in
part, if the treaties of 172(1 nnd 172(1. b\
slaves, shall also he delivered up to the n-
foresaid perrons.”
Alter these came the
Treaty of .S'. Yoik, with the United States,
in 17214. The third article declare*, the
Creek nation shall deliver, ns soon as prac
ticable, to Ihe commanding officer of the
troops of ill*. Uniicil Slates, stalioiuol at the
Kocklainliug, on the Ornu-o Riv r, nil tho
citizen* of the United States, while inhabi
tants or negincs, win ere now prisoners in
any part of the saiil nation. And if any
*uch prisoners or negroes sin uhl nor lie so
delivered, on or before th* firs; day of June
ensuing, the Governor of Georgis may ein
power three persons to repair to the said nn
non, in order to claim and receive such pri
aimers nnd negroi s.
To the trend of New-York succeeded the
Treaty of Calerain, in 172(1. The 7t'n Ar
ticle engages, that ill Creek Nation shnll de
liver ns goon ns practicable, to the superin-
tendant of Indian affairs, at such place a-
he may direct, all citizens of the Uoiie.i
States, white inhabitants nnd negroes, who
are now prisoners in any part of the sai l
nation, agreeably to the, treaty of N. York ;
ami also all citizens, white inhabitants, ne
groes and property, talo n since the signing
of that treaty. And if any sue!) prisoners,
negroes or proper'\. should not lie delivered
on or before the first day of January next,
the Governor of Georgia may empower 3
persons lo repair to itio said nation, in order
to claim and receive such prisoners, negrnos
and property ; under tho direction of the
President of the United States.”
In 1802 was negotiated tho
Tiucvtyoi Foot Wifuinson: A treaty
of limits ami cession. The 2d Article pro
vide* for the payment of various sums of
money, in consideration of the cession of
land made by the Indians :
Among the rest, “five thousand dollars
lo satisfy claims lor property ink 'll by null
viduals of llie said nation, from die citizens
of die United States, stt’jcquent to die trea
ty of Colerain,” &c.
Then enrne the
G A PI TP I, ATI II N WITH G R X K n A 7 J.ICSPO.N
in 1814. The 5tli Article declares, die Uni
ted States demand, that a surrender be im
mediately unde, ol all die persons and pro
perty taken from the citizens of die Uimed
tales, the friendly part of the Creek Nation.
■eicly omitting to provide tor, bad in tac f tlic Cherokee, Chickasaw, nnd Choctaw un
extinguished them ? Nay, ■ hv was a sin
gle claim allowed, when, upon the principle
asserted, the rnpitulniinn of 1814 for ever
extinguished all prior injuries, indemnity fin
which was not provided hy its terms.
Upon this construction, however, such ns
it i«, claims to the amount of 20or 100 0(H)
dollars have been rejected. The cominis
sinner, in rejecting them, exercised no dis
cretion. 11 e acted ministerially, and mere
ly obeyed his order*. The Legislature of
the Slate of Georgia remonstrated with the
late President of the U. States, but without
effect ; nnd, at the last session, the injustice
done tlie claimants was brought by his col
league, (Mr. Thompson,) to the notice of
Congress.
The report of a bare majority of tlie Com
mittee on Indian Affairs, sustained the deei-
cion of tlie Commissioner in part; and, ns to
tlie residue, professed to eotisider it entirely
within the power of the President to cause
justice to be done. They regarded the own
er of property destroyed, equally entitled
to indemnity w ith tho owner of property ta
ken ; but added, tliut they were not apprized
of any such claims having been in feet re
juried ; and it they were, tlie President was
fully authorized to give redress.
It was hut justice to the Committee to add.
1 hat the document containing the report of
the Commissioner w as not then before them.
It was subsequently called for by the House,
iti consequence nf n resolution submitted by
himself. At tin* last session the report was
not reached in its order on the calendar.-
With h view of testing the correctness of
the Committee’s opinion, and of procuring
tlie adjustment of these claims, during the
recess, if it was correct, lie, in concert vvitn
Ids colleagues, addressed a note to the Pre
sident, asking his interposition. The Presi-1
sident considered the question, nnd, after]
consulting (lie law officer of the government, I
was of opinion that he could not interfere ;
or, lit least as the subject was before Con
gress, and ait appropriation, would at all e-
leutH be necessary, it was most proper not
to do so. I his Mr. \V. believed was llie
substance ol the answer lie received, for it
was h verbal one, and he would not under
take to report it exactly. Indeed the com
munications on the subject, had so little of a
formal character, that lie did not fee) him
self entirely at liberty to speak of tlie reply
received, until be hud obtained the chief ma
gistrate’s permission to do so. Wliat re
source is now left to the claimants ? Tlie
committee have expressed a favourable o-
pioion of t}ie claims for property destroyedj
lions, to their respective owners.”
In deciding upon the claims presented,
the terms nf these treaties have been con
sidered as confining that of IR‘21, io confor
tnitv with the instructions of the Depart
ment. This is contrary in every fair rule of
interpretation. It should have been held to
extend them, not they to restrict it The ver
(ml criticism which attempts to establish a
distinction between the obligation to pay
for property taken, nnd that destroyed, is
worthy only of kindred answer. It must
Imve been taken before it was destroyed.
[Mr. \V. entered into nn examination of
the application of this principle, to several
of the cases in the commissioner’s report, &
attempted to prove its injustice, when the
usual hour of adjournment having arrived ;
he gave way for a motion by Mr. .McLean,
11mt tlie Committee rise. On Friday the
I fit h, when the committee sat again, Mr. W.
resumed.]
In w lint lie had snid, or should sty, on the
subject ol these decisions nnd instructions,
he. disclaimed every thing like disrespect or
irsottnl feeling. For the character of llie
Commissioner lie had the highest eslee
He was sure that gentlcinnn suffered pain,
whenever he was obliged to refuse indein
nity to an honest claimant. To the then Se
cretary of War he imputed nothing, except
a somewhat rigorous nnd contracted exposi
tion of the treaty, lie trusted, he should al
ways, whether in the majority or the minori
ty, w ith the administration or the opposition,
have respect enough for himself to avoid as
sailing tlie motives of any officer of govern
ment. lie would, when it was uecessnry,
comment with freedom upon their acts, ne
ver forgetting however, that forbearance
which was due to men, who were not, and
could not he present in person to defend
themselves.
\\ hat is in effect the official argument up.
on these treaties? That the agreement is
to restore, und property destroyed is insus
ceptible of restoration. And what fellows?
that the Indians failing to restore what they
agreed to restore, are to pay an equivalent ?
No Sir, that they are to lie discharged from
all liability, because, they shall not bo held
to perform wlint wus impossible.
Such was not the argument maintained
Wiiut is a jti*t indemnity iu such a
use? Let us enquire of the constitutional
adviser nf tlie President, whose opinion the
Government adopted. “What, says the
Attorney General, is a just indemnification
for n wrong ? Is it the reparation of one-hall
or two thirds of that wrung? On these few
simple ideas, the whole question turns. If
an injury is justly redressed which is only
half redressed, then the British commission
er is rigni; hut if an injury is redressed on
ly when the redress is commensurate with
toe whole extent of the injury, then he is
wrong. Let us put aside the emphatic and
strikin'.* •vordjuit, and ink * the word indt in
nification alone. Wlnit docs tic word tn-
ilrmmf ration mean? The saving harmless
from dam ego. Is that man saved harmless
from damage who i* left to hear one half ol
ti e dnirt.'tge himself? Th * question seems,
to me, too plain for (isctlssion The Hi itisli
Comm s-ioiier, Sir John N.coll, who com
posed p-.rt of the hoard under the 71Ii ill'll
cle of the treaty of 1724. seems to have cn-
! t-rtaim'd a very different opinion upon the
subject, from Ins comitn man who is now
-uling in execute tin* Ivon.Tor’s award. -
His words are, “T 'reimburse the claim
aois ilie original cost of their properly, and
all the expenses they have arlunlly incurred,
together with interest on the whole amount.
would. 1 ihiiii:. tie a ju-t m l ndpqunUP’Com-
pensation. This, I Iclieve, is the measure
of compensation usually made by nil belli
gerent nations for losses, costs, and damages,
occasioned by ill* gal canttires. Now, at tic
time of the wrongs now under eonsidera
lion, we were, as to Great Britain, neutrals
and friends; nod stood protected hv ilie mo*
sacred of all instruments, a ireatyof peueo.
lo violation of this treaty, the slaves and
| other property of American citizens were
carried away, in the year 1815, nnd have
been detained from them ever since. They
have thus lost the u«r of this properly for
eleven years. Is the meagre return of the
average value, at the tone the slaves and
other property were thus taken from them.
a just indent lificalion for Ihe whole wrong?
That the act'd' taking away the property
was a wrong, is no longer a question. * * *
The first uct of dispossession Icing l Inis es
tablished to ho a wrong, is the rmitiniiniice
of that dispossession for eleven years no
wrong at all ? Is it consistent with ' Iihi usage
of nations, which Sir John Nicoll recomuz
ed, to red rasa an act of wrongful violence
by the return, at any distance of time, of the
naked value of the article at the date of tin
injury ?**’•■*
“Upon the whole, Sir, I mil of the opin
ion, that tho just indemnification awarded
by the Emperor, involves not merely the
return of the value of the specilie property,
hut a compensation also for the subsequent
and wrongful detention of it in the nature
of damages. If the actual damage* in each
case could lie ascertained, they ought under
th • award to lie decreed ; hilt since this, if
not impracticable, would be a work of great
labour and time, ( am it’ the opinion, that
the interest, according to the usage of na
lions, is a necessary part of the jtl*i ludmi
iiirtcalion awarded by the Emperor of Rus
sia.
But it is objected, tlmt this is in substance,
a claim for interest or damages, and the
question of interest Ims been considered by
the government, with reference to ibis coin
pact and rejected, under the opinion of the
Attorney General.
Lot ns examine that opinion. What arc
the reasons he assigns why interest should
not lie allowed ?
“The first consideration, lie says, which
strikes the mind on this subject i*, that this
is a question which arises between sove
reign and independent Brutes, in transac
tions between whom the allowance of inte
rest, unless whore it is expiessly stipulated,
or arises, on contracts of loan is, it is believ
ed, without example.”
Did the Attorney General intend seriously
to assert, that u tribe of savages was a sove
reign and independent Stalt; and how had
the language of Bit John Nicoll in 1704, es
caped his recollection ?
He next asserts that the United States are
responsible only as the Indians were respon
silde; und “it is believed a claim of interest
against a nation of Indians or the payment
of interest by them, is without a precedent.”
Again, he affirms that “ interest is not n
thing of course ; it is in no case a part of
tho debt, nor is it a necessary consequence
of tlie debt. By the polity of many nations,
it is forbidden in all cases.”
Finally, lie declares “ the United States i
assuming tlie responsibility of the Indians
under these treaties, undertake to do only
wliat the Indians ought to have done, that
yntul tiiia would be damages for t’oe deten
tion, with respect to which llie treaties con
tain no Mtipulntion.”
Mr. \V. said, he did not propose to offer
any feeble argument of Ins, against the
weight oT so imposing nil authority. The
most decorous mode of combatting the do
cision of a court, was to oppose to it the de
vision of another court, or of the same court.
What would not lie offensive to the inost nil -
gust judicial tribunal in our country, cannot
surely ho dituetipectful to any officer of gov
ernment.
lie hoped he might be permitted then, in
no illiberal or unkind spirit to any one, but
with a firm de term illation to procure justice
for those claimants, if any exertion of his
could procure it, in contrast some passages
of this opinion, with other passages of a dif
ferent opinion, given hy the same officer,
upon another occasion. In the one, interest
between sovereign Suites, unless expressly
stipulated nr arising on loans, is believed to
ho without example. In the other, interest
according to the usage of nations, is a neces
sary part of the just indemnification award
ed by tlie Emperor of Russia. In the one,
the value of the article at the time when it
should lie delivered, is the. commutation
which is just tipnn this non-delivery. Iu
the other, “the incngie return of the aver
age value of the property taken,” is denied
to he a just indemnification for the whole
wrong, in the one, damages for detention
are held inadmissible hy the usage of na
tions. In the other, Hitch damages are by
the same usage declared just and custom
ary*.
He would not pursue the comparison fur
ther. He made those remarks with pain:
he should nut have made them at all, but
that lie was pressed by the weight of the
Attorney General’s opinion ; both in the re
port of the Committee, nub in the minds of
tlie individual members. For the gentle
man, who gave that opinion, tie entertained
only tlie best feelings. He had not forgot-
Were heard ITe asked leave lo correct that c? 1 t
pression. They might he sp,,k L .„ ii, ( j e( ,j |,^' ■
lie believed they were very seldom beard. \\'| 10
ever endeavored to explain or to support t | R . m '
was apt to find himself, as he did at tliut moment-!
vox elamante in deserto. Nay. worse; fur hero
was the solitude, but not the silvuce ot tne wilder
ness.
A question has been raised us to the residue of
the fund of $ UfiO.UOO—to whom it belonged 1—
Thai question he would not examine. He C(lu .
sidercu it purely speculative at present. For. a-
ven though the Indians might have a better right
to it than the (.tided States, neither Imd any right
nt nil, so long as there w as one just claim impeded
to ho provided for hy the treaty unsatisfied. Gen
tlemen who conceived the Indiana entitled to th»
balance, however, were, on their own principles
obliged to vote for the present motion ; tos, uooh
that supposition, further legislation was expedient
nnd necessary. Further legislation xvus umieces-
siit-v only upon the supposition tlmt all just claims
had been paid, or dial the lY'sident's decision
whether just or otlierw i*e, could not, or ought nut
to be enquired into ; mid, in either event, the , nc £
ney being already in the Treasury, no net of legis
lation was necessary to keep it there, ’
In remtion to the practice ot the government in
paying for preqierty destroyed by the Indians, ho
would only n<k to cite two instances—By the br
e Act of 17;M), the United States suaran.
Ii'rroime mun nm, i :u i.nuca 8tmes gu,iron-
tee. nn eventual indemnity for property taken or
destroyed. The honorable Chairman of the Com
mittee himself admits flint property destroyed bo-
tween 171M) und 180*2, ought lo he paid for. 'JV
tlmt admission, lie, (Mr. W.) would subjoin, h it
was just alter 179;i, it was just before 17y0. T(m
other instnnea was afforded hv tlie Act of thiM
March 1*17, by which wo appropriated $ 85,(XXL.
' th?'
to pay the friendly Greeks for property w hich tlie
hostile portion of the tribe lmd destroyed. SliaS
wc refuse to our own citizens w hat we have iv(-,
1-uvad lo our suvagt allies?
1 lo rou!(1 not conclude, without rnliing the ale
(cation of flu* Committee to a class of rjnitns n<V
miflod liy (he government to be just, nnd vet deni
cd payment. He alluded to the claims provide*'
lor hy flic Treaty of Fort Wilkinson. By the &
article of that Treaty, $ 5000 are provided for th)
payment ot cuum* arising since the Treaty tf'
Colerain. By hi* fifth instruction, tiie Sec retard
of \\ nr directs all such claims to be exrludci
from participation in the fund of $ 250.000. IU
IV c
leu an early admiration for his genius. Me I S!, )' S ,h " ri ' can he no hardship in this; lop, if there
did not de*it'D to forget that their only inter
course, slight as it was, had been one of
kindness and courtesy. Least of nil, could
he avoid remembering tho deference lie ow
ed to superior acquirements and long estab
lished reputation.
With respect to the stipulation of the
treaty that the instalments tiro to he paid
without interest; it must, he thought, lie
nppnrent on a moment’s reflection, that this
provision was merely intended to guard tlie
United States against the payment, in any
any such unpaid, the provision of that Treaty
is still in force, and the turn provided for tlie pay
ment, which is still unexhausted, will preveut any
injury from resulting to individuals who may ItolR
such claim". This construction, lie adds, wl'j i u
hi"t operate to the. benefit of the citizens of Geor
gia w ho may have claim) against tlic Creek not bn
as it cnlrr-A* the fund out of whidhi^y are telle-,
i 'iid, by udding what may remain ofrikqgt
stipulated lor that purpose by the Treaty of
\\ ilkiuson to :he $250,000 stipulated in tlie lite
Treaty for die *:,me pin-pose. Now, Sir, suiil ?(r.
II itde, wlnit is the fuel' The report of the Com!*
missioncr “lieu«,conclusively,that cluiras,nmouutjr
■ , ' , , - I , juiius, 11U1UUUAS
event, ol more than that Bum. It had no ingto $C, 201, to the fairness ntidjustlce of which
i*»> lilt lull I n till) I 11 t o I . /,! ■ n .. (‘ . — ft .. ...... S . . tut /tl t t lie) i , . It ! « I ..(. . .. 1 .... 1 . . i* 1 .
relation to the interdiction of interest or
damages on individual claims, if indeed the
hind were adequate to their nllowunee.
But the Attorney General founded his
opinion, in part, upon tlie peculiar ehur.in
ter ol one of the contracting parties. The
Indians are savages, and savages pay no in
no objection is taken, Imve been refused payment
under the nth instruction, simply and solely he
mure they were included in the treaty of Fog:.
V\ ilkiuson. The appropriation for the execution*
of that Treaty lias lung since expired. Be had
endeavored, but iu vain, to obtain an accumt tj,
the payments made under it. Independent of tins
absurdity of referring the claimants lo the residues
•lumi ot’ interest against a nation | of a fund of $ 5,000 for the payment of claims o-
“ ol Indians, or tho payment of interest by ; mounting to more than -ix. here was the exse oj'
“them is liel.eved to be without a ricee-* u "’ 1 '‘-hose rclii
dent.” p. 18
Is it not obvious, however, that the claim
is not for indemnity, and that interest if to
bo allowed, is adopted only ns a convenient
measure of u part of that indemnity. Not
damages (or a naked wrong; hut lepara-
tiun for an injury which was profitable to
the wrong- loer.
One, ctinnot help being struck with the
diversity ot doctriue between the Becretaty
of War and tho Attorney Genera!. The
former, in relation to tlie effect of a treaty
ol peace as merging all claims tor prioi^iu
juries, declares n is u principle perfeetly^^B
established among civilized people, at^Wr
" lieved to he equally applicable to Ilidiui
tribes.
!iel two funds wero applicable.
1 lmd been nnd were still unable, witlioift
any felt ot l ii oirs, to obtain payment out ofej^ofel
lie rcfirredto the ease of Ihe’heirs of R. WitfflfeJ
refirredto the ease of tlie'heirs of R.
son, i.- one and the larg"t one of tlmt desi rlptiu
The Commissioner says, tlie evidence' in suiwt
When there is a question about the pay
ment of interest, then, they are savages ;
when an implied renunciation is to be estab
lished, they are civilized. They are save
«es, »'iys the Attorney General. They are
civilized, says tbc Secretary of War. Bu:
whether savnge or civilized, it seems they
are to pay the Georgians nothing, lie did
not intend to cavil or even to comment ill
naturedlv upon these opposite views of tin
degree of refinement to be attributed to our
copper colored brethren. Such things were,
to some extent, matters of taste. A tilled
traveller, from tt petty German principality
—it vv on hi have hoe u obscure—hut for Schil
ler nnd Goethe — had told us the Georgians
ihems.-Ives were admitted on a 11 hands to be
barbarians, ami indeed from the treatment
they have received, one would think there
must be others who In lievc them so.
A.* for the Indians, however, it was sure
ly, not too much to ask that they should be
regarded in tlie one light or iu the other,
ami not iu either as iuterest might dictate.
A decent respect for official consistency
would seem to require that the different
members of the administration who con
curred in this deeisiou should agree among
themselves. No one it is hcltevod will main
tain that (lie Indians are to lie exempted
from tiie payment of interest because they
are savage, and released by legal implica
tion from oilier liabilities Leenuse they are
civilized.
tys, tiie ev idence in supivt
(this claim I* entirely sufficient. Why then dod
it remain, like others ol the same descriptiqt, u.,,
paid !
Tuniing in sorrow nnd disgust from tLe Ion
(li-uiiil record of flagrant wrong, lie made a
appeal to the justice and humanity of that House,/'
—to public fnilli and national honor, if it was sue* \
cessful, it would lie followed up by a motion to re* 1
commit, witli instructions lo provide for re-open-, J (
ing the commission, and allowing tlie claims furl
property taken or (I,- .1 roved, which had been re-\
jecled under tho construction complained of, Sl in--1|
tore st, if such should be the pleasure of tlie commit*
lee, provided it did not exceed the balance of tho I
tund. He trusted the motion of his colleague-
would prevail. lie hoped that the day on which
this treaty was concluded, rendered memorable ia
our annals by a glorious achievement, would ndj,
be sullied by un act of injustice.
Fazusxanr.
Ciiiar,rsTO>_ January 28.
[OPE.
Ytif*h ship Wo*
by (]'U government of tho United Btates, on j is, to restore the specific property within the
the Treatv of Ghent nu.I the Pnnvnnilnn ,,c - aun i, r* i. I ^
the I reaty of Ghent and the Convention of reach of tlie Creek nation, nt the date of each
Bt. Petersburg. There, the undertaking of ‘
Great Britain, was, to restore, when it was
found that she could not, or did not restore,
what was exacted from her—n just indeinni
fica'iofe, Won Us t!ijq bij driven to ask
treaty; but this being impracticable, tlie
only thing tlmt remains to bo done, and
which is practicable, is to pay in commuta
tion the value of the article, nt the time at
which it should have been delivered; all be-
Sucu a rule would belong neither to the simpli
city of the one state, nor the integrity of the
other. It would be u mixture of Punic faith and
Grecian subtlety.
They were hound to restore certain property
which they have not restored. Had they compli
ed with their compact, tlie owner would have en
joyed the use of his property und its increase,
which, ns it was, the plunderer enjoyed. An al
lowance for these items would be ju-t between
man and man. It is right between people and
people, red or white ; civilized or barbarous ; ami,
in their stead, interest should be given, because it
is a convenient and general rule for computing
these allowances which it might b<* difficult to cal
culate and settle in each individual case.
But this whole subject was referred to the deci
sion of the President, nnd lie has decided. And
does it become the United States to be satisfied
with this decision, if the citizens of Georgia oje
dissatisfied with it ?
. It i* the decision of tiie Chief Magistrate of the
Inion, enuring to the benefit of the Union nt tiie
expense ot Georgia. Is not that a sufficient mo
tive to examine it? The argument of the con
clusiveness of the President’s opinion goes to the
extent of precluding all enquiry hv this House.
But will any gentleman press it so far ? Will you
deny the right of petition / Will von snv that the
respectful memorial of a State, 'who lias never
spared her blood or treasure in the common cause,
shall be dismissed with the abrupt and uncourte-
ous answer, “tlic President has decided, and right
or wrong, you must abide by his decision 7” To
the humblest citizen who approaches ns with res
pect, and sometimes even without it, ottr doors
ure thrown open. His petition is received. His
cose is heard. His grievances, real or pretended
ure enquired into. Will you listen lo these claim
ants less patiently, becuuse of llieir numbers, or
because the hardship of their case lias enlisted the
sympathy of the Btute of which they are citizens?
He begged the patience of the Committee : he
would not trespass on it much longer. He wus
sensible how daring, how almost desperate it was,
to attempt gaining the attention of that House, in’
opposition to the report of a standing committee
opon a prlvute claim. I{e had said such cases
LATER from
By Captain Boyd, of tij
bert Kr. arrived yesterday, from Belfast, we<
have been politely favoured with B"lfitsl pa
|n rs of the 13th December, eontainriigLon- >
dou dates to the Dili, and Liverpool com
mercial accounts to tlie titli, both inclusive
The nuly political intelligence of moment-
f'lunti in these papers, is the abandonment
of the siege of Silistriuby the Russian*.
A large meeting of the inhabitants of*'
Leeds, was called by the Mayor on the 6th
December to petition the King iu favor of
Catholic Emancipation, Upwards of twen- a
ty thousand p-rsons assembled ; a n add re
was carried, after much opposition, on t
part of tlie Brtiuswirkers. The LfedsRbt
poiiteh says—“ibis must be considered a
triumph of tlie liberal party at Leeds, where
on the same subject and iu the snme place t
they were defeated sixteen years ago, by a
majority of nearly 20 to 1.”
Loxno.N, December G.
Two or three times we Lave noticed the
rumours of differences of opinion iu the.
Cabinet—-of changes in the Cabinet—of
changes iu tlie Miuistry — of the resignation
of some, aud of tlie introduction of others.
But the reports have been persisted in, and
the London I’apers and the I’rovincial ones,
have begun to treat them os if they were
well-founded.
It lias become necessary, therefore, to no*
lice them in a more direct manner; nnd thut
notice is, to give them a positive and com
plete contradiction. We can state with the
utmost confidence, that there is, and always
lias been, the greatest personal friendship
between the Duke of Wellington and Mr.
Teel, nnd the most intirnnte union upon all
political subjects, \Vo pan further assert,
witit equal oonfnience, itint ihe reports ot'
negotiations with Mr, Huskitison, or of com
mutiicatipps made lo hitp, are totally xvitl^
out foundation.—Courier
[F(om Ihe London Courier, Dec. 8.]
The raising ot the siege of Silistria, whicli
we announced on Saturday, makes n mos.t
important change in the state of affairs, and
altogether deranges the plan which Russia
had in contemplation,
rite authentic occount which wo publish*
ed, attributed the raising of the siege to the!
severity of the weather. But we know that
Hussein Pacha had sent troops to the relief
of tlic place ; nnd tlie abandonment of the
"notf> of Knlfut by the Pacha of Widdeit
(which could not be accounted for by any
movements made by General Gesimttr, who
did not advance to Kalfet until he bad heard
that tiie Turks bad ubandonod it) may have
bad for its object a rapid movement to
wards Silistria, for the purpose of the P«-
chu’s combining his operations with the di )
vision sent from Ohoumla. It i* difficult |f
beliete that the- Russians raised tlie si jrf
merely on occount of tlie severity of fii
weather nnd io fact we had no previoi lg in
telligence of the weather having beco raf