Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress Page: 81

81
OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS.
82
Dfx. 29,1824.]
Georgia Militia Claims.—Niagara Sufferers.
[Ii. of HL
cember, 1795, and the second on the 22d
of February, 1796, the sura of ^ 35,654 09
was appropriated for the purpose of extin-
guishing the Indian title to the territory
within the limits of Georgia. Besides this,
the state had been obliged to hold frequent
treaties with the Indians, commencing iri
the year 1773, for the purpose of restoring
and preserving' peace, and fixing on tempo-
rary boundary lines. On the subject of In-
dian treaties, our own experience has been
such as will enable us to form some tolerable
estimate of the immense expense the state
of Georgia must have thusincurred: estimat-
ing- th;' amount on this item, including pre-
sents to the Indians, with incidental expen-
ses, it will be considered very moderate at $200,000 00
Making, in the aggregate, the sum of §1,491,187 20
These expenses come within the description of ex-
penses referred to in the treaty of cession, because they
were incurred by the state of Georgia; and these are
the expenses referred to. We are informed by the re-
port of the Secretary of War before alluded to, that, at
the time when the service was performed, for which
compensation is now asked, a hostile disposition per-
vaded the greater part of the Indian nations within the
United States! that a serious war then existed between
the Uni ed States and the numerous tribes of Indians in
the country northwest' of the Ohio, and that a predato-
ry war was carried on between the territory southeast of
the Ohio, (now the state of Tennessee,) and the Clie-
X'olcee Nation of Indians, the expenses of which were
principally defrayed by the Uaitecl States. And that,at
that time to, troops were kept in pay at the expense of
the United States on the frontiers of South Carolina.
Shall Georgia, alone, be considered as unworthy the no-
tice and protection of tjj<\.United States? Is she, alone,
driven to the humiliating ,iecessity of appealing, so re-
peatedly, on behalf of her citizens, to the justice, the
magnanimity of the United States, and shall such ap-
peal finally be in vain ? Or, do you conceive that the
antiquity of these claims furnish an objection to their
admission ? The neglect of the United States has made
them stale. Will you reject the claims on the supposi-
tion that it is difficult, at this remote period, to investi-
gate their merits clearly? The evidence in support of
the facts on which they are predicated, is strong and
conclusive. Hut it will be said, perhaps, that many,
and, it may be, that most of the individual claimants
are dead. Then, in the name of justice, t demand just-
ice to their offspring. No, they are not all dead s many
live, the oppressed subjects of infirmity and extreme
poverty. Too many live, witnesses of the injustice and
ingratitude of that government, in defence of which
they have so gallantly fought. But it may be that their
Claims are transferred to strangers. Would the exist-
ence of such a fact discharge the United States from a
strong moral and political obligation to pay these claims ?
Surely not. Then why withhold, yet longer, from these
claimants, what they had a right to receive at your
hands, thirty years ago ? Mow has Georgia deserved
such treatment ? She has ever been devoted to the
American Union, true to the American character : she
lias gallantly defended the Union, long barred the ap-
proach of the infuriated savjige to the interior states,
while she received the death stroke of the Indian tom-
ahawk in her own bosom. Her frontier has been de-
luged by the blood of her citizens, slaughtered in de-
fending the United States: and still j ustice, sheer jus-
tice, is withheld from them. Once more she appeals,
on behalf of her neglected, suffering citizens, to the just-
ice, the magnanimity of the American people; and in
making this appeal, even I, (a very humble American,)
Vol., 1.—6
feel humbled by the recollection, that it has been, here-
tofore, made to my country, repeatedly made, and
made in vaim In the hame of th^ deceased soldier, I
claim for the Widow and orphan some small portion of
the price of the blood of the husband and father. They
are the children of sorrow and affliction—miserable sub-
jects of squallid poverty—the destitute widows and or-
phans of deceased soldiers—even the decrepid soldier
hiffiself,who thus appeals to your humanity, your sense of
justice. Then let not a cold, calculating, unfeeling poi
licy dictate to you the rejection of so justa claim.
Mr. D WIGHT, of Massachusetts, denying all hostility
to the claims of Georgia, which had just been so ably
advocated by the member from that State, thought that
it was nevertheless due to the gentleman from New
York, (Mr. Tiiact,) Who Was engaged in the discussion
of a subject previously before the House, and which had*
at his own motion, been suspended yesterday, to leave
the subject of the Georgia claims until that discussion
was finished—and, with this view, Mr. D. moved that
the report of the Committee of Military Affairs, referred
to in the gentleman's motion, be laid upon the table for
the present.
Which motion was carried*
NIAGARA SUFFERERS.
tin motion of Mr. THACY, the House again resolved
itself into a committee of the whole on the bill further'
to amend the act authorizing payment for property lost,
Captured, Of destroyed by the enemy, in the late War
with Great Britain, and for other purposes—Mr.-CAMP-'
BELL, of Ohio, in the Chair.
Mr. TUACY rose in reply to the speech of Mr. Bah-
liocii, yesterday. He observed that it was not his in-
tention to have entered further into the debate on this
question, than he had already done on the present as-
well as at former sessions, lie did hope that of those
who thought with him on the subject of this- bill# there
would have been enough on every side to have sustain-
ed its cause. He was well aware that his situation, as
the representative of the sufferers, detracted much from
the weight of any thing he could advance oit the sub-
ject j but, as he found himself left alone to sustain this
controversy, he could only regret that the task had fall-
en on one so very inadequate to do it justice.
Mr. T. then went into a consideration of the princi-
ples of national law, as they had been laid down by the
gentleman from Virginia, with the most of whose posi-
tions he felt inclined to coincide. He did not think, he
said, of maintaining that government was bound to pay
for all losses suffered in a state of war—but only in the
very case in which the gentleman from Virginia had
admitted this obligation, viz: when the character of"
property was changed in consequence of military occu-
pancy. He might, indeed, object to the gentleman's
doctrines, that a government such as ours is not bound
by the same rules as the ancient despotisms of Europe.-
But this was not necessary. He would meet the gen-
tleman on his own ground. If Government changed the
character of the property, and in consequence of this
change, it was afterwards destroyed, the Government
is bound to pay. On this ground he was willing to rest
the claims of the Niagara sufferers. He here referred to
the report of the committee printed at a former session
on this subject, as containing evidence that the destruc-
tion was in consequence of the connection that govern-
ment had with the property. He insisted that the suf-
ferers were not bound to show that the destruction was
on the allowed principles of civilized warfare; and to
sustain the title to indemnity by individuals who suffer-
ed loss, it was sufficient to show that it was caused liy
the public use of their property.- He confessed him--
sel unable to discover, with any precision, what the
usages of civilized war were, as applied to this subject--