5 
 
 / 
 
EEVOLtTTIOlSrA-Rir CLAIMS. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. REUBEN E. FENTON, 
 
 OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Delivered in the TJ. S. House of Representatives, May 18, 1860. 
 
 Mr. FENTON said : 
 
 Mr. Speaker: In reference to the billwhich 
 I had the honor to submit to the House, " to 
 provide for the settlement of the chiims of the 
 officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary army, 
 and the widows and children of those who died 
 in the serTice," I desire to say that I am con- 
 stantly in the receipt of letters from all parts of 
 these United States, asking why it is that so 
 much delay has attended the passage of this 
 bill? Will each member of this House aid me 
 to answer? Will each member contribute to 
 relieve me from the arduous duty, by co-op- 
 erating to hasten linal action on the bill? 
 
 In my remarks to the House on this subject 
 during the last Congress, I expressed myself 
 very fully in support of the justice and legal 
 rights of these meritorious creditors, so that 
 very little additional can be said by me to com 
 mend them to the approval of Congress, and to 
 incite in the minds of members a desire for 
 their immediate adjustment. It is very little 
 benefit to creditors to have committees investi- 
 gate and report claims merely to be placed on 
 the Calendar, there to remain until called into 
 like incipient vitality at the next Congress, only 
 to meet like renewed postponement. If they 
 are, as I believe them to be, beyond the shadow 
 of a doubt, DEBTS — legal, meritorious debts — 
 due from the United States to these creditors, 
 they ought to be paid — paid now, paid with 
 the same promptness, with the same apprecia- 
 tion of duty and right, as we ourselves ask to 
 be paid our salary. They claim only $240 per 
 annum for the services rendered and the suffer- 
 ings endured by their fathers in the great 
 struggle for independence, whilst we enjoy the 
 Government they established, in possession of 
 the highest honors, and a salary of $3,000 per 
 annum. 
 
 The people of this great nation cherish a love 
 of justice. They are willing to pay liberally — 
 they insist upou paying honorably ; and the dis- 
 charge of duty will ever command their appro- 
 bation ; but tliey will not be, and they should 
 not be, content, if we manifest indifference to 
 their rights. They will hold us, as they should, 
 to a strict accountability. It is unfortunately 
 true, that individual claims against the Gov- 
 ernment receive too little attention from the 
 Representatives of the people. They cannot 
 sue the Government; they have no remedy 
 only such as we have the power to furnish ; and 
 yet who does not know that they travel up the 
 broad passages to this Hall, year after year, 
 until time grows weary, sad with oft-repeated 
 disappointments, and at last turn away with 
 feeble step, leaving the prosecution of their 
 claims to their children, and oft-times entailed 
 upon their children's children, or abandoned ia 
 despair of obtaining justice at the hands of 
 their servants ? 
 
 The applicants provided for in this bill do 
 not ask us to pay them for the fortunes and 
 many years' service rendered prior to the date 
 of the contracts for half pay. They ask nothing 
 for losses for depreciation of Government paper. 
 They ask nothing for their fortunes, which they 
 expended to acquire this Government. They 
 ask only that we should do an act of justice; 
 that we should discharge a legal and sacred ob- 
 ligation. They ask the payment of these half- 
 pay debts — ^ 
 
 1. Because, by the principles of law and 
 equity, they are positively due. 
 
 2. Because they are free from all possible in- 
 fluence of conjecture or uncertainty. 
 
 3. Because the amount is unchangeably fixed 
 by a recorded public law. 
 
 The payments which have ever been made 
 
L 2-7 J I 
 
 
 on account of the same are all recorded. Noth-' 
 ing is left to conjecture ; nothing to unwrit- 
 ten or unrecorded evidence. The payments 
 made towards these sacred contracts in certifi- 
 cates are to be deducted, not at their depre- 
 ciated value, but for their full amount ; and no 
 Congress, it seems to me, can disregard the 
 rights of these creditors. In the very able re- 
 port of Mr, Burgess, made February 11, 1858, 
 the committee say : 
 
 " That, in their opinion, the delivery of those certificates, 
 as well on general principles as on those which govern 
 courts of law and equity, did not annul the right of half 
 pay, or exonerate the Government from the obligations of 
 the original contract. Such of those officers as had survived 
 the war, and continued in the service until peace, became 
 severally and individually vested with a complete right to 
 the reward of half pay for the residue of their lives. The. re- 
 ward was gallantly won at the point of the sword ; it was the 
 price of our independence, purchased with blood, and se- 
 cured hy public faith." 
 
 In order to remove all objections to the pas- 
 sage of this bill, by reason of the present de- 
 pletion of the Treasury, it provides that what- 
 ever may be found due shall be made payable 
 in United States stocks, at fifteen years, re- 
 deemable at the discretion of the United 
 States at any previous time. And notwith- 
 standing a special act of Congress, of June 3, 
 1784, expressly provides that these creditors 
 should receive interest, that is excluded from 
 this bill. 
 
 It will not be forgotten that these parties do 
 not come here to ask us for a pension or to 
 collect the arrears of a pension ; but to ask the 
 payment of a legal, meritorious debt — nay, 
 more, a preferred debt. The eighth article of 
 the old Confederation authorized Congress to 
 make contracts to carry on the war, and the 
 twelfth article made all debts thus incurred a 
 charge against the United States, " for the pay- 
 ment and satisfaction whereof the said States 
 and the public faith was solemnly pledged." 
 
 It will be seen that the Government had be- 
 come insolvent, and Congress declared, by act 
 of April 18, 1*780, that the certificates which 
 had issued, or which should thereafter issue, 
 should be discharged until further order of Con- 
 gress, at the rate of jortij dollars for one ; that 
 the officers having sacrificed fortunes as well as 
 five years of service, Congress, in order to 
 guard them, if possible, against loss for their 
 subsequent services, by the act of October S, 
 1780, promised those officers who should serve 
 to the end of the war, or until discharged, seven 
 years' half pay, in " specie, or current money 
 equivalent ; " and eighteen days afterwards 
 Congress extended the act to half pay for life, 
 which, by construction of law, was also payable 
 in the same- way. Here, thejj, is a debt, a 
 special debt, the only obligation of the United 
 States which was made payable in " specie, or 
 current money equivalent." Assuming this 
 great fact, to say nothing of the fortunes which 
 had already been expended by these creditors ; 
 who can doubt that those debts were designed to 
 be preferred before all others against the GFov- 
 
 ernment ? "Who can doubt that this was design- 
 ed to be the first mortgage on the public faith 
 and public doxna.m—Jirst in the hearts and mem- 
 ories of that and all succeeding generations ? 
 They achieved our independence and estab- 
 lished this Government which we now enjoy. 
 The sacrifices which the fathers of these cred- 
 itors made, and the public domain which they 
 acquired, the United States now hold in trust 
 for their children. Over one thousand million 
 acres of land still remain undisposed of. 
 Whilst we seek to commemorate and perpetuate 
 the achievements and memory of their fathers, 
 we withhold from the children that which, in my 
 judgment, is legally, equitably, and justly, their 
 due. If due to the fathers, it is due to their 
 heirs. 
 
 It cannot well be denied that these half-pay 
 debts rest on strict, legal, and well-defined 
 principles of law ; and no one should hesitate to 
 declare that justice and good faith demand that 
 the United titates should pay, or secure with- 
 out delay, the principal and interest due to 
 those creditors, the great benefactors of our 
 country. Not wishing the House to rely on my 
 expositions, I first recapitulate the laws on 
 which these contracts are founded. Though 
 there may be a diflerence of opinion as to the 
 legal demands of those creditors, there can be 
 none in the fact that the officers must have 
 sustained losses in the reception of Government 
 money, much more than are now claimed fof 
 half pay. 
 
 It is time to settle the question in this Gov- 
 ernment, whether there is or can be, under our 
 Constitution and our laws, any vested rights 
 which shall not be subject to be abrogated 
 by Congress ; whether, it Congress at one ses- 
 sion makes a contract by which a certain sum 
 is to be paid in " specie, or current money 
 equivalent," the next or some subsequent Con- 
 gress can substitute a new contract in its place, 
 without the individual consent of the party, and 
 pass a law fixing a value to that contract. In 
 the case under consideration, the second con- 
 tract was made payable in specie or securities 
 such as shall be given to other creditors. And 
 again, another act was passed July 4, 178;», 
 directing the Paymaster General to adjust all 
 demands with the officers and soldiers ; not to 
 pay in "specie, or current money equivalent," 
 but simply to issue certificates: 
 
 " Resolved, That the Paymaster General be and he ishcre- 
 by fully authorized and empowered to settle and finally ad- 
 just all accounts whatsoever between the United States and 
 the officers and soldiers of the American army, so as to in- 
 clude all and every demaad which they or either of them 
 may have by virtue of the several resolutions and acts of 
 Congress relating thereto, and that the said Paymaster do 
 give certificates (not money or securities) of the sums which 
 may appear due on settlement in the form and manner which 
 the suporiutendent of the finance of the United States may 
 direct:" 
 
 Not described to be such as " should be given 
 to other creditors" — 
 
 '■ Prondtxl, always, That the certificates to the oflScers 
 shall be delayed for a reasonable time, to obtain returns of 
 payment or advances to them by the Slates or public Do- 
 
partmonts, where, in tho opinion of tlie Paymaster General, 
 such delay shall be necessary." — Acl, of July i, 1783. 
 
 None but invalid officers permitted to return 
 their commutation certificates: 
 
 " Iteiolved, That invalid olBcers bo permitted to return tho 
 anionnl of commutation in other securities of the United 
 Hliites, where they have parted with their own, provided the 
 same shall be of equal amuunt, bearing the same inter- 
 est." — Acl of Sepleviher 14, 1788. 
 
 But the act did not extend to other officers, 
 and this way connecting the half pay with all 
 other suras due the officers, for which these 
 same class certificates were given. I cannot 
 omit to call the attention of Congress to the 
 fact that the officer of the Government, before 
 its own court, should have found it necessary, 
 in defence of the United States against the.se 
 just claims, to assign as a reason and induce- 
 ment on the p8.rt of the officer to receive these 
 commutation certificates, that, while Congress 
 made these contracts, they had no power to in- 
 duce a compliance with them, and say : 
 
 " The States at this time were the real sovereigns ; Con- 
 gress was a mere assembly of ambassadors. Tho army was 
 in the pay of tLic States ; the officers were appointed by them, 
 though commissioned by Cougvcss. Whatever Cougress 
 might resolve was of no effect, unless concurred in by tho 
 States ; and the officers of those States in which the hall-pay 
 system was regarded with aversion must have felt th.-U it 
 w-ould be dangerous to brave public sentiment at home, re- 
 lying upon uo other support than that of Congress." 
 
 And that this induced the officers to request 
 a commutation. But he also says — 
 
 " That the offer of commutation made in the resolution of 
 March 22, 1783, did not, and was not intended, to deprive 
 the otficers of the benefits of tho resolution of 1780, but was 
 made in order to enable the officers to relieve themselves 
 from the odium which was raised against them in some of 
 the States, as the recijiients of pensions from tho Federal 
 Government, and as being thus distinguished from the mass 
 of their fellow-citizens."' 
 
 And, notwithstanding it is conceded that the 
 provisions of this act of March 22 wholly 
 failed, he contends — 
 
 " That the acceptance by any officer of the commutation 
 oflfercd by Congress in the resolution of March 22, 1783, 
 was an accord and satisfsctiou, and, in law, was a full dis- 
 charge of the promise contained in the resolution of October, 
 1780." 
 
 Now, the facts are, that these certificates were 
 not delivered by any " agreement" of the par- 
 ties, but were charged to, sent, or delivered to 
 these creditors, in pursuance of the law of July 
 4, 17^^Sp-arid by the imperative rules of the 
 Paymaster General. The act referred to, by 
 which all demands against the Government are 
 alleged by the opponents of these claims to be 
 settled, left the Paymaster but one way, and 
 one only, and he adhered to that most rigidly. 
 Neither the justice of these meritorious debts, 
 nor the pressing wants of the officers, could 
 save them from the imperative rules of the Pay- 
 master General, and yet the solicitor endeavors 
 to distort this deliberate wrong, this great exi- 
 gency of a then impoverished Government, 
 into an arrangement of the creditor. And now, 
 Mr. Speaker, I ask, who, from amono;the origi- 
 nal creditors, shall be ^preferred ? Those who 
 did, or those who did not, receive the commu- 
 tation certificates ? In the case of Dr. Baird, 
 
 the Government concurred in recognising the 
 
 latter class. 
 
 Let us suppose one of those officers — say a 
 captain — to whom was due, on account of ad- 
 vances and arrears of pay, say $5,000, and 
 commutation $2,400 : all was directed to be 
 paid in certificates, worth, at the time, $740 — 
 and the United States could then have pur- 
 chased them at that price — on which the re- 
 ceiver must sustain a loss of $6,G60 ; one class 
 of officers give encouragement to Government 
 in its infancy and weakness, by continuing to 
 share in its financial relations ; by obeying its 
 laws in the receptic^tof its depreciated paper ; 
 trusting to its integrity, in the hope that the 
 security promised and contemplated in the acta 
 of January 25 and March 22, 1783, would still 
 be furnished ; and receive these certificates, 
 not only for advances, not only for arrears, but 
 also for commutation — asking nothing now for 
 the loss of the $(),G60 ; only asking Govern- 
 ment to deduct the whole amount paid him, not 
 at its value, but at the face of the certificates, 
 and pay him the balance. Let us now suppose 
 another of equal rank, entitled to the same 
 sum, directed by the act of July 4, 178B, to re- 
 ceive the same amount in those depreciated 
 certificates, and refuses to receive the same, 
 and now appears before Congress, asking his 
 half pay: which of this class, I ask, should be 
 entitled to the highest consideration? Why 
 should not the man who has sustained a loss 
 of $(J,660 be preferred to the man who has 
 sustained no loss ; the man who obeyed a posi- 
 tive law of his country, to him who escaped a 
 loss by refusing to obey the law ? 
 
 I beg to direct your attention to the views 
 expressed by the late Secretary Woodbury, in 
 1828: 
 
 " But they have averred, and it Is again repeated, that 
 these olBcers are seeking a right, and that is a right both on 
 common-law and on chancery principles. But if on only one, 
 whether it be a right on strict common-law principles, or on 
 chancery principles, it is equally a right, and tho clainr is 
 equally a legal claim. The forum in which it becomes a 
 right does not alter its legality. Hence, if every gentleman 
 would agree with him from Virginia, [Mr. Tyler,] that the 
 statute of limitation should be scorned, and thai the pretended 
 payments made to these otHcors was 'mere wind, mere 
 trash,' 1 aver that, in any forum, before any court or jury 
 in Christendom, this right, as between individuals, could 
 now be unanswerably established. Let the issue be formed, 
 and the cause tried to-morrow, and no three or Ave judges, 
 uo twelve ' good men and true,' as jurors, could say that the 
 wages of toil and blood, the solemn promises for sacrifices 
 and sufferings, to secure the liberties of America, had ever 
 been discharged by only ' wind and trash.' " ♦ • « 
 
 " Without dwelling a moment on considerations before 
 urged in the argument, in favor of tho legality of this claim, 
 let me ask, what has been the reply to the position of the 
 committee, that, on strict legal principles, tho promise of 
 half pay for life has ever been fulfilled? Has any one shown 
 that the half pay, in tho form of hall' pay, has ever been 
 paid ? No pretence for it. Has any one shown that the half 
 pay has ever been technically released? No pretence for 
 it." • * • 
 
 " How, then, has the promise of October, 1780, been ftil- 
 filled? In no Nvay, except by the act of commutation. But 
 it could not be fultjllod by that act, im less all things were 
 transacted in conformity to tho provisions of thalact." • ♦ 
 " Everybody feels, and knows likewise, that tho payment, 
 to bo In conformity to the acl, was to have been money, or 
 at least Kocurities equivalent to money, when, in truth, it 
 was neither ; and even under the most favorable view, if 
 tho certificates were kept till the funding, fell short of what 
 
and every lawyer, every coustiliilional statosmau, must 
 admit that, on strict legal principlof, there should not only 
 have been a conformity to the copimututiou act, but, in the 
 act itself, to make it binding, there should have been a re- 
 gard to private vested rights." 
 
 This, then, was the opinion of an able lawyer 
 and statesman, a most able and honorable 
 judge and representative, a safe and most re- 
 liable counsellor. Will you adopt his opinion, 
 or will you examine the laws on which they are 
 founded, and decide for yourselves ? 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I would call the attention of 
 the House to the fact, that notwithstanding the 
 United States became the assignees of the pub- 
 lic domain, and, by the sixth article of the 
 Constitution, became liable for all debts and 
 engagements of the old Confederation, yet the 
 only way in which they attempted to discharge 
 these commutation certificates was by the fund- 
 ing law and a subscription loan by those who 
 held them, by which the holder was to receive 
 only about two-thirds of the amount. 
 
 The first consideration named in the contract 
 of September 16, 1776, promised land to the 
 officers and soldiers, or their representatives. 
 And, although this obligation was entered into 
 by the old Confederation, it is equally binding 
 on the present. 
 
 The sixth article of the Constitution pro- 
 vides, 
 
 " That all debts contracted and engajjements entered into 
 before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid 
 J against the United States, under this Constitution, as under 
 the Confederation." 
 
 ACTS ON WHICH HALF-PAT DEBTS ARE FOUNDED. 
 
 1. The act of September 16, 1776 : 
 
 " Baolved, That, in addition to a money bounty of twenty 
 dollars to each non-commissioned officer and private soldier. 
 Congress make provision for granting lands, in the following 
 proportions, to the ollicers and soldiers who shall engage in 
 the service, and continue therein to the close of the war, or 
 until discharged by CoDgress, and to the representatives of 
 such ofBcers and soldiers as shall bo slain by the enemy. 
 Such lands to be provided by the United States; and what- 
 ever expense shall be necessary to procure such land, the 
 said expense shall be paid and borne by the States, in tho 
 same proportion as tho other cxpoiiaeR of the war, namely : 
 to a colonel, five hundred acres; to a lieutenant colonel, four 
 hundred and fifty acres; to a major, four hundred acres; to 
 a captain, three hundred acres; to a lieuteHant, two hundred 
 acres; to an ensign, one hundred and fifty acro.s; each non- 
 commissioned offlcor and soldier, one hundred acres." 
 
 2. And Congress afterwards was obliged to 
 add the resolve of May 15, 1778 : 
 
 " Resolved, unanimoxisly , That all military officers commis- 
 Bloned by Congress, who are now or hereafter may be in 
 the service of the United States, and shall continue therein 
 during the war, and not hold any otUce of proUt under those 
 States, or any of them, shall, after the conclusion of the war, 
 be entitled to receive annually, for the term of seven years, 
 if they live so long, one half of tho present paj' of such ofll- 
 cers : Provided, 'fhat no general offlcor of tho cavalry, artil- 
 lery, or infantry, shall be entitled to receive more than one 
 half part of the pay of a colonel of such corps, respectively." 
 
 3. Seven years' half pay, iri specie, or cur- 
 rent money equivalent : 
 
 " Resolved, That the Commander-in-chief and commanding 
 officer in the Southern departmont direct the officers of each 
 State to meet and agree upon the olllcors for Ui>i regimi-nts 
 to bo raised by tlicir respcciivo St.U,\s, from those who iu- 
 cUue to coutiauu in service; and where it cannot be done by 
 
 who shall continue in the service to the end of the war shall 
 be entitled to half pay during hfe, to commence from the 
 time of their reduction." 
 
 This last contract was payable in specie, or 
 current money equivalent — made at a time 
 when, by positive law of Congress, the certifi- 
 cates of the Government were to be discharged 
 at the rate of ninety-seven cents discount on 
 every dollar. 
 
 4. The act of May 15, 1778, was extended to 
 the widows of those officers who have died or 
 shall hereafter die in the service : 
 
 "Resolved, That the resolution of the 15th May, 1778, 
 granting half pay for scveu years to the officers of the army 
 who should continue in service to the end of the war, be ex- 
 tended to tho widows of those officers who have died or shall 
 hereafter die in the service; to commence from the time of 
 such officer's death, and continue for the term of seven 
 years; or if there be no widow, or in case of her deulh or 
 intermarriage, tho said half pay be given to the orphan chil- 
 dren of the officer dying as al'oresaid, if he shall have loft 
 any." — Congress, August 24, 1780. 
 
 5. These acts were reaffirmed and extended 
 by act of December 31, 1781: 
 
 6. These claims are again reaffirmed, and 
 made preferred debts, by the resolution of June 
 3,1784: 
 
 "That an interest of six per cent, per annum shall bo 
 allowed to all creditors of the United iStatcs, for supplies fur- 
 nished, or services done, from the time the payment became 
 due." 
 
 This extended to all their arrears of pay, long 
 due, as well as to their half pay. Chief Justice 
 Gilchrist, in a recent decision, in alluding to 
 this resolve, says : 
 
 " No language could be more express or free from doubt 
 than this. The resolution was passed, from a feeling that it 
 was just and right that interest should bo paid from the time 
 the half pay became due ; and it was a voluntary contract 
 on the part of the United States, constituting a legal claim 
 against them, which no subsequent legislation could release 
 without the consent of the other party." 
 
 This act not only affirms these obligations to 
 be preferred, and to be still a subsisting con- 
 tract, but they are further confirmed by the lat- 
 ter act — March 8, 1785 : 
 
 " Resolved, That the officers who retired under tho resolvt 
 of the 31st Deeember, 1781, are equally entitled to half pay 
 or commutation, with those officers who retired under the 
 resolves of the 3d and iilst October, 1780." 
 
 The history and the relations T>f these cred- 
 itors with the General Government ought no( 
 to be forgotten, in connection with the contrac! 
 for half pay for life, that the Government was 
 driven from one expedient to another, whicl 
 the imperative necessities of the moment re 
 quired, to induce engagements for the war, as 
 will be seen by the following summary : 
 
 " 1. Promising grants of land — September 16, 1776. 
 
 " 2. Seven years' half pay to those who should serve t( 
 the end of tho war— May 18, 1778. 
 
 " 3. Seven years' half pay , in specie or current money, U 
 tho sup(M-numerary officers, to commence January 1, 1781 
 as also grants of land — October 3, 1780. 
 
 " 4. Not being able to meet the half pay of a single year 
 in specie tjr current money, they increase the seven years 
 half pay to half pay during life— October 21, 1780. 
 
 "5. As peace had boon conquered, and the Govcrnmen 
 W!>re unable to pay the officers their arrears for moiuhl; 
 IK'iy, or to make any provision for their half jxiy during life 
 they resorted to another cspcdieut, of promising the officer 
 
five years' tail pay, in specie or sccurites, with interest, 
 payable annually — March 22, 17S3. 
 
 " 6. Not being able to pay or secure this small amount of 
 their claim, resorted to iinolhor desperate expedient, and 
 caused the Paymaster General to issue and send to the ofh- 
 cers more of these repudiated certificates, as specie and se- 
 curities. 
 
 " 7. Not being able to pay the interest of a single year, 
 repudiate them. 
 
 " Finally, resorted to a funding act, by which the new 
 Government propose an arrangement by which there is to 
 be no distinction between the olUcer who h;is been charged 
 $2,400 in commutation, and the person to whom he has sold 
 them at the value fixed by law — for sixty dollars." 
 
 What, then, can be said in answer to these 
 claims ? 
 
 1. It is attempted to he shown that the act 
 of March 22, 1783, promising live years' full 
 pay in specie or security, instead of half pay 
 for life, was passed at the request of the officers. 
 It is conceded that the half pay debts were never 
 paid as half pay, nor was the act for five years' 
 full pay ever fulfilled, but utterly failed to re- 
 deem its engagements. Not only so, this act 
 was wholly dependent on the resolve of Janu- 
 ary 25, 1783, and the securities contemplated 
 and promised in that act, which became a part 
 of the act of March 22, 1783. For the purpose 
 of correcting the erroneous impressions of the 
 public and Congress in relation to the objects 
 embraced in the request of the few officers re- 
 ferred to, I have felt it my duty to give it in 
 full. It will be seen, by that and the answer 
 of Congress, that the distress of the officers was 
 very great, and that the request involved the 
 anticipation of having all their claims secured, 
 which, in many instances, amounted, for ad- 
 vances and services, to ten times more than 
 the commutation. The manner in which the 
 commutation was to be secured, having been 
 omitted in the act of March 22, and the half- 
 pay debts being payable " in specie or other 
 current money," the United States were bound 
 by all the principles of law to pay in specie or 
 give such security as was contemplated in the 
 act of January 25, 17S3. It is admitted by the 
 Government that the act of March 22 did not 
 repeal that of October 21, 1780, and therefore 
 the Paymaster General had no right to charge 
 and force upon the officers those valueless cer- 
 tificates as full pay. 
 
 ^^j^Because, by the terms of the act itself, the 
 officers were expressly prohibited from express- 
 ing ^eir dissent to the same, individually. 
 
 2. Because this resolve was not passed until 
 after the peace — after the contract had been 
 fuljilled on the part of the officers. 
 
 3. Because it was well known to Congress, 
 at the time of the passage of that act, that the 
 Government had no power to comply with any 
 of the conditions of that act, either to pay said 
 officers in specie or give them security. 
 
 The answer of the officers to the resolves of 
 Congress of the 25th of January, 1783, proves 
 conclusively that they were induced to consider 
 the proposition of five years' full pay in connec- 
 tion with the expectation that they would re- 
 ceive an amount of money and have all their 
 other and larger claims, as well as the com- 
 
 mutation, made safe "by substantial funds." 
 Therefore we find, that on the 15th of March, 
 1783, seven-days only previous to the passage 
 of this act, after hearing a most patriotic and 
 thrilling address of General Washington, these 
 officers — 
 
 " ii'eMfi'frf, That the unanimous thanks of the officers 
 of the army be presenied to his Kxceileiiey ihe Coni- 
 maiideriii-ebief, for his excfllenl adore.-s, and t!ie com- 
 muiiicaiion he has been pleased lo make iliem, and that 
 he 1 e assured that the oflieers reciprocate his wffeclioiiaie 
 e.\■l^^es.^lonb with ihn g'eaiest sincerity of which llie hu- 
 man mmd can be capable." 
 
 The address from the army to Congress, the 
 report of the committee from the army, and the 
 resolutions of Congress of the 25th of January, 
 1783, being read — 
 
 •• Htsolved, unanimously, That the army continue to 
 have an unshaken coiilideiice in the ju.*tice ol Congress 
 and their country, and aie lully convinced that the Kepre- 
 .^eniatives of Ainerica v\ill not disband or disper.^u llie 
 army until their aeeouiits are liijuidated. the balwuce ac- 
 curately ascetiained, and aurcjuii.e funds established for 
 payment, and in this arrangemtfiii the otlicers txiieci that 
 iiic haii'pay, or coniniutauoiicf it, should be etKeaeiously 
 compreneiultd 
 
 •• litsolved, unaninwiisly, Tliat," &c.,&c., " that the pro- 
 ceediiiff,^ of this d.iy be iran^tnitled by the President to 
 Major McUougal,aad thai, he be rciiUfsted to continue liis 
 solicitations at Congrirs.s until the oLiject of his niissioa 
 tiad becii aecoinplisiied,'' 
 
 The States failing to comply with the re- 
 solves of January 25, 1783, Congress found it 
 necessary to pass the law of October 18, 1783. 
 On the i8th October, 1783, (4 vol. Journals by 
 Way & Gideon, p. 2yy,) Congress adopted a 
 proclamation announcing the peace, and that 
 
 •• In the progress of aa arduous and difficult war, the 
 armies of the United t^tates of America have eminently 
 displayed every military and patriotic virtue, and are not 
 lesc. to be applauded for their fortituue and niagnaniinity, 
 in the nio.si iiyiiig scenes of distress, llian f jr a s-ries of 
 heroic and jllusirious achievements, which exalt them to 
 a high rank among the most zealous and suecesstul de- 
 leiiuer.i of the riglils and liberties of niankmo." * » * 
 '• We ihereibre, lUe United States in Congress assembled, 
 thus impre.'sed with a lively sense ol the distinguished 
 merit and good conduct of the said armies, do give them 
 tlie thanks of the country, for their long, eminent, and 
 taiihful services; and it is our will ana pleasure tliat 
 such of the t-ederal armies as stand engaged lo serve du- 
 ring the war, and a*, by our acis of atiili May, the Uth 
 day of June, the 9ih day of August, and the itiih day of 
 SepteniLier last, v/cre furioughed, shall, from and alter 
 tho 3d day of November next, be «bsnlutely discharged, 
 by virtue of this our proclamation, from the said service; 
 and we do also declare that the lurlher services in the 
 held of llie othcers who are oeiangtd and on furlough, in 
 conseiiuence of our aforesaid acts, can nowie disjieiised 
 wiUi, and liicy have our full permission lo retire foin ser- 
 vice without being longer liable from their present eii- 
 gagtmeats to be called into eommand.'' 
 
 By which it is clearly proved, that all the 
 propositions made by Congress to pay the half 
 pay or commutation in specie or securities 
 tailed. It is therefore impossible to imagine 
 that these depreciated certificates charged to 
 the otlicers could in any way impair the half- 
 pay contract. The only question which could 
 possibly arise would be, what amount these 
 creditors should allow for said certificates : 
 
 " (here is no rule of law more clearly settled or sus- 
 tained by higher authorities tlian tlial. 
 
 '■ An allowance of a portion of a debt as the balance 
 due, and the reception by ihe creditor, is no bar or coiu- 
 proinise of the claim. 
 
 'The principl of compromise, by the pay nrent of a less 
 sum, always presumes — 
 
 '■ 1. Thai u 18 iniide free from compulsion. • 
 
"2. That there has been no concealment or misrepre- 
 seiiiatioii by the debtor of his pecuniary condition. 
 
 '•3 That at the time of the receipt of a l-iss sum as a 
 compromir^e, it inu>t also be presumed that the creditor 
 ha« the oppoiiuiiiiy of enforcing his claim by a court of 
 law." 
 
 And it is well known that these creditors 
 were excluded by law from sueing the Govern- 
 ment until a partial jurisdiction was given to 
 the Court of Claims. The poverty of the old 
 Confederation up to the time of its expiration, 
 and its consequent inability and failure to 
 make provision for payment, or security for 
 pavment at some distant time — or even for the 
 payment of interest, which was payable annu- 
 ■^\\j — precludes the idea of any assent of the 
 oflicers to receive these certificates as an ac- 
 cord and satisfaction of the half-pay debt, 
 which was payable in specie or current money 
 equivalent. 
 
 In the case of the United States vs. Dickson, 
 15 Peters,' p. 162— 
 
 '•The Supreme Court of the United States say that the 
 conslruclion sjiven to the laws hy any department of the 
 3-;xtcuiive Governmeiii, is necessarily ex jianc wiihoui i 
 the benefit of an opposing argument, in a suit where the 
 very matter is in controversy ; an i when the construction 
 is once s'ven. iliere is no opportunity to question or rrvise 
 it by tlifise who are most iriterestcd in u as olUcers, < e- 
 riving llieir snlary and emoluments tlierefroiii ; lor they 
 canunl bring the lest by a judicial decision. It is only 
 when the) are sued by the Government for some supposed 
 balance, thai they can assert their rights. If tiie tenor of 
 th':; law be not mantlatory of a mere ministerial act to be 
 done, then tue liead of Oepartment acts according to nis 
 discretion, ill su'iordination always to his co. .sti utional 
 and leftal relation to tlie l^resideniof the United :>lates.-'— 
 DtcaluT vs. Paulding, 11 FcUrs.p. 479. 
 
 It may happen that a claim shall arise, 
 which, according to the plain terms of the law, 
 is not within its provisions, or which is not 
 proved by the evidence which the law pre- 
 scribes, and so is rejected by the Secretary. 
 In such a case, the claimant may apply to 
 Congress, and that body may pass a private 
 law for the relief of the party, dispensing with 
 its own condition of applicability, or its pre- 
 scribed rules of evidence. But no such dis- 
 pensing pow^r resides in the Secretary. 
 
 It was settled to be no bar, even where Con- 
 gress, in the act allowing it, declared it to be 
 for the half pay for life. (Case of Thomas H. 
 Baird.) 
 
 The declarations of those who were cotempo- 
 raneous with the events of the early days of our 
 Kepublic, atid who voted for the act of March 
 22, 1783, prove that these certificates were ac- 
 cepted with reluctance, or forced upon them. 
 
 Mr. Smith, of Maryland, contended that uone 
 of the Maryland line ever expressed their con- 
 sent to the act of 1783 : 
 
 " They, tbcrefore, could never, in fact, have come under 
 the jirovjsions of the commntaliou law. It was trno, that 
 ■when they came home from service they Ibimd that the law 
 had passed, and that they must take the commutation or 
 luilbmg. The altermitive was, to take it or sUirve, and it 
 was not unnatural to suppose that they choso the former. 
 This was the case with the whole Maryland line." — Vebates 
 in Congress, 1827-"28, vol. i,paH 1. 
 
 "Mr. Madison, who was in Congress in 178.'?, and voted 
 ' ay ' on the passage of the commutation resolution, says, in 
 the course of the debate refonod to, in 1790, was this depre- 
 ciated paper (commutation certificates) freely accepted f No. 
 The Government oa'ercd ihator nothing. The relation of the 
 
 individvial to the Government, and the circumstances of tha 
 offer, rendered the acceptance a forced one, not a free one. 
 The same degreeof constraint would vitiate a transaetien be- 
 tween man and man belbro any court of equity on the face 
 oftheearth." » * * " Here, "then, isadebt acknowledged 
 to have been duo, and which was never discharged, because 
 the payment was forced and defective." — Annals of Con- 
 gress, vol. 1, pp. 1230, loOS. 
 
 "Colonel iiartley, who was an officer in the late army, 
 says, also, that these certiUoates wen; not accejited by the 
 soldiers willingly as an equivalent for their services, but 
 Congress forced them to accept of them as the only alterna- 
 tive."— ifcid., p. 1:209. 
 
 The utmost that the United States can, of 
 right and in honor, ask of these creditors is, to 
 be allowed the full amount of these certificates 
 towards the half pay contract. 
 
 It appears to me that the sacrifice on these 
 certificates, for the large amount of arrears of 
 pay and supplies furnished, due these officers, 
 is quite suthcient, without an attempt on the 
 part of the Government to sacrifice the rights 
 of the officers, vested under these contracts for 
 half pay. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the last 
 point involved in the discussion of this ques- 
 tion, I will be allowed to refer to the action of 
 the Thirty-fourth Congress, in confirmation of 
 the opinion of the court, delivered by the late 
 able and much-lamented Chief Justice Gil- 
 christ, in the case of Thomas H. Baird, admin- 
 istrator of Absalom Baird, who was a surgeon 
 in the Revolutionary army, and in which this 
 question of accord and satisfaction seems to 
 have been conclusively settled. 
 
 In that case. Congress, in 1836, directed that 
 he should be paid his five years' full pay, which 
 is declared in the act to be his commutation or 
 half pay. In 1837, he again applied for the 
 interest, and this claim was, in 1855, referred 
 to the Court of Claims, and the Chief Justice, 
 Gilchrist, in delivering the opinion of the court, 
 says: 
 
 '• The proceedings in relation to the claim for commutation 
 do not appear to be very material in rolutiou to the case in 
 the present position. On the 'IZiX of March, 1783, a resolu- 
 tion was passed, providing that the officers and others en- 
 tillod to half pay tor life ' shall bo entitled to receive, at the 
 end of the war, their live years' full pay, in lieu of half pay 
 for life, in money — that is, specie — or in securities on inter- 
 est, as Congress shall llnd most convenient.' Oh the "iSth 
 of January, 1794, l)r. Baird applied for the bonelit of this 
 provision, but ili'ed in the year 3800 — having, as is said m 
 the report ol the Committee of Claims of the 5th of Febru- 
 ary. 1855, ' became wearied and disheartened with delay.' 
 In tlie year 1818, his son, Thomas H. Riird, having become 
 of age, petitioned Congress for relief ; and on the 3d of 
 March, 1856, the comroittee reported that 'Dr. Absalom 
 Baird was entitled to the beuclit of the act of the 17th of 
 January, 1781, extending the grant of half pay for life to the 
 oflicers of the hospital department and medical staff.' No 
 action was had upon the resolution until the 22d of Juno, 
 18^6, when an act was passed grantuig five years full pay 
 as commutation, under the resolution of 1783, but wilhoul 
 interest. 
 
 " Now, this claim does not depend for its validity upon any 
 adniissiou contained in the act of 1836. But the Congress 
 which passed that act must have considered that Dr. Baird 
 had a legal claim of some kind ; otherwise, their conduct, in 
 granting him live years' full pay, was wholly indefensible. 
 11 is, howover, relied upon as alioal settlement of the claim. 
 Upon any principle known to the law. this position is wholly 
 untenable. It is easy enough to declare, ex cathedra, that it 
 was a lin.il settlement. But it is extremely difflcult to ima- 
 gine, in the absence of all evidence, what reasons can be 
 urged for holding that the payment of a sum of money is of 
 itself a discharge of a debt for a larger amount. A plea of 
 payment of a small sum in satisfaction of a larger, is bad, 
 
even after verdict. (2 Parsons on Contracts, 130, and notes.)" 
 This piinciple is familiar to evory lawyer. A debt may be 
 paid by a fair and wcil-uudor.stooil compromise, carried 
 failhlully into efl'cct. But here there was no curapronii.se. 
 If it were a case between individual.s, no one wo\ild dream 
 ofapijlying such a term to it. Tlie Dniteil States arc either 
 bound hy principles ol law applicable to Iheni, or tbty are 
 uot so bound. If they are not bound, there is an end of the 
 discussion — lor then all reasoning is fruitless. If they are 
 biiUud by the principles of law, it is imposirihle to regard 
 the payment of live years' full pay, wiihout interest, us a 
 satisfaction of iliis claim. There is no evidence thai 
 either party so resarded it ; and, unless we set at defiance 
 every piiiicipU of law, we cannot hold ihat one iniriy to 
 a contract, without the consent of the other, can dijcnarge 
 his debt hy the payment of a s . aller sum than the amount 
 due" ♦ * ♦ '• I'he amount of Dr. Baird's haif pay 
 was !!l;240 per annum, payable at the end of every year. 
 He was entitled to this sum up to the. 27lh day of October, 
 lstl)5, the day of his death, and interest on the payments as 
 they became due, according to the express provisions of 
 the resolutions of June 3, 17S4 '•' 
 
 This, bill, reported by the Court of Claims, 
 passed Congress, and was approved on the ISih 
 day of August, 1856. This act of Congress 
 was a public declaration and legal construction 
 of this contract, and not only the rights of one 
 or the joint and several payees of the same ob- 
 lir'a^ioii, auder which all the others claim half 
 pay ibr life, but each and all the others are 
 equally aud justly entitled to the same relief. 
 Aside from this decision of the court, confirmed 
 by Congress, by no principle of construction 
 known to law or equity can it be said that the 
 promise for half pay has ever been fulfilled, 
 either by the old or the new Confederation. 
 
 These certificates, it is conceded, were never 
 paid, but were funded by the holders under the 
 funding law of August 4, 1790. Few, if any, 
 at that time, were nitlie hands of the officers ; 
 they had parted with them at their usual value, 
 from five to twelve and a half cents on the 
 dollar ; and those who had funded them re- 
 ceived, in the course of thirty years, some two- 
 thirds of their amount. But as this act ex- 
 tended only to negotiable paper, it could not 
 embrace the half-pay contracts ; and the ninth 
 section expressly declares : 
 
 " That nothing in this act contained shall be construed 
 in any wise to alter, ahridg*". or impair the rights of those 
 creditors ol tiie United Stales who shall not subscribe to 
 the said loan, or the contracts I'pon which their respective 
 claims are founded ; but the contracts and rights siiall re- 
 main in full force and virtue." 
 
 These sections of the funding act in fact de- 
 clare a fi n al separation of these certificates 
 from the contracts for half pay. The twenty- 
 second section of the funding act of August 4, 
 1790, provides : 
 
 ''That the proceeds of the sales which shall be made 
 
 of lands in the VVestern territory now belonging, or that 
 
 may hereafter belong, toihe Uni ed States, shall be. and 
 
 are hereby, appropriated towards sinking or discharging 
 
 \ the debts for the payment whereof the United Slates now 
 
 \are. or by virluiS of tliis act may be, hoblen, and sha 1 be 
 
 ■^applied solely to that use, until the said debts shall be 
 
 «lly satisfied."' 
 
 \ These creditors, therefore, urge, that they are 
 
 t asking for the creation of a debt, but, as 
 
 ditors, they are seeking the payment of de- 
 
 ds long since due, through their own funds 
 
 I in the Goverutoent hands as a sacred 
 
 These men conquered by their valor 
 
 fed by their patriotism the lands to the 
 
 States, and the States ceded them to the United 
 States, to be applied to that use until the said 
 debts were fully satisfied. No final settlement 
 of these claims could have been presumed un- 
 til the patent of the land had issued. (Story 
 on Contracts, chap. 23, pp. 16 and 17 ; Minor 
 vs. Bradley, 22 Pick'g, 459.) Until that time 
 the officers were merely the factors or bailees of 
 the Government, as such, for said certificates. 
 The party receiving a bill or note is bound 
 strictly to the performance of all the duties of 
 holder or endorser, as the case may be ; and 
 until payment is due, his right to sue upon the 
 original claim is sitspended. So it was with 
 the officers ; the right to sue the United States 
 has been, ever since the judiciary act of 1789, 
 not only suspended, but iios\t'i\t:\y prohibited. 
 (See Story on Contracts, 579, chap. 1, p. 1083.) 
 Upon the dishonor of the bill or note, the 
 original rights of the creditor revive, and are 
 the same as if the bill or note had never been 
 given. 
 
 The payees of the half pay contract were 
 joint as well as several, and the promise or any 
 law which affected one would extend to each 
 and all the others. 
 
 They were 2)rese7iled by the admission and 
 restoration of the claim to all the survivors of 
 the joint and several obligees of the half-pay 
 contract under the act of May It), 1828, which 
 restored the right of all the joint and several 
 obligees who were deceased. Congress, by suc- 
 cessive acts, passed at intervals from two to 
 five years, continued to authorize the issuing of 
 military land warrants to the officers and sol- 
 diers of the continental lines, whose claims for 
 bounty land remained unsatisfied — the last of 
 which acts of extension was passed February 8, 
 1854, which extended the time for discharging 
 this portion of the contract up to the 26 th of 
 June, 1858. 
 
 All these claims for half pay for life were 
 again opened, and they were presented by the 
 joint resolution of the Senate of January 16, 
 1828, wherein it is required that all those who 
 had not received the land warrants to which 
 they were entitled should receive the same. 
 The acts granting bounty land of September 
 16 and 18, 1776, strictly extended only to those 
 who served to the end of the war. Justice to 
 the memory of those who served many years, 
 instead of fourteen days, who gained our liber- 
 ties and established this Government, entitles 
 them to have their names handed down to their 
 children and future time by the records of the 
 Government, at least in grants of land. This 
 bill, however, confines the extension of the said 
 act to those only whose claim shall be estab- 
 lished by record evidence of service, or by the 
 rule of the second section of the act of May 14, 
 1856 ; and in case there be more than one child 
 surviving, each shall be entitled to eighty acres, 
 instead of one hundred and si.xty acres. 
 
 In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have only to 
 say, that in these investigations, requiring 
 
 \ 
 
8 
 
 much persevering labor, which has its only re- 
 ward in the consciousness of the justice and 
 honor of the claims and the thanks of the 
 claimants, it is gratifying to know that I am 
 advocating no new sclierae of public expendi- 
 ture, no doubtful claim on the Treasury, no 
 excessive payment, but a proposition full of 
 justice and honor, and equity, and truth ; and 
 which had the support of Mr. Madison, in 1783 ; 
 Mr, Nelson, in 1810; Mr. Johnson, in 1818; 
 Mr, Sergeant, December 10, 1819; Mr, Hemp- 
 hill, January 3, 1826; Mr, Burgess, May 8, 
 1826, and E'ebruary 11, 1828 ; the act of May 
 15, 1«28; Senator Walker's report in 1852; 
 Senator Evans's, February 4, 1854; and Mr. 
 Broom, April 4, 1856 ; and their arguments 
 and reports show a repeated recognition of the 
 contract on the part of Congress, but no gen- 
 eral provision appears to have been made by 
 Congress for the relief of'these officers until the 
 act of May 15, 1828, in which the contract of 
 1780 is fully recognised. 
 
 The committee to whom I referred this bill 
 early in the present session, therefore, instruct- 
 ed me to report it back without amendment, 
 and recommend its passage. It allows half 
 pay for life to the officers from the close of the 
 Revolution to the date of their death, deducting 
 therefrom all sums which have ever been paid 
 to them by the Government by way of commu- 
 tation or as pay, under the act of May 15, 1828. 
 For the purpose of extending to the surviving 
 children of the soldiers of the Revolution the 
 benefits of the act of March 3, 1855, a section 
 has been inserted for that purpose. The act 
 referred to was doubtless intended to embrace 
 their claims, but the word "minor" excludes 
 them, as there are no " minor children " of the 
 Revolution ; aud hence the necessity of further 
 
 legislation in behalf of these meritorious claim- 
 ants. 
 
 The words of Washington in relation to these 
 claims are as applicable to us as to the old 
 Confederacy : 
 
 "The path of our diiiy," said he. " is plain before u?; 
 honesty will be louiul. on every experiment, to be the 
 be>t aud only true policy. Lei us, then, us a nation, be 
 just; let us fulfil the puulic contracts which Congress had 
 undoubtedly a right to make, for ihe purpose o( carrying 
 on the war, wiih tne same good faith we suppo.se ourselves 
 uouiid to perform private engagements. 
 
 " In ihi* state of absolute freedom and perfect security, 
 who will grudge to yield a very little of his properly to 
 support the common intere-t of society, and to insure the 
 proiection of Government? Who does not remember the 
 frequent declarations, at the commencement of the war, 
 that we should be completely satisfied, if, at the expense 
 of one half, we could defend the remainder of our posses- 
 sions? 
 
 " Where is the man to be found who wishes to remain 
 indebted for the defence of his own person and property 
 to the exertions, the bravery, and the blood oC others, 
 without making the generous effort to pay the debt of 
 honor and graiiiude? In wliat part of the (ontineiit shall 
 we find a mtiii, or nody of men. who would not blush to 
 stand up awd propose measures i)urposely calculated to 
 roh llie soldier ot his stipend, and the public creditor of 
 his due? And were it po.^sible that such a flagrant in- 
 stance of injustice coula ever happen, would it not exciie 
 the general indignation, and lend lo bringdown upon the 
 authors of sueh measures the aggravated vengeitnce of 
 Heaven? 
 
 '■ As to the idea which I am informed has in some in- 
 stances jirevailed, that half pay and commutation are lo 
 be regarded merely in the odious light of a pension, it 
 ought to be ex|)loded t'orever 
 
 '• That provision should be viewed as it really was, a 
 reasonable compeiisaiion offered by Congress, at a time 
 wlien they had nothing else to give, to officers of the army 
 Ijr services then to be performea. 
 
 •' It was the only means lo prevent a total dereliction of 
 the service; it was a part of their hire. 
 
 "I may be allowed to say it was the price of their 
 blood and your independence " 
 
 It was more than a common debt ; it is a 
 debt of honor ; it can never be considered as a 
 pension or gratuity, nor cancelled until it ia 
 fairly discharged. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D, C. 
 BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 
 1860. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 010 730 724 2 f 
 
 p6Rmalip<e«