1853.1 32D CONG.....2D SESS. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. The Galphin Claim-Mr. Stephens, of Georgia. next, at the earliest practicable day. I have two THE GALPHIN CLAIM. SPEECH OF HON. A. H. STEPHENS, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, On the bill to prevent Frauds upon the Treasury Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, said: The bill under consideration, Mr. Speaker, is reported by the Select Committee of this House appointed to investigate the Gardiner claim. I do not see any connection which it has with the business submitted to that committee. It seems to be before the House anomalously. I suppose it must have got here by unanimous consent. The committee certainly had no authority from this House to report it. So far as the bill, therefore, is concerned, I shall treat it as an independent measure before this House, as if reported by any individual, and I shall not connect its merits with the investigation of the Gardiner claim, for I see no legitimate connection between it and the subject referred to that committee for investigation. The bill, I believe, is in substance the same as one introduced into the Senate by a Senator from North Carolina, [Mr. BADGER.] In the remarks which I shall make upon its merits, I shall necessarily, in noticing the topics of discussion which it has given rise to, introduce some of the subjects which the gentlemen have alluded to in the progress of the debate. The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. OLDS,] for instance, who, I believe, addressed the committee first upon this subject, and whose speech is reported for the first time in the Globe of this morning, seems to consider the report of this bill by that committee as confirming his original remarks in relation to the Secretary of the Treas ury, Mr. Corwin. I do not so consider it. I do not consider that there is anything in the report of the committee which can justify such an inference. I take this occasion to state to this House that I think the investigation and report of that committee fully and completely exonerates the Secretary of the Treasury from that improper connection with the Gardiner claim which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OLDS] seemed to entertain the opinion or suspicion that he held. I notice the following in the report of the gentleman's remarks, and I shall be brief upon this point: "Mr. Speaker, I will not say that at the time I offered the resolution calling for this committee of investigation, that I had not a settled conviction upon my mind, that Corwin must have known, or at least have strongly suspected, the fraudulent character of this claim. That conviction has not been changed, but greatly confirmed, by the evidence reported by the committee. But, sir, notwithstanding these convictions, I had no purpose of making any such charge in the resolution, knowing the utter impossibility of proving a man's thoughts or impressions. Nothing in the language of the resolution, or in the remarks with which I accompanied the resolution, can be construed into such a charge." Now, sir, I have the remarks of the gentleman as made before this House, in which he says: Through the investigation of Congress, their Galphinism has been exposed; and Crawford, loaded with the execrations of the American people, has received his passport To perpetual infamy. But Corwin still remains unwhipped of justice. True, sir, his catspaw and accomplice in the fraud is loaded with irons, and is branded by public senti ment as a perjurer and forger; but the master-moving Mr. OLDS. That is a quotation from a speech lution whatever. Mr. STEPHENS. These were remarks made Mr. OLDS. No, sir. I say that the remarks Mr. STEPHENS. Then, if the gentleman "Whereas a strong suspicion rests upon the public mind Resolved, That a committee, consisting of five mem- The only question, therefore, so far as the re- "No testimony has been adduced before the committee The testimony before the committee shows conclusively that Mr. Corwin had no interest whatever in this claim after he became Secretary of the Treasury; and the committee say that there is no evidence showing, "or tending to show," that even as a private citizen, in his vocation as an attorney, he knew anything at all of the fraud. There is nothing, then, connecting Mr. Corwin improperly with the claim. But, says the gentleman, the committee have reported this bill. Now it is to HO. OF REPS. that point that I wish to speak briefly, because this bill was not reported by any authority conferred on the committee, nor does it touch the case before them. I do not intend to let the gentleman escape in this way. I call the attention of the House to this fact, that if Mr. Corwin, as Secretary of the Treasury, had been improperly connected with this claim-as was intimated in the original charge-there would have been no necessity at all for any special bill to reach his delin quency. Sir, the founders of our Government, in one of the first acts passed by Congress, after the organization of the Government, sufficiently protected the Treasury of the United States in this particular. If Mr. Corwin acted improperly, you need pass no new law for others; you can now prosecute him, and visit upon him the punishment he deserves; you need not let him pass from defect of the law. I call the attention of the House to the act creating the Treasury Department in 1789, to show that there is no necessity for this bill to meet any future case similar to that then before the committee. I read the eighth section of that act: "SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That no person appointed to any office instituted by this act shall, directly or indirectly, be concerned or interested in carrying on the business of trade or cominerce, or be owner, in whole or in part, of any sea vessel, or purchase, by himself or another in trust for him, any public lands or other public property, or be concerned in the purchase or disposal of any public securities of any State or of the United States, or take or apply to his own use or emolument or gain, for negotiating or transacting any business in the said Department other than what shall be allowed by law; and if any person shall offend against any of the prohibitions of this act, he shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and forfeit to the United States the penalty of $3,000, and shall, upon conviction, be removed from office, and forever thereafter incapable of holding any office under the United States," &c. Sir, if Mr. Corwin, as Secretary of the Treasury, was "improperly connected" with this claim against the Treasury, as charged, here is a law of the country that has been in existence since 1789, under which you can proceed against him, and by which you can not only displace him, but disgrace him forever. If, therefore, the committee undertook to recommend this bill to meet Mr. Corwin 'u case, I beg to inform them, and the gentlemas from Ohio, that their work is but an act of supererogation. Here is a law quite sufficient for them or him to act upon. My object, sir, is to disconnect this bill, upon which I intend to speak hereafter, entirely from the matter and case referred to that committee. But I wish to premise a few remarks upon the facts reported by that committee, and which have been commented on in the debate. was Now, Mr. Speaker, these facts are, that Mr. Corwin, while he was a Senator of the United States, was employed as an attorney before the Board of Commissioners to adjudicate claims against Mexico in behalf of Gardiner, a claimant, and that he also took an interest by assignment in his claim. These facts are admitted. The gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JOHNSON,] argued wrong in itself for a member of Congress to apyesterday that it was malum in se; that pear as an attorney for fee or reward before any such tribunal. Is that gentleman right in that position? If he is, Mr. Corwin did something wrong If not, he is cerin itself, and deserves censure. tainly above the reproach of even the most fastidious in what he did. Let us refer to our history on this subject. Every gentleman who hears me knows that it is usual, and has been from the beginning of this Government, for Senators and members of the House to appear as counsel for fee and reward or compensation before the Supreme Court of the United States, to appear before any of the courts of the Union, and before commissioners appointed to adjudicate claims similar to these before just such tribunals as this was. I believe that even anterior to our RevNay, more; olution, Dr. Franklin did not consider it malum in se to receive fees and act as agent for several of the colonies before the proper departments of the Government of the mother country-Great Britain. He was the regular agent, first of Pennsylvania, then of Massachusetts, and of Georgia, perhaps others of the colonies. I maintain, therefore, that there is nothing in the thing itself which, by the general consent of our countrymen, even the wisest and the best, is, or has been considered, wrong in acting as counsel or attorney, or agent 32D CONG.....2d Sess. The Galphin Claim-Mr. Stephens, of Georgia. for proper compensation in such a capacity. I believe it is a historical fact, that after the Jay treaty, there was a commission instituted for the adjudication and settlement of claims provided for in that treaty, and that the ablest attorneys in the country at that time, appeared before the board thus constituted-amongst them members of Congress. Again, at the close of the last war with England, under a convention, a similar board was constituted. The celebrated Mr. Pinkney, of the State of Maryland, a distinguished member of this body-an honor to his State, an honor to his country-a man whose eloquence was perhaps never surpassed-a man whose integrity never was questioned, so far as I know,-he, sir, appeared, as I am informed, before that commission and argued important cases as attorney for parties in interest. Who ever heard his conduct questioned? Who ever heard an imputation cast upon his character, for thus advocating the rights of those who sought the aid of his legal counsel? I give him as one instance amongst others. But further still. I have a paper before me from which it appears that the Hon. George M. Dallas, while he was Vice President of the United States, received fees for prosecuting, with others, a claim before one of the Departments,-others were engaged with him in the same case, members of Congress of the highest character and the strictest purity. How can men thus employed be said to be employed against the Treasury of the United States? In most instances, the only question is, who among several claimants shall receive a particular fund? But, sir, I come down even to this very tribunal before which Senator Corwin agreed to appear as counsel. He was not the only member of Congress who appeared or agreed to appear there as counsel. And if there was anything improper in his connection with it, was it not so with other members of Congress? Mark you, I do not allude to these facts by way of casting imputations upon any of the gentlemen whom I shall name, but I do not intend, sitting here in this Hall, to permit a false impression to go before this country, or that Mr. Corwin, who is a distinguished lawyer, shall be made a scape-goat of by any gentleman upon this floor. Mark you, that the whole charge sustained is, that Mr. Corwin, while a Senator, was employed by Dr. Gardiner to represent his claim as one amongst other lawyers before the Board of Commissioners. For the testimony is conclusive that, perhaps, knowing the statute of 1789, which I have read, if from no other consideration, he disconnected himself from that relation before he assumed the position of Secretary of the Treasury. But the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OLDS] says that the transfer of his interest was all a farce. Well, if so, the issue is between him and his committee. They do not report that it was a farce. that it was an unconditional transfer of all his interest in the claim. I am bound, therefore, so to consider it. Well, then, sir, was Mr. Corwin the only distinguished Senator who appeared as counsel before that Commission? I have not seen the docket, but I speak from information which has been communicated to me, and which I have no doubt is correct. I am informed that the honorable Senator from Missouri [Colonel BENTON] appeared in a case there. I am informed that the honorable Senator from Louisiana [Mr. SOULE] appeared in a case there. I believe that the honorable Daniel Webster appeared as counsel there in two cases. The honorable Mr. BRIGHT, & Senator from Indiana, appeared there also in four cases, as I am informed. Whether those gentlemen appeared for fee or reward, I do not know. I come now to this House; and mark me again, that I do not intend to cast any imputation upon any gentleman, because I do not consider myself that there was any wrong in it. There was no law against it, and it had been the custom of the country from the beginning for men holding such positions to act in such capacity. But I am informed that the honorable Mr. HOWARD, of Texas, appeared before that Commission in behalf of some claimants. The honorable Mr. EwING, of Tennessee, who was then, but not now, a member of this House, appeared there as counsel, or represented some party, as I am told. The honorable Mr. PHELPS, of this House, did the same thing. Mr. PHELPS. The gentleman from Georgia is mistaken in relation to that matter. Mr. STEPHENS. Well, sir, I shall be glad to be corrected. I only speak from information received from others, as I have stated. Mr.PHELPS. Permit me, then, to make a brief statement. When the Mexican Commission assembled, one of my constituents handed me his memorial, with the request that I would send it to the Commission with the proofs accompanying it. I did so send it. My constituent then desired me to appear before the Commission, if necessary, and attend to the case. Action was had upon the case, but I never appeared before the Commission. I only inquired of one of the Commissioners what action had been had upon it. I received no compensation for it whatever. I attended to the business as I would attend to any other business of my constituents. But I did not appear as counsel in the case. Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I wish to ask the gentleman from Missouri this question: Did you ever receive any compensation for your action before this Commission? Mr. PHELPS. I did not appear before that Board at all, nor did I receive any compensation, for filing the memorial. Mr. HOWARD. As the gentleman from Georgia has mentioned my name in this connection, I desire to state that two constituent s of mine sent cases to me which I filed before the Board. I presented them, however, without having exacted or received any compensation. Mr. STEPHENS. Then I understand the gentleman from Texas did appear before the Board, but received no compensation for it. Mr. HOWARD. I will state that I received petitions and papers made out, some of which I corrected, and one petition I redrafted, signed them The witnesses are unimpeached, and they swear as counsel, and presented them before the Board, but I never received any compensation nor charged any. I have never charged or received any pay for business to which I here attend to before the Departments. While I am up, however, I will state that I do not myself consider an appearance before such a board as anything improper in itself. I agreed to this report, however, because I think it is better for the representatives and the country that members of Congress should not appear before such commissions, and not because I considered such an appearance as anything improper in itself. I shall take occasion to state my reasons for this opinion before the debate closes. Mr. STEPHENS. What I was informed, then, is true, that these gentlemen did act as counsel before this Board. Mr. PHELPS did not appear before the Board in person, because it was not necessary; but as the papers presented by them were for constituents, they did not charge or receive any compensation for their services. On that point, as I stated, I was not informed as to either or any of the gentlemen named by me. Mr. PHELPS. I did not appear before the Board at all. I merely handed in the papers. Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman did not appear, because it was not necessary. I presume there is no question that neither of these gentlemen received any compensation for their services. But the gentleman from Texas very correctly states, in my opinion, that it was nothing unusual or improper in members of Congress in appearing before such a board as counsel for compensation. Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee. Will the gentleman allow me to make a statement? Mr. STEPHENS. Be brief. Mr. STANTON. I do not know whether the gentleman from Georgia has my name as appearing before this Commission or not, but I did appear there, in one case for a constituent of mine, who employed me as his counsel, and paid me for it. I drew his memorial, and presented it before the Board. I did not think the Commission allowed him half as much as he was entitled to, but he paid me in accordance with his own proposition. Mr. STEPHENS. I did not have the gentleman's name; and it is very possible other members of Congress appeared about whom I have no information. Mr. STANTON. 1 will state further, Mr. Speaker, that I have attended to business for my Ho. OF REPS. constituents and others, a thousand times, and never received a cent for my services, and never would receive à cent, although money has been repeatedly offered me. Mr. STEPHENS. It seems, then, that the two gentlemen, Mr. HOWARD and Mr. PHELPS, happened to have the papers of constituents, in consideration of which, they did not charge them for their services; but if the papers had been presented by others, according to the statement of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. STANTON,] and of the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. HowARD,] they would have considered it nothing improper to have appeared before that Commission, any more than to have appeared before the Supreme Court as counsel. Now, my point was, to show from the whole legislative history of the country, that such a connection has never been deemed improper, that there is no legislation against it. This I think I have established. The only Department of the Government in relation to which such a connection is prohibited by law, is that of the Treasury. That is the only Department in which public offcers are prohibited from holding such a relationship. In the War Department there is no law against either the head of it or any subordinate being interested in a claim, or prosecuting a claim pending before the Treasury. In the State Department there is no such prohibition, or in any other Department. Here, and in this connection, I beg to call the attention of the House to the investigation which was had in 1837, before the memorable committee of Mr. Wise. You recollect, perhaps, that amongst other charges of impropriety preferred by Mr. Wise, was, that the heads of some of the Departments were speculating in the public lands, and with having interest in, and with prosecuting claims against the Government. The position of General Jackson, and of the party then in power, of which he was emphatically the head, was, that there was no law against it, and that if the head of any of the Departments, except the Treasury, or any of the officers of the Government, had a claim against the Government, or was disposed to invest his money in speculating in the public lands, that it was no well-grounded charge against the integrity of such officer. I have the report of that committee before me, with the remarks of Mr. Wise upon it. These papers, I think, fully sustain this position. The Secretary of State was charged at that time with being largely interested in a land company in the State of Alabama. Witnesses were put upon the stand and questioned as to that fact. The question was so modified and restricted as to make the witness answer whether the Secretary of State had been interested in any land speculations "contrary to law." There was no law against it, and the question was not permitted to be propounded touching the matter without this modification. The inference was clear that he was, or if he was, that it was his legal right to be so interested. Well, sir, with this distinct allegation as to the Secretary of State, what said General Jackson to this committee? If you are able to point to any 'case where there is the slightest reason to suspect 'corruption or abuse of trust, no obstacle which I 'can remove shall be interposed to prevent the 'fullest scrutiny by all legal means." This he said to Mr. Wise. He had specified the speculations of the Secretary of State in public lands. But that was no case of" corruption and abuse," in the opinion of General Jackson, because it was not against any law. General Jackson held that there was no corruption in the charge, if true, because there was no law against it: and his friends in this House on the committee would not allow the question to be put. And I say, sir, you must first define crime before you go hunting criminals. You must first proclaim by law what is wrong, and what you intend to hold up to public odium, before you can hold Mr. Corwin, or Mr. Anybody else, up as a public malefactor for breaking your law. Your law must first be made and published. Where there is no law, there is no transgression. Therefore you cannot rightfully charge the Secretary of the Treasury, as a Senator of the United States, with being "improperly" employed as counsel before the Board of Mexican Commissioners, 1853. 32D CONG.....2D SESS. which is the issue in this matter, until you declare by law that a Senator shall not be so employed, and until he then shall have rendered himself obnoxious to the provisions of your law. When all this takes place, his conduct will fall within the range of those acts which are called "mala prohibita," and not even then within that class denominated "mala in se," unless there be positive corruption. But, sir, there is another matter brought into this discussion, to which I beg the indulgence of the House for a short reference to. The investigations of Mr. Wise's committee were connected with other matters besides speculations in land, and one of which has been alluded to in this debate. It was freely admitted by the then Secretary of State-Mr. Forsyth-that he had been employed as attorney, and was so employed while Secretary of State, to prosecute against the Government what is well known as the Galphin claim. General Jackson knew, and the country knew, that Mr. Forsyth admitted this. It was not denied. He was Secretary of State, and admitted the fact before the committee. Here is his evidence. Yet no one censured Mr. Forsyth; and no one then dared to impugn his honor for it. That then and now stands above reproach-because it was his legal right to do so. The Secretary of the Treasury was by the law of 1789 prohibited from prosecuting or becoming interested in claims against the Government. But, as I have said, there is no law prohibiting this in the heads of the other Departments. Now, I beg the indulgence of the House, by way of digression, to allude somewhat to this claim, which others have associated with "Gardinerism," as they call it. I addressed a former House upon the same subject. But there are many here who I doubt not know but little of its merits. The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. OLDS,] in his speech, or the "Galphins.' 'Galphinism,' alludes to "". He says, that after the decease of the lamented Taylor, when Mr. Fillmore entered this Hall to take the oath of office, followed by the Cabinet of General Taylor, Corwin heard the murmur from the galleries, "There come the Galphins," which reached every part of the Hall. Well, sir, the gentleman may have heard such a murmur, but I did not, and never heard of it until I saw it in his speech. Now, sir, I intend to say something on this Galphin claim. Gentlemen may, if they choose, continue to cry out Galphin fraud; but they shall not do it without the exposure which is due to the truth, as well as right and justice. Mr. Speaker, I am here to-day to defend that claim against any one who may be bold enough to assail it. I hold myself ready to say and maintain that there was no fraud in the Galphin claim. I saw this claim alluded to in a paper the other Now, Mr. day as the "Galphin swindle.' Speaker, I ask this House to hear, not as partisans, what I have to assert in vindication of the I feel it my duty to do it, truth in this matter. in vindication of people whom I know, descendants of Galphin, and men who under him have received their just rights-rights which were long delayed at the door of public justice. Some of these gentlemen reside in the State of Georgia and some reside in the State of South Carolina-as highminded, honorable and chivalrous men as ever trod the face of the earth; men who would scorn to take a dollar from the Government which was not justly their due. Some of these parties I know-and I will vindicate them, and I will vindicate the truth of history, whenever they or their conduct in this matter are assailed or maligned. There was, sir, no fraud in the Galphin claim. In the maintenance of what I say, I shall assert facts and nothing but facts, which are uncontroverted in the past and And when incontrovertible for all time to come. I am done, want to see the man rise up here in the face of these facts and say that there was fraud in the payment of that just debt. These are the facts: In 1773, the Cherokee Indians and the Creek Indians in the State of Georgia, were indebted to certain traders to a considerable amount of money. They had nothing to pay it with. This was while Georgia was a British colony. These Indians agreed to cede to the Crown of Great Britain a certain amount of landtwo millions and a half of acres, or thereabouts in consideration of which Great Britain was to take I speak from history and the records of the But to proceed with my narrative. The State of Georgia, in 1780, passed an act binding and obligating herself to pay to any of those Indian claimants who were true to the country, the whole amount awarded to them by the commissioners under the treaty, and for which the lands were bound in equity and good faith, with interest at six per cent. George Galphin was one of them. By her act she assumed this debt of Galphin for £9,791 15s. 5d., with interest at six per cent. per Did not this solemn act create a just debt? But Galphin died in 1780, very soon after the act passed. annum. Sir, George Walton, a signer of the Declaration Ho. OF REPS. name of a man who was thus connected and allied with George Galphin? And whoever wants the history of this Administration written in the blood of the Galphins, wants it written in the blood of some of the purest and noblest men who periled their all for the rights and liberties of their country. son. Now, sir, this claim was presented to the LeThe committee to whom it was referred, regislature of the State of Georgia in 1793 by his ported in favor of it. And it was presented to several Legislatures after that up to 1826; but it was not paid, though almost every committee to whom it was referred reported in favor of it, as a just debt against Georgia. Do you ask why it was not paid? I will tell you, in my opinion, simply because they did not have the money. For the same reason, I fear that most of our States will fail to pay their debts when the question shall be between refusal and very high taxation. Well, why was it presented here? I will tell you. In 1790, the General Government passed what is known as the assumption act. That is, the General Government brought into a general account the contributions of each State, either to the general defense, or the particular defense of the common country, during the common struggle of the war for our national independence. At this time Galphin was dead, and Georgia had not paid this £9,791 15s. 5d. She had pledged herself to pay for the lands she had taken possession of and disposed of, but she had not paid the debt, and did not bring it into the account on the settlement under the assumption act of 1790. The settlement under the assumption act was thought for a long time in Georgia to be a final settlement, and that she could not go behind it. Well, in 1832, the State of Virg.ia came before Congress, and presented claim to a large amount under these circumstances: She stated that during the war of the Revolution she had by law promised to pay to certain officers in her State line raised for her own particular defense, certain annuities for life, upon certain conditions set forth in an act of her General Assembly. A number of these officers insisted that they had complied with these She had resisted these claims conditions, and claimed their compensation according to contract. for a long time, but finally her courts, which were open against her, had decided in favor of the claimants, and judgments to a large amount were rendered against her, and the State then came and asked Congress to reopen the assumption act of 1790, or at least to pay these claims, upon the principles of that act; because she said that her liability to these officers was of the same nature as the advances for the particular defense that she had made, and which had been brought into the account under the assumption act of 1790. Congress, in 1832, assumed the liability and paid it; and in doing that, Congress did right; because or would be liable for those claims. You paid Virginia, in 1790, did not know that she was liable, under that act nearly a million of dollars, perhaps more. Now, then, the representatives of Galphin came and asked the General Government to pay them £9,791 15s. 5d., with interest at six per cent.; which was the liability or debt of Georgia, incurred for the particular defense of that part of the common country not included in the act of 1790, just as they did the Virginia claims, and identically upon the same principles of equity and justice and right. In 1836, the Senate passed a resolution requesting the President of the United States (General Jackson) to write to the Governor of Georgia, to get all the information in his possession upon the subject. In January, 1837, Gen I say there never was a juster claim against the State of Georgia than this. She pledged to him the amount of his debt, which was £9,791 15s. 5d. in sterling money, and six per cent. interest. Well, the old man died a month or two after-eral Jackson so wrote; and Governor Schley, of the venerable old man, as the patriot Walton called him. I saw some time ago a toast given at a dinner, with this idea-that the history of this Administration would be written in the blood of the Galphins. And who, sir, was Galphin? He was one of the most distinguished men living on the frontiers of your country, a man who stood by the patriots who won your liberties and achieved the independence of your country. I state further that his daughter was married to John Milledge, of Georgia, a man whose name the capital of our State still bears in the city of Milledgeville, and we do not feel dishonored by this perpetuation of the Georgia-a political friend of General Jackson- "The 6 to 32D CONG....2D SESS. The Galphin Claim—Mr. Stephens, of Georgia. executor of George Galphin, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated;" and in pursuance of that law the principal and interest of that debt were paid. That, sir, is Galphinism-its height, its length, its breadth and depth. There it stands in all its naked deformity. Look upon it, examine it, scrutinize it, and tell me where is the swindle," and who have been the "swindlers." When the case was last presented to Congress, whose hands was it put into? Into the hands of George McDuffie, of South Carolina. Who presented it? George McDuffie! Did he want to commit a fraud against your Treasury? Was he a swindler? It went before a committee, and who constituted that committee? Messrs. Ashley, Breese, Berrien, Westcott, and Webster. They made a report to the Senate, and spread it before the country in 1847. The bill passed the Senate. There was no formidable opposition, because the grounds upon which it was presented and sustained were too clear, as I believe, to be avoided. Here was the act of Georgia obliging her to pay that debt-as solemn a debt as ever was contracted. It was for particular defenses, and was put upon precisely the same grounds of assumption as the Virginia claims, and no one could escape the force of the reasons. In 1848 it was before the same committee in the Senate. That committee was composed of the same gentlemen who constituted the former committee, with one or two exceptions-a committee of able and practical men. They reported again in favor of it. Were they the "Galphins" who perpetrated this monstrous fraud? The distinguished Senator from Michigan, [General CASS,] when Secretary of War, said that there was no doubt but that the claim was just, and the only question was, which should pay it, Georgia or the United States. Was he one of the swindlers? Early in 1848, the bill came into this House, and was laid upon your table. The report was printed, and the case referred to a committee of this House. I have before me the names of that committee, and they are all honorable men, and unimpeachable. One of the gentlemen upon that committee (Mr. Pettit) is nominated by his party, I see, to be a Senator from the State of Indiana. Was he a swindler? Did he think it was a great fraud? Was he trying to cheat the public? Is he one of those with whose blood it is the desire of some to write the history of this Administration? Do you want to write the history of the Administration in the blood of General Cass, of Mr. Forsyth, of Governor Schley, the blood of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, and in the blood of the distinguished individual to whom I have just alluded? Are all these men Galphins? I believe the gentleman from Ohio said that they, the "Galphins," were buried so deep, that the hand of resurrection would never raise them up. But the Democracy in Indiana, it seems, has imparted new life to one of them-has "galvanized" him, at least, by sending him to the Senate. I heard a gentleman inquire how this Galphin claim passed through this House. I say it passed this House by the unanimous vote of every man in it, when any one man's voice could have prevented it. It stood upon its own merits. No speech was made in its behalf. It had no advocate but the plain, short, strong argument of the committee. Their printed report lay upon your desk for six months. It was taken up and acted upon at a time when no bill could pass, that did not receive the unanimous support of every man in the House. Your Journal shows this fact. It passed in August, 1848. Were all in this House then Galphins? It was passed, and carried to Mr. Polk for his signature. Did not he understand all about Galphin? Was not Mr. Forsyth a feed attorney, and did he not prosecute it while Secretary of State under Jackson? Did not Mr. Wise report then, that this Galphin claim was about $150,000? Was not Mr. Polk, as Speaker of this House at that time, conversant with all these facts? It is to be presumed that he was. At any event, he signed the bill two days after it passed. Is he, too, one of this famous family of the Galphins? Mr. Walker, his Secretary of the Treasury, paid the principal, but did not pay the interest, because, as he stated in his testimony, he did not have time to investigate that point. But he said—and mark it—that what ever Galphin's debt was, this Government, by the act of 1848, had assumed it fully. The act of Georgia of 1780, pledging to Galphin £9,791 15s. 5d., with interest at six per cent. per annum, was not before him. But who can say, with that act before him, he would not have paid the interest according to his testimony? For he said, whatever the debt was which was due to Galphin, the act of 1848 had assumed. And who can say that £9,791 15s. 5d., with six per cent. interest, was not due to Galphin by the act of Georgia of 1780? If any man is bold enough to do so, let him do it. My time will not permit me to discuss this subject at any greater length, and I trust the House will pardon this digression. What I have said I have stated for the House and the country. The facts, as I have stated, are uncontroverted in the past, and will remain incontrovertible for all time to come, and I defy their controversion here or anywhere. I am here to resist all party clamor that may be brought against this claim. I suppose that many of these expressions, such as "Galphins," by party heat, emanate from partisan feelings, and without any distinct or definite idea of what are meant by them. But I say that the character of every man should be defended by those who love truth and justice. The character of the humblest, alike with the character of the highest, shall, at all times, receive defense from me, when I can defend it. I care not if the name of wrongful accusers is legion, I will face them all, if necessary. I do not care to join with the shouting multitude barely because they are strong in numbers. I do not fancy the taste of those who play upon expressions because they catch the popular cant or whim of the day. It is an easy matter to pander to the passions or prejudices of the uninformed. Sir, this is the "facilis descensus Averni," the downward road of the demagogue. It is easy to travel it, and, to some, it seems to be a pleasant jaunt; but to vindicate the truth, to stand up for the right against the majority, "Hic labor, hoc opus est. I shall do it, or attempt to do it, sir, though I be a minority of one. I have nothing to say, at this time, about the connection of the then Secretary of War with it. Mr. Crawford was interested in the claim, and was Secretary of War when the interest was paid-that is all. I will, however, ask, when the offer was made to have the justice and legality of the allowance referred to the Supreme Court of the United States, who prevented it? The Senate Journal will show. Did they want to commit a fraud upon the Treasury? Was Mr. BUTLER, of South Carolina, Mr. ATCHISON, of Missouri, Mr. TURNEY, of Tennessee, and a number more whom I need not name, were they all Galphins? But I am done with this; and I am also done with the matters alluded to in the report of the committee on the Gardiner case. I have shown that that committee fully acquitted Mr. Corwin of the charge of being improperly connected with the claim, and that this bill has really no connection with the duty assigned to them. HO. OF REPS. such, in my opinion, as Webster, and Corwin, and others acting in that capacity, may be a sort of cloak for those who may be unscrupulous and corrupt. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. As the gentleman intends to vote for the bill, which it is almost treason to say is an impeachment on the whole House, I would inquire whether he intends to extend its provisions to prevent members from advocating cases before the Supreme Court of the United States; and if he does not, why does he make the distinction? Mr. STEPHENS. I shall vote for that, but I do not know whether it will be incorporated with the bill or not. I will state candidly to the gentleman, as I did in a conversation on this matter with a distinguished gentleman yesterday, who said that he thought it proper not to extend the prohibition to the Supreme Court, that I think the prohibition should extend to members of Congress practicing in that court, as well as before boards of commissioners-and why? The impeaching power is with the House of Representatives, and the trying power with the Senate; and I ask what kind of influence would be more powerful than Congressional influence upon a judge who felt guilty, and knew that an impeachment was to be made? Would he not favor a distinguished member of Congress who was counsel in a case before him for trial, quite as much as a member of a board of commissioners? I will, if possible, vote for the extension of the provisions of this bill to the Supreme Court. If I cannot get that, I shall vote for the bill in the best shape I can get it. I am for establishing a rule by which every one can regulate his conduct, and then right and wrong will not be left to the capricious judgment of friend or foe. Let it be written in the law, and then all can equally stand or fall by the law, and not the uncertain standard of men's opinions. In the progress of the debate Mr. STEPHENS having repeated his belief, from the disclosures, that the Gardiner claim was wholly unfounded, but that the matter was undergoing judicial investigation before the proper courts, Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee, inquired of him if the proof of its being a fabrication was not so conclusive as to cause the President to institute suits for the recovery of the money and prosecutions for forgery and perjury, &c.; and whether Mr. STEPHENS Would say that Mr. Corwin, if these cases should de decided against Gardiner, would repay what he had received from the Treasury of the United States.] Mr. STEPHENS. I will answer the gentleman. I admit that the President has done what he said, and it is a fact that he did it long before this clamor in the House was raised. The President had this man arrested under a suspicion that reached him, I think long before the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OLDS] moved in the matter. The President upon suspicion did it, and he did right; and this committee, of which the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JOHNSON] is a member, knows and reports that the President has been vigilant-and the papers in the report show that Mr. Corwin too has been active and vigilant in getting at the truth of the matter. I grant these facts, and I state them because the case is now pending and is yet to be tried. The President has been vigilant, M Corwin has been vigilant, and am I to be asked what he will do in anticipation of that judgment? Mr. Gardiner, it is true, was put in prison. He has given bail; he has found sureties; he says that he will vindicate his character. Is Mr. Corwin, or any one else, to prejudge him? I never believed much in those Mexican claims when we went to war to get them; when we were told that there were six or seven millions of them, that we ought to go to war to make Mexico pay them. I thought then that they were most of them nothing but batches of fraud. But I will do justice even to a Mexican claimant. I will not prejudge his case. Let him come into court. I, as a grand juror, say that I believe the suspicion is a strong one that his claim is a fraud. But he shall or should have his day in court before he is condemned. He claims the opportunity of vindicating himself, according to the laws of the country, and accord This bill, with amendments, I intend to vote for; but I shall not vote for it as it is, because, under its provisions, any member might be put in the penitentiary for going down to the Pension Office and filing the memorial of any of his constituents for a bounty land warrant. With amendments which shall prevent members of Congress from attending to such business" for fee or reward," I shall vote for it. I am in favor of such a prohibition in future, not because there has been anything dishonorable, disreputable, or corrupt, or "malum in se" in such acts, and not because I think that Messrs. Dallas, Webster, Benton, and Stanton, or Corwin, did anything wrong in what I have stated, for I do not, but because I think that we should establish a rule for the future by which honorable men can act so as not to subject themselves to unjust imputations. The bill thus amended would, if even made retrospective, never touch any act of mine. But I make, however, no boast of that. I have never looked upon such acts in others as at all disreputable, much less asing to the treaty, and he should have it. My grounds of charging corruption. I think it wise and proper that such a regulation should be made. || And why? Because honest, unimpeachable men, opinion is, that he will not do it. Mr. Corwin's opinion is, doubtless, that he will not do it. The President is of the opinion, I imagine, that he will not do it; and hence they institute these proceed-But I ought to have stated that the honorable Sen- But my opinion is, that when the case in court is proven to be fradulent, if it shall be so proven, that the same vigilance which arrested Gardiner ought to pursue every man who holds a portion of it; the one fourth stands on the same footing as the other three fourths. I have no reason to doubt that Mr. Corwin would be just as vigilant, and the President would be just as vigilant, in ferreting out the one as the other. I do not care in whose pocket it is to be found. How Mr. Corwin will act towards his assignee I do not know. Whether he will feel under obligation to make good what he sold without warranty or condition, I do not know And it will be time enough to moot the propriety of his conduct in this matter after the case shall be found by the court to be fradulent, if that shall ever be, and after George Law, or his assignees, who got the money, shall fail to respond. Mr. BELL said: Mr. PRESIDENT: The Senator from South Carolina [Mr BUTLER] has made a very forcible, but I hope not a very formidable attack on this bill; and in rising to answer some of his objections, I do not suppose that I shall be able to dispose of all of them in the order in which he has presented them, because that I know would be impossible; for shape a proposition of this kind in what manner you may, there will be not only plausible but strong objections to be urged to it. This bill partakes of the character of everything else in legislation, and everything that is human. It is imperfect, and so will be found any plan that can be devised by the most ingenious and able gentleman on this floor, when he shall undertake to put together the various parts of a measure of this description. The Senator from South Carolina has denounced this bill as in the first place unconstitutional-as a violation of our organic law; and he is therefore opposed to it. He has denounced it as premature. He has announced, in as strong terms as he could, that we have no sufficient lights before us to guide our judgments in sustaining such a measure as this. He has denounced the plan before the Senate as an undigested one, with conflicting provisions. He has denounced it as merely experimental, and says that we have nothing to assure us that this great work is practicable. He has denounced it as a stupendous monopoly if it shall go into operation and be successful; and, what I think is somewhat conflicting with his own arguments against the measure, he has said that if it be a failure, though it may prove to be no monopoly and of no profit to a company, the expense will fall exclusively upon the United States. In how many other forms he has denounced it I do not remember, and I will not take time to look at my notes, in which I attempted to sketch them down. Now, Mr. President, I am in favor of this road. I am in favor of commencing its construction at an early day. Is the honorable Senator from South Carolina in favor of it at all? If he be not in its favor, then we cannot stand upon equal grounds, either in assigning reasons for its support, or in answering objections that are interposed against it. Mr.BUTLER. My friend from Tennessee will allow me to make one remark in this connection. I have never gone further than to say that I would be willing to vote for a reconnoissance and survey, to see whether a military road could be made. I do not know that, after we should have that reconnoissance and survey, I would deem it to be a matter of policy to construct such a road. SENATE. for the making of what many of them must have known, from the lights that were before them, to be an experiment. And so, to make a remark pertinent to one that fell from the Senator from South Carolina to-day-that if this road shall turn out to cost fifty per cent. or one hundred per cent. more than we suppose in the bill before us, and prove to be a failure, he considers that all the expense will fall on the Government, and be a total loss; I say even then it will not be a failure. We may be making an experiment as to the cost of the road, it is true; but if it shall cost $80,000 a mile instead of $40,000, I shall consider it a profitable experiment to the country and to the world. And again, if the road were to stop at the base of the mountains, and could go no further, still every one hundred, or four hundred, or five hundred miles you advance with it, suppose it stops there, is so much space overcome and gained in the transit between the Atlantic States and Pacific coast. You shorten the land transportation; you shorten the transportation of troops and munitions of war by that much. The expense and labor are not lost. The honorable Senator's argument is a failure, when he attempts to show that if we cannot accomplish all we propose, all is lost. Every hundred miles we proceed with the railroad is so much gained. But to recur to the history of this project. Suppose it was necessary in time of war to send troops and munitions of war and other army supplies across the continent, over the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada, for a distance of two The Senator from South Carolina says this prothousand miles, what use at this day would an or- ject is premature. Five years ago, I believe, we dinary military road be-I mean a road by which ratified in this body the treaty of Guadalupe Hiyou would have to drag cannon up the sides of dalgo. Then, if the Senator had anything to obthe mountains and let them down on the oppo-ject to making inroads upon the Constitution of the site sides, pack your provisions on mules, or draw land, in this age of progress, then was the time for them with oxen through the narrow passes? That him to come forward with his objections. But from would be what is generally considered a military the moment that treaty was ratified, and California road, and the honorable gentleman thinks he has became ours, by a stronger and more imperative no objection to such a road as that! Such a road necessity than existed before, when we had only would be behind the times. According to his Oregon, it was settled that we were to keep up with own argument, I would ask the honorable Senathis progress, and connect the Atlantic and Pacific tor what is a railroad but a military road? If the together. It was then as inevitable as is now the honorable Senator will reflect upon the objection, necessity of making this road, to my mind, and I I think he will see that he will be obliged to with think it will be to every other Senator who will draw his opposition as to the constitutional power, consider of it for a moment, calmly and without so far as it is proposed to run this road exclusively prejudice. We must have this tie, this bond, this through the Territories of the United States. channel of communication, if we mean to hold the territory which was ceded to us by that treaty. And, sir, for fear I shall forget it, let me now, although it is not strictly in the order of my remarks, call the Senator's attention to another point in answer to one part of his argument in which he complains of the infraction of the Constitution, and of what this progress has done. He should go back, to the admission of Louisiana into the Union, through a treaty with France, and commence this breach of the Constitution there; and he will trace it on to the admission of Florida through a treaty with Spain; and then, I trust, he will come to the admission of Texas; and when he complains of what progress has done in beating down the barriers of the Constitution in regard to the acquisition of territory, and the improvements projected to hold it in our control and dominion, I trust he will reflect upon the mode in which Texas was admitted into the Union. I do not know that he was in public life then, but I know that he is associated with gentlemen who gave their hearty concurrence to the measure for the admission of Texas. The greatest breach, in my opinion, ever made in those barriers was made by the mode in which Texas was admitted into the Union; and if the honorable Senator has no fault to find with that, surely he ought no longer to complain-I mean the admission of Texas by a resolution passed by a majority of the two Houses of Congress. Mr. BELL. I remember the honorable Senator did make some such qualification, but he seemed to doubt whether we could construct even a military road over these mountain passes. But I am traveling out of the order of the remarks that I designed to make. It occurs to me that there is one method of argument which will prove the most effective answer to the Senator, and that would be to trace the history briefly of this proposition to construct a railroad to the Pacific, from its inception to the present time. I have stated before, that I am in favor of such a road. I am not wedded to the particular mode or form of construction which is provided in this bill. If I cannot find a majority of the members of this honorable body concurring in this proposition, am willing to take what, in my judgment, may be an inferior one, in order to get something which will answer the great purpose-I mean a road to the Pacific. If I had the power of sitting down and devising the best means in my judgment, and had the power, at the same time, of bringing to a concurrence with me a majority of the members of this body, I would frame a very different bill from this. But it was because I was in favor of the commencement of such a road as this, at the earliest possible day, that I gave my consent to this bill. I Four years ago, Mr. President, I gave my consent to the project of Mr. Whitney; and I am not prepared to say, even at this day, that that was a very wild or extravagant project. A majority of the Legislatures of seventeen different States of this Union were brought to concur in the propriety of making that experiment. They did not look nicely at what it might cost the country. They were willing to give the millions of acres of public lands which were proposed by that gentleman, Mr. BUTLER. I do not know what would have been my judgment at the time, if I had been called upon to vote; perhaps I would have yielded to assimilation-for the gentleman seems to say that, by assimilation, I shall be responsible for that measure. I might have assimilated to the views of others; if I had to give my opinion, however, in the abstract, I would have preferred a different mode of admitting Texas. Mr. BELL. That is a fair and candid admission. But after these great barriers, which he thinks it is of such importance that we should hold up in their original strength and solidity, have been broken down in this manner, why interpose objections to every measure of this kind? It is out of time; it is past the period when such objections can |