JAN. 30, 1828.]

Surviving Officers of the Revolution.

[SENATE.

prived by his own free consent, on the receipt of a fair equivalent. I inquire of gentlemen of the profession, if this proposition can be denied? If the individual right of an officer thus acquired by this resolution, could have been surrendered by the conjoint act of every other officer in the American Army, without the individual assent of that officer? I presume no one will assert this as a proposition capable of being maintained on legal principles. It might as well be affirmed, that the release by a majority of the officers of their right to their regular and current pay, would have operated to discharge the claims to such pay, of those who did not concur in their lease. But, if 1 am right in contending that the contract of 1780 could only be released by the individual assent of those with whom it was made, then I maintain that the resolution of 1783 was, from its very terms, incapable of becoming obligatory upon these memorialists. It was not addressed to them. They could not become parties to it in the only character in which their acceptance of it could have operated to discharge the contract of 1780. It was addressed to the lines and corps of the army. If it had been accepted in time, and in conformity to its own pre-well as their acceptance, were alike acts of necessity on cise terms, it would still have been a contract between the Government and those officers of the army who accepted it--not between the Government and the individa's of which that army was composed-and could no more have affected the rights of those individuals than it could have influenced your rights or mine. Unless, then, it can be successfully asserted that the act of a majority of the officers of any line of the army, without any specific authority from the individuals comprising that line, can operate to release the rights of those individuals, it cannot be pretended that the acceptance which is relied up. on, even if it had been made within the time prescribed by the resolution of 1783, could have operated to release the obligation imposed upon the Government by the resolution of 1780. If this could be, it would follow that the right of an individual, resting on the plighted faith of the Government, might be divested without his consent. Who is prepared to affirm this proposition? In despotisms, sir, the subject reposes on the word of Majesty-and, in general, reposes securely; because the honor of the Throne is the interest of the Throne. In Republics, the free citizen places his reliance on the principles of justice, which emphatically belong to such a Government. But if it can substitute its own will for the obligations which it has assumed to the individual, and coerce that individu- | al by the acts of those to whom he had delegated no authority to represent him, the difference between these Governments is but in name, and its practical operation is to his disadvantage.

We have thus traced this inquiry up to the period of the issue of the certificates in 1794; and now this ques tion presses itself upon our attention: Assuming the fact that these memorialists were among those who accepted those certificates, did not such acceptance operate as a ratification of the proposal contained in the resolution of 1783, and a release of the contract of 1780? The answer to this inquiry will be found by considering these questions :

Was the acceptance volur.tary?

Did the Government pay a fair equivalent ?

Were these certificates received on account, or in full satisfaction?

No one will pretend that the constrained and involuntary acceptance of that which was not a fair equivalent for the stipulations of the contract of 1780, could, either at law or in equity, be considered as a release, or discharge, or satisfaction, of that contract. The questions recur. Let us look to the situation of the contracting parties, at the moment when these transactions occurred. That ex amination will prove that the issue of the certificates, as

I repeat, then, that, up to the issuing of the certificates in 1784, the original contract, created by the resolution of October, 1780, remained unimpaired and unchanged; that neither the resolution of 1783, nor the agreement by Certain lines and corps of the army to accept the proposal It contained, could operate to divest the rights of these memorialists, as derived from that original contract. These remained unchanged and unchangeable, except by their own consent, freely given, and for a fair equivalent. We may refuse their allowance; but it must be-I speak it with great respect-by a perversion of the principles of justice. We may presume the acceptance, by these memorialists, of the offer contained in the resolution of 1783, and require them to negative the presumption; but it must be-I speak it with great respect-by a perversion of the rules of evidence. Will the Government of the United States avail itself of its power to do this, in this its own peculiar forum? And against whom? Against the war-worn veterans of the Revolution-your champions in the day of their strength-suppliants before you now not for charity, but for justice, in the season of their poverty and decrepitude.

VOL. IV.-14

the part of the Government and the officers. At the mo ment of passing the resolution of 1783, promising the half pay for life, the Confederated Government, exhausted by the Revolutionary struggle, and entirely destitute of funds, and of the means of commanding them, relied up. on being enabled to comply with their engagements, by requisitions upon the States. These requisitions were accordingly made, and urged with great earnestness in the Summer of 1783. But the States themselves were not in a condition to meet the exigency. They, also, were in a state of exhaustion. It is difficult, at this day, to realize the extent of the exertions, the sufferings, and the pri vations of our forefathers, in the dark and trying hour of their struggle for the right of self-government, which we now enjoy. The requisitions were not complied with. The confederated Government found itself without funds. It became necessary to disband the army. The officers had claims for arrearages of pay, and the stipulated half pay for life was to be provided for. While this question was pending, incendiary letters, clothed in language the most persuasive and seducing, had been circulated in the army. The officers were eloquently urged, by every consideration which could appeal to their feelings or to their interests, never to lay down their arms, until their demands were complied with. It was an hour of deep and awakening interest; but the patriotism of the army was equal to the trial. Their conduct was duly appreciated by the Congress of 1783. It was no longer a question whether the just expectations of such men should be satisfied to the utmost extent of the resources of the Confederation. The commutation for half pay was stipulated. Requisitions on the States were made and urged with the energy which belonged to the oc casion; and, when these failed, Congress gave-it was all they had to give-the certificates of 1784. They were not given in full payment, in satisfaction, of the claims of the officers, in discharge of the obligations of the Government. They were expressive of the sense which the Government had of the services of the army; an acknowledgment of their actual inability to compen. sate them as they had stipulated to do. The very terms of the receipt which was taken, are strongly indicative of this. It was not a receipt in full, a clear and express ac. quittal of the Government of all demands upon it. No. It was a simple acknowledgment, in each case, of the mere fact of the receipt of the certificate-clearly implying that the question of final compensation was open, and subject to future adjustment. It could not have been believed by Congress that these certificates, not resting on any adequate funds for their redemption, could be considered as even a legal compliance with the engage.

JAN. 30, 1828.]

Surviving Officers of the Revolution.

[SENATE.

tract with the soldier has been complied with on its face. Nevertheless, you have made a distinction in his favor in your pension law. The soldier has received land, bounty, pay, pension. What have you done for the officer? If he will approach you as a suppliant, in forma pauperis, you admit him on your pension list. But, when he presents himself before you as a claimant, and asks the ful filment of your contract, you turn a deaf ear to his demand.

But the bill does not provide for the militia, and, therefore, it is objectionable. Sir, I am at all times willing to accord to the militia of the Revolutionary Army whatever distinguished valor and the loftiest patriotism can entitle them to claim. But, I repeat, this application is based on your contract with these memorialists. They do not urge upon you the pre-eminence of their services, or seek to disparage those of their associates in arms, who belonged to the militia. They ask the fulfilment of your contract with them. With the militia you have no such engage. ments. They were called into service by the States, by whom they were compensated, and the States have received an allowance for these disbursements in the general audit and adjustment of their accounts with the National Treasury. It cannot be, therefore, that the omis sion to provide for the militia can constitute a tenable ob jection to this bill.

morialists, who were among the juniors of the army, are sustained on the ground that they did not receive an equivalent, that a like claim exists in behalf of the senior officers, or their representatives. On the contrary, al though the commutation, on the average assumed, was inadequate, it is a very reasonable presumption, that, to the senior officers, it was a fair equivalent. It is in right of these senior officers, that representatives would, for the most part, claim—and to them, therefore, in general, this answer might be safely and justly given. Many senators may recollect individual instances, which will seem to be variant from this view; a closer scrutiny will, however,show that they are exceptions, which do not conflict with the rule; and that they do not exist to any important extent. It is thus, then, that these memorialists distinguish their case from that of the representatives of the deceased oficers. That they were among the junior officers of the American army is proved by the fact, that they are, at this lay, applicants at the bar of an American Senate. They ell you, that, in settling the commutation allowed, you ok from them, to give to their seniors, without their consent, in the only way in which that consent could ave been given, namely, by their individual voice. They | ell you, that the acceptance of that commutation was by their seniors, who derived a benefit at their cost; and they deny that the allowance of their claim, now, to what was then taken from them to be given to those seniors, can Sir, the inquiry recurs: If provisions for all these vaconstitute the basis of a claim on the part of the repre- rious classes were included in the bill under discussion, sentatives of those seniors to a similar allowance. In would the difficulties of the objectors be removed? Or, truth, Sir, it would seem that all to which those represen- are the claims of those classes urged upon us to give an atives would make any claim would be to the amount of alarming view of the magnitude of the obligations of the he loss sustained by the short funding of the certificates, Government, and thus to defeat the present claim, withinder the act of 1790. out any view to ultimate provision for them? I appre. hend the latter is the real state of the fact. I trust, therefore, that this discussion will not excite expectations which are too surely destined to be disappointed, and my earnest hope and desire is, that the Senate will decide the present application with a sole view to its own intrinsic merits. Whatever is due to justice, the Government is competent to perform. Whatever justly belongs to these gallant veterans, we ought to accord to them freely, promptly, and with gratitude.

The claim of the memorialists would be either for the rrears of their half pay, deducting what was realised from he certificates, or to the difference between five and seen years' full pay, with simple interest, and to the amount of the loss sustained by the funding. The deficiency of the commutation, with simple interest, would amount to

ne year's full pay, by short funding and simple interest, to

$534,000

$175,000 It is only to the latter that the representatives of deased officers could make claim, on the principles, and bject to the conditions, which I have attempted to ex

Lain.

tive.

It is objected that this bill contains no provision for the fivate soldiers of the American Army, and Senators ave spoken of them in terms of well-merited eulogy, hich it would be delightful to hear, if it were not prominced in opposition to the just claims of these memoalists. But the discussion is wholly gratuitous and irre. The character of the service rendered by the Ancican officers was determined by the Congress of 1730 and 1783. They adjudged it to be faithful service, and they stipulated to reward it by a specific compensa tion. The memorialists ask from you, in the discharge of your constitutional obligation, the performance of that ipulation. Whatever may be the claims of the Amerianschlier on the gratitude of the country, and it is cheerly admitted that they are founded on distinguished or, and the purest patriotism, unless they can shew the Entract of the Government, their claim is on its gratitude, ut they cannot appeal to its justice; and the effort to as ate it to the claim of these memorialists is merely Bar, independently of your contract with the officer, all the analogy contended for exist? The soldier reeived a bounty on his enlistment, and was clothed by Government, by whom the depreciation of the purchase money was borne. The officer, out of the monthly tipend which was paid to him in this depreciated curcy, was compelled to provide for himself. Your con

tory.

cel.

But the appeal of these memorialists is not addressed to our gratitude; it is a claim upon our justice. The demands upon the former, it is beyond our power to canThe claims upon the latter, we are competent to fulfil. These veteran soldiers do not-it cannot be too of ten repeated-they do not come before us as suppliants for our charity. No, sir: struggling with adversity, bend ing under the weight of years, they still retain enough of the sturdy independence of their youthful spirit, to avoid this humiliation. They claim the fulfilment of a contract. They demand, respectfully, but earnestly, the award of justice.

Sir, let it be the honest pride of this Government suum cuique tribuere. Render to every man his due; fulfil your plighted faith; redeem the solemn pledge which you gave at a moment, when, besides that pledge, you bad nothing else to give. Enable us to meet the little remnant of this band of heroes, who yet survive, the ob jects of their country's reverence, with a consciousness of having at least dealt justly with them.

Smooth their descent to the tomb, by giving to them the means of providing those comforts to which they are justly and of right entitled. Do not allow the sense of their country's persevering injustice to give an added pang to the last struggles of expiring nature. Be just, and fear not. The universal acclaim of a grateful People will consecrate the act.

Mr. COBB said, he asked the indulgence of the Senate for a short period, while he attempted, very briefly, to express his opinions, in relation to the measure under consideration. He felt himself constrained to oppose the

SENATE.]

Surviving Officers of the Revolution.

[JAN. 30, 1828

And here, Mr. C. said, he would take occasion to remark, that some of the friends of the bill seemed to speak of this amount of $1,100,000 as a very small thing-as an inconsiderable sum, not requiring much consideration as to the manner in which it should be disposed of. To be sure, said Mr. C. to borrow an expression which he believed he had first seen in some farce-$1,100,000 is “neither here nor there." That is, it was neither in his (Mr. C.'s) pocket, nor in the pockets of the advocates of the bill-so far it was a matter of no consequence. But he feared that, when the accounts of the year came to be settled up, such a disposable amount would not be found in the pockets of the Treasury, and more especially if the statements made by some of the members of the Commit. tee on Finance, when the bill making appropriations for the Revolutionary Pensions was under consideration, be correct. He would infer from those statements, if he understood them correctly, that the Treasury was not overflowing with superabundant means. The committee who reported the bill under discussion appear to have been aware of this fact themselves; and, therefore, they have so framed it as not to distribute that amount in money, but to provide for the issuing certificates of stock to the amount of $1,100,000. This gets over the difficulty of the want of money, to be sure: but it does so, by increasing the public debt to that amount, in a stock re deemable at the will of the Government. He thought that such a provision would in the end prove to be an ingenious piece of machinery, contrived to divert that amount of the sinking fund from its legitimate object, to wit: the extinguishment of the existing debt.

passage of the bill. In doing so, he was conscious that he exposed himself to the charge of a want of feeling. This, however, should not deter him from discharging, in the best manner he could, what he conceived to be his duty. On two former occasions, it had been his fortune to be exposed to a similar charge. He alluded to the bill granting pensions to the indigent officers and soldiers of the Revolution, and the bill making further provision for General Lafayette. These measures, like the one under consideration, were said by their friends to be required by both the justice and the gratitude of the nation. He had thought differently; and, upon the maturest reflection, he had never seen cause to repent of the vote he had given upon them. But in his opposition to this bill, he was equally conscious that he was not impelled by a want of a proper sense of the merits of the objects of it. He was sure that, in common with the whole community, he felt the liveliest gratitude for the services they had rendered, and the privations and sufferings they had undergone in the cause of liberty. Far be it from him, then, to say aught to their disparagement. Mr. C. said, his opposition to the bill was founded in the opinion entertained by him, that it was required by neither the justice or the gratitude of the nation. Its advocates had supported it upon the principle that it was equally demanded by both. His colleague, [Mr. BERRIEN,] in his very eloquent and impressive argument, had declared that he considered it an act of mere justice; and the whole tenor of his remarks, if I comprehended them rightly, seemed to be, that the provision made by the bill, was one to which the Officers of the Revolution were entitled as a matter of right, and in the fulfilment of the most solemn obligations arising out of the pledged faith of the old Congress. Others seem to place it upon a different foundation. They do not claim it so much as an act of justice, as of national gratitude. As he had just remarked, he believed that it was demanded by neither the one nor the other. He thought it improper and impolitic, notwithstanding the very imposing circumstances under which it was brought before the Senate. On the 21st of October, 1780, the old Congress, acting The measure was recommended by the President of the upon the report of a committee to which had been referUnited States, in his message at the opening of the pre-red a letter from Gen. Washington, among other resolusent Congress, and seems to receive the warm support of tions having relation to the organization of the Army, gentlemen of great weight of character and talents, and adopted the following: "That the Officers who shall con who are known to be the fast friends of the present Ad-"tinue in service to the end of the war, shall also be enministration. Insofar as such a recommendation and sup- "titled to half pay during life, to commence from the port can make it so, it must be considered as an Adminis-" time of their reduction." It is believed that this is the tration measure. But it is also advocated by gentlemen contract which constitutes the foundation of the claim of equal eloquence and talents, who are believed to be now made on behalf of the officers; and certainly, if no leading individuals in the Opposition to this Administra- change had been made in it, the old confederated Go tion. So great has been the zeal and ability displayed by vernment, and subsequently the Government as now or cach party in support of this bill, that it will be difficult, ganized, would have been bound to fulfil it, by allowing hereafter, in case of its passage, to determine to which of the stipulated half pay for life. But it would appear that them shall be awarded the merit of having procured it. the measure was by no means a very popular one. It Mr. C. said, he knew not to which party, the Adminis- met, as would presently be shown, with the most serious tration or the Opposition, he might be said to belong. objections. It was said that great discontent existed as Entertaining the opinions that he did upon a great many to the manner in which the officers were to be rewarded. subjects, he feared he would be claimed by neither the There were strong prejudices expressed against the half one nor the other. But upon that subject he was not at pay system. That such a system seemed to belong pe all uneasy. He must confess, however, that he felt the culiarly to monarchies, by which the monarch was enadelicacy of his situation, on the present occasion, in hav-bled to attach the army to his own person. ing the temerity to venture into conflict with such an array of talents of all parties. He could hardly hope for success in a contest with either of them-much less could he expect to be victorious against the fearful odds of their united forces; yet, in defence of his honest convictions of duty, he would make an effort with such weapons as were ready to his hand.

What, then, he would inquire, is the measure under consideration? The bill proposes to distribute $1,100,000 among the surviving officers of the Revolution. What is the exact number of such survivors, whether one, three, or five hundred, is not known, and, consequently, it cannot be known what sum will be given to each.

Mr. C. said, he would now proceed to an examination of the justice, the strict justice, by which it is contended the Senate should be influenced to the passage of this bill in its present shape. Gentlemen contend that the Government entered into a solemn contract with the Offi cers of the Continental Army of the Revolution, which has never been fulfilled. Let us examine this matter, and see how it really occurred.

That it was

somewhat in the nature of sinecures, &c.; and, said Mr. C. had I lived in those times, I should probably have entertained the same opinions--for they are certainly such as I now entertain.

These discontents and prejudices led to a reconsidera tion of the measure. And at whose instance? At that of the People, or the State Governments? By no means: but at the instance of the officers themselves. He had before him their memorial upon this and other subjects, a part of which he begged the leave of the Senate to read.

The bill susbequently was entirely changed in its provisions befure its passage. As it passed, it is strictly a pension act.

[See vol. 4, Journals of Old Congress, page 207.] "We are grieved," say they, "to find that our brethren, "who retired from service on half pay, under the reso. "lution of Congress of 1780, are not only destitute of "any effectual provision, but are become objects of obloquy. Their condition has a very discouraging aspect " on us, who must, sooner or later, retire, and from every "consideration of justice, gratitude, and policy, demands "attention and redress.

[SENATE,

Thus far, Mr. C. contended, it would seem that the officers had no right to complain of any injustice. They had been promised half pay for life. They discovered that this made them odious in the eyes of the People. They solemnly and formally solicit Congress to commute it for full pay for a certain number of years. Congress granted their request, and submitted a proposition of commutation for their adoption or rejection. They agreed to accept in the manner proposed, and, subsequently, actually received the five years' full pay. In the whole transaction, as far as it has been examined, there appears nothing unjust, nothing unfair, nothing forced. So far from it, Congress only acted in accordance with their own solicitations. The commutation, then, was a fair contract, agreed to upon full and mature consideration, and in which the Congress constituted one party, and the officers the other party.

"We regard the act of Congress, respecting half pay, "as an honorable and just recompense for several years' "hard service, in which the health and fortunes of the "officers have been worn down and exhausted. We see, "with chagrin, the odious point of view in which the "citizens of too many of the States endeavor to place the "men entitled to it. We hope, for the honor of human "nature, that there are none so hardened in the sin of "ingratitude, as to deny the justice of the reward. We It has been said, however, that the contract for half pay "have reason to believe that the objection, generally, is for life was made by the Government with the individual "against the mode only. To prevent, therefore, any al-officers, while the contract for "five years' full pay," in "tercations and distinctions which may tend to injure lieu thereof, was made with them collectively, and in a "that harmony which we ardently desire may reign manner in which the voice of the individual officer could "throughout the community, we are willing to commute not be heard. This, Mr. C. said, did not, in his opinion, "the half pay pledged, for full pay for a certain number alter the case. It certainly gives no greater plausibility "of years, or for a sum in gross, as may be agreed to to the bill upon principles of strict justice. The manner "by the committee sent with this address. And, in in which the proposition for the commutation was offered, "this way, we pray that the disabled officers and sol does not appear to have been objected to from any quardiers, with the widows and orphans of those who ter. There is not only no evidence of the officers having "have expired, or may expend their lives in the service remonstrated against it, but the advocates of the bill do "of their country, may be fully comprehended." not pretend that the officers objected to it at the time. Mr. C. said he would not detain the Senate by reading There is not on record one petition, or memorial, or profurther extracts from this document. He had read all test against it. Those surviving officers who are now at that was necessary to shew that great objections and pre- the Seat of Government, acting in behalf of themselves jadices existed, and had been openly expressed, against and their brethren, urging and watching the progress of the half pay system. That the officers themselves too this bill, have made no representations, and submitted no plainly saw that it was about to bring upon them the evidence, that they themselves, or any other portion of hatred and obloquy of the community. To avoid this, the officers, objected to the manner in which the propoand as they apprehended the "objection generally was sition was submitted, or to the proposed commutation against the mode only," they suggested that a commuta- itself. The irresistible presumption, then, is, that all tion should be made of the half pay for life, for "full pay were content, all accepted, and were satisfied. for a certain number of years," or "for a sum in gross. But, again, it had been urged, and with great force, by It was upon this memorial of the officers, that Congress the Chairman of the Committee, [Mr. WOODBURY,] that proceeded to discuss the subject, and, after rejecting the cominutation was inadequate, because it was not of many propositions, finally they adopted a resolution on equal value with the half pay for life; and, for the purthe 22d March, 1783, [see 4 vol. Journals Old Congress, pose of proving this, reference had been made to the an. page 178, '9,] agreeing to make the commutation in the nuity tables. Mr. C. acknowledged that he had but little shape of a proposition to be submitted to the officers of skill in the calculation of the value of annuities; but he the Army, by Lines and Corps, for their adoption or re- thought that he could demonstrate, that, at the time of jection. The proposition was to commute the "half pay the passage of the commutation act, there were persons for life," for "five years full pay;" such "full pay for five engaged in it whose skill and capacity could not be years," was to be made "in money, or securities on in- doubted, and that the subject underwent a full and deterest at six per cent. per annum." These securities liberate examination. It is known that Col. Hamilton, were to be such as should "be given to other creditors who so much distinguished himself, subsequently, as Seof the United States," and, finally, it was submitted to cretary of the Treasury, was himself one of the officers of the option of the Lines of the respective States," and the Army; that he had resigned his commission and gone not to the officers individually, to accept or refuse the into Congress for the express purpose, as had been sugsame." Subsequently, on the 31st October, 1783, it ap-gested to him, of advocating the claims of the officers. pears by the Journals that most of the lines of the several States, and many of the corps and individuals of the Army, not attached to any line, did accept the proposition for commutation, as thus tendered. It is true, there is no evidence that some of the Lines did accept. But it may be said, with equal truth, that there is likewise no evidence that any of them refused to accept. On the contrary, it seems now to be conceded that they all did receive the five years' full pay, and therefore, it may with truth and propriety be said that they all accepted.

64

Of his ability to calculate the value of life annuities, no one could entertain a doubt. The Journals of Congress afford abundant evidence that he was an active member upon this subject. It appears that there was, in the report of the Committee who brought in the resolution, a blank as to the number of years of full pay to be granted. Col. Hamilton moved to fill it with "five and a half" years. This was negatived. Mr. Gorham then moved to fill it with "five" years, and this motion was agreed to, and the resolution passed in that shape. [See p. 167 of vol. 4, And here, Mr. C. said, it should be remarked, that the Journals of Old Congress.] Here, then, is abundant evipreamble to the resolution of 22d March, 1783, propos-dence that this very point of the adequacy of the proposed ing the commutation, expressly recites that it is because the officers themselves "did solicit a commutation," that one was granted.

commutation was fully discussed and deliberately settled by those who well understood what they were about; and it seems that the only difference between them was about