SENATE. Revolutionary Officers. country not more salubrious than many parts of the Unit- committee arrive. The committee have fallen into an error in giving us from Dr. Price's tables the present value of the half pay for life of these officers, on the supposition that their av erage age did not exceed thirty years. They have told us that the present value of an annuity, or half pay for life, of a person at the age of thirty years, according to the North Hampton tables given us by Dr. Price, is a sum MARCH 12, 1828. equal to fourteen times the amount of one annual pay- Mr. WOODBURY said, that the relation in which he nown to those, whose particular duty it had been ake a critical examination of them. e gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. MACON) urged much, as an objection to the passage of this that the Committee themselves disagreed concernthe grounds on which its merits rested. While in , the only real difference among them had been, one member dwelt more strongly, on one reason, and er more strongly on another reason for its adoption. t very far was it from the intention of himself or ble friend from Georgia, (Mr. BERRIEN,) in advothe claim on strict common law principles, to adhat it could not be supported also on principles the liberal and equitable; while it was equally far, as elieved, from the views of the other members of ommittee, (Mr. VAN BUREN and Mr. HARRISON,) had so eloquently pressed the mere equity of the , to admit that it was not also well based on strict on law principles. On the contrary, if a radical ence had existed between them, it would still leave measure as free from objection on that account as left the opposition to it. For one gentleman for(Mr. MACON) and indeed, another to day, (Mr. ) had insisted on the statute of limitations in bar e claim, while the Senator from Virginia, (Mr. Trproperly and gallantly said he should scorn to advantage of that statute. Again, the last gentlehad insisted, that the commutation act was legally ng and compulsory on the minority as well as mawhile my colleague to day frankly acknowledges, it was binding on nobody who did not individually freely assent to its provisions. The difference bethe opponents of the bill is therefore essential, that between its friends is merely nominal. other mistake in fact has been urged from one or quarters against the bill, namely that a suit at law not be sustained on the claim, and hence, it ought > find favor. But does any claim ever come here, hich such a suit could be sustained? The chief that induces every private claimant to present his on to Congress, is that he could not obtain redress courts of law; and if no claimant was to be listenhere, who could not succeed at law, we might off, at one blow, our whole docket of private bills. , it has been asked, why did not these petitioners the Departments to have their claims audited and d, if they are valid? I reply, as before, if nois to relieved here, who cannot get relief at one of lepartments, at once rub the sponge over all priapplications; because the very reason for their apce here, is that by omissions in the existing laws, abts of the accounting officers, redress cannot be ed at any of the Departments. If objections like are to avail aught against the petition now under leration, let them avail against all petitioners, and e words of the gentleman from North Carolina, let directed to "eat out of one spoon." Why did we ay to the merchants in A. D. 1816, whose bonds remitted, go to your action at law, or go to one of epartments? Why not say the same to the purchapublic lands so liberally relieved a few years ago? tlemen have erred in other respects as to the facts. of the Committee have averred, as some seem to supposed, that an action at law or bill in equity, in truth be maintained on the present claim, if the States were liable to such proceedings in behalf ir creditors. But they have averred, and it is again ed, that these petitioners are seeking a right; and a right both on common law and on chancery princiBut if on only one, whether it be a right on strict comaw principles, or on chancery principles, it is equally and the claim is equally a legal claim. The forum, ch it becomes a right, does not alter its legality. SENATE. Hence, if every gentleman would agree with him from should be scorned, and that the pretended payment made Virginia, [Mr. TYLER,] that the statute of limitations to these petitioners, was "mere wind, mere trash," I 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 five judgesno 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." Little does it become us now, when these veterans seek a right, to talk to them of "thanks," "benedictions," and "praises," or to send them as paupers to the crumbs of the pension law. Without dwelling a moment on considerations before urged in the argument in favor of the legality of this claim, let me ask, what has been the reply to the position of the Committee, that on strict legal principles the promise for half pay for life has never been fulfilled? Has any one shown that the half pay in the form of half pay, has ever been paid? No pretence for it. Has any one shewn that the half pay has ever been technically released? No pretence for it. this promise for half pay was made to the soldiers, or Has any one shown that militia or civilians, whose cases are so often repeated as connected with the present claim? I believe not; and though they fought and counselled as men should in defence of their hearths, and altars and liberties, the promise for half pay to the officers of the army of the Revolution is the only point now under consideration. How has that promise then been fulfilled? In no way except by the act of commutation. But it could not be fulfilled by that act, unless all things were transacted in conformity to the provisions of that act. Yet none can deny, that in conformity to these provisions, the commutation must have been accepted by majorities in each of the lines. Such is the express, unequivocal language of the act. Whereas all must admit, it now appears never to have been accepted by even majorities in over nine lines of the army. Again, to conform to the act, the acceptance must have been in six months, when no acceptance by a single line appears to have taken place till sometime after six months. Every body feels and knows likewise, that the payment, to be in conformity to the act, was to have been money, or at least securities equivalent to money; when in truth it was neither; and even under the most favorable view, if the certificates were kept till the funding, fell short of what was due from one-fifthi to one-third. So the certifi cates, or the payment, should have been made in September, 1783; but were not in fact made until some time in January, 1784, when worth much less. But break through the forms of measures, and every lawyer, every constitutional statesman, must admit, that, on strict legal principles, there should not only have been a conformity to the commutation act, but, in the act itself, to make it binding, there should have been a regard to private vested rights. It is not necessary at this day, whatever may have been the theories or opinions prevalent half a century ago, to repeat illustrations and arguments, showing that a majority in any one line of the army could not legally bind the minority as to the commutation. The most uninformed day laborer knows, that no two of his fellow laborers have a right to vote away or change the wages previously agreed to be paid him-much less could they do it, or could nine out of thirteen lines do it, not only for themselves, but for the other lines, on the ground as contended by the Senator from North Carolina, that in the confederation it was a political compact, that the votes of nine States bound the whole. The present was not a question to be voted on in Congress by delegates, but was a question of private, vested civil rights, and to be settled not by the articles of confederation, but by the ordinary rules of jurisprudence and law. My colleague admits, unlike the other objectors, that the minority were not bound, unless they gave, in some way, a full and free consent; and then, like the others, he refers to sundry circumstances, from which he deduces that consent. Here again, most of the gentlemen who oppose the bill, have, in the zeal of debate, seized upon circumstances, altogether insufficient in my view, to support their deductions, and. in some cases, circumstances entirely misapprehended; else how could they assert, and argue from the assertions, that in this transaction, "every step taken, was at the earnest solicitation of the officers;" that "all the officers asked" for the commutation; that "the whole proceedings began," and advanced to the end, with their full approbation? So far from all this, a little closer attention to documents would have convinced them that the original petition to Congress, in which, among many other things, the subject of commutation is named, was not gotten up by the whole army, but only by five lines on the Hudson river. The rest of the army, a large majority of it, had neither part nor lot in the petition. In the next place, even that small number of officers did not ask for a commutation to please themselves, much less to speculate with, as intimated by one gentleman. Nor did the project at all originate with them; but the States to which they belonged had objected to the form of the half-pay, as in some degree odious, and the officers from those States being always willing to make any reasonable sacrifice in the cause of freedom, expressed their consent, if Congress pleased, to take a gross sum or a certain number of years full pay, instead of half-pay for life. This appears explicitly in both their petition and in the commutation act. Mr. W. here read that part of the petition, 8 vol. Journal, page 227, and from the resolve of A. D. 1780.] After stating the objections of their States, they add," To prevent, therefore, any altercation and distinctions which may tend to injure that harmony which we ardently desire may reign throughout the country, we are willing to commute," &c. MARCH 12, 182 but proposed an election to one class of officers to tak that sum, or retain their half pay. With an election t all of them the sum was doubtless large enough; bu without an election was greatly unequal, and unjust * the younger officers. Indeed what is decisive on this point, that the Com mittee of officers neither had, nor exercised the power t agree upon this amount of commutation, Congress i self did not in the end adopt that sum absolutely as agree to; but provided that this sum should be binding only the event, that a majority of each line afterwards appr ved of it. Such a majority never did approve of it; al nay not half, had asked for any commutation whatever none had asked for this precise sum, but for a fair equiva lent, and the foundation of these broad and sweepin conclusions against the officers seems built on sand. Whither do these loose conjectures lead us? Do ge tlemen forget the character of these petitioners? Me to whom integrity and honor is dearer than life! An do they believe, that had nothing been transacted, bu what they themselves desired and individually approved you would now see in your Halls a single one of the venerable heads, asking relief as a right? It is an impu tation on their characters, and I, for one, should deem i a burning disgrace to advocate their cause a moment on this ground, if the whole proceedings of Congress, in re spect to them, had received their free and full sanction at the time. What they did after the commutation act passed, is, on principles of common sense, and on an ap peal to the facts of history, decisive to my mind, that they did not, rather than that they did, in any way, give such a sanction, at any subsequent period. When the vote was taken in the nine lines, I have the resolve of Congress before me to show, that almost every officer was probably absent on furlough, on account the news of peace. All idea, therefore, of general as sent by that vote, is thus rebutted. It is matter of histe ry, likewise, that the army was disbanded in September or October, 1783, without the return of many of the officers, and that not a single certificate for commata tion was made out and delivered to any of them till the next year. That the certificates were then sent to the agents or Governors in their different States, and del ered to them, not taking a receipt in full, as in case of certificates for monthly wages, but merely a receipt for certificates. Again, it will be seen that the splendid and numerous Committee whom one gentleman dwelt on as sent with The officers thereafter, as accident or necessity moved this petition, and under full power to act on the amount them, and without any conference together, took thes of the commutation, and who probably agreed to all certificates-they took them, as all that Congress had pro adopted afterwards by Congress, never existed. Those vided for them; but not as a free assent, that the certif persons he names were merely the signers to the peti-cates were a fair and full discharge of their half pay; tion. The real humble Committee of only three, who in we allow them to have possessed the smallest particle o fact went with the petition, may be seen in 4th Gordon, that common sense on which the gentleman from Virgi p. 353. This, like many other mistakes, has doubtless nia is so eager to bottom some of his deductions. It was happened from inadvertance; but helps to make an un- on its face, defective in amount nearly one-third ; and favorable impression against this claim. This Committee not so, was, when delivered, only worth in money about also were not empowered to agree on any sum in com- two-tenths, its nominal amount; and is it decorous or true mutation, but only to the form of the commutation, to suppose such certificates were freely and voluntarily ta either the form of a gross sum, or a certain number ken in full discharge of half pay for life? We impeach of years full pay. And so far from the precise sum in- not the motives of the old Congress. The course pursued serted in the commutation act having been fixed by them, by it, was not dictated by the wishes but the wants of Con either with, or without authority, they doubtless were gress. It is no imputation on the honesty and honor of many hundred miles distant when Congress settled the that Congress to do as it did, more than it is on any insolquestion, as many months elapsed between the petition vent debtor not to pay beyond what he is able. But the and the decision. Neither did the Committee of Con- imputation is on us, if, when able, we neglect to remune gress agree with them on the sum inserted, as has been in-rate those who suffered by our former wants. Whatever ferred; because the report was in blank and a different may have been the just amount due as commutation, Conand a larger sum was moved by one of the Committee.gress and the officers both, then expected that the commuEven he, (Mr. HAMILTON) though richly entitled to the tation would forthwith be paid in money or amply secur encomiums received, was not, as again and again asserted. It is idle to talk or pretend otherwise. Half pay on ed, the Chairman of the Committee, nor did he, or the rest of the Committee, agree to the commutation in its present form. They not only proposed a larger sum, the one hand, or its substitute, was wanted for daily bread. On the other hand, Congress passed a resolve calling for immediate requisitions on the States to meet the claims of the army, or adequately to secure them. (See 8 Jour. 112.) Under the same commutation act, Congress actully raised specie and paid it to the foreign officers. But They could not have done this under the same law, unless with a conviction that the law required it Whether the commutation then ought to have been five or seven years, never was fairly performed or paid; and the depreciatan which ensued, or the loss in funding, ought, at all events, to be remunerated. On these points, however, I shall not dwell, as they have before been exhausted. But relation to the nominal amount of the commutation, whether sufficient or not, I must be permitted to add a tew remarks, in consequence of the round and frequent assertions, especially to day, that the Committee had made unfounded assumptions, and mistaken important facts. This inquiry in two views of the case, is very important, sit may show the hardships, whether accidental or not, of the original commutation, and may furnish some safe data as to the extent of relief. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. TYLER,) thought five years full pay was enough, because the average duration of human life on "common haw and common sense" principles was only seven years. And my colleague to-day supposes that it was enough, because fourteen years has been assumed by the Committee as the duration of life in these petitioners in A. D. 1783, and was altogether too high for this country, if not for Europe. If the first position were true, that seven years was "the ultima thule" of the probability of life, what follows? Not that full pay five years is merely enough, but that the old Congress, which he praises for sagacity and wisdom, and who had a sacred regard to economy, gave to the officers double what they were entitled to. Because, half pay for seven years was not worth in presenfi, in a gross sum, over two and a half full years pay. Any gentleman can calculate for himself. The Senator from Virginia seemed to insist also, that seven years was an inflexible period for all ages, whether youth, manhood, or decrepitude; while his own exDerience as to his collegiate or academic classes, or as to s fellows in legislative bodies, would convince him not caly that the chance of his life was greater at different ges, but that neither seven, nor even fourteen years had swept away one half, and much less the whole of any body persons with whom he has associated. Had he looked into any system of insurance on lives, the error would at pace have confronted him; and I have now in my hand the premiums asked by the company in Massachusetts, under the direction of the science of Mr. Bowditch, and where they differ nearly one half in amount at certain perods of life fifteen years apart, and where this difference is made merely on account of age, all other circumstances being equal. SENATE. mittee have not said, as my colleague through mistake supposes, that the officers would live only fourteen years. They merely mention fourteen years as the shortest term; but their whole calculations and arguments he would see, had he examined them with his usual care, are grounded on the position, that they were likely to live from 32 to 34 years. The committee, in coming to that result, do not say they adopt implicitly the tables of Dr. Price, or do they even refer to him at all in their report. But two former Committees in the other House have taken his tables as their basis, and making proper allowances, have come to the same conclusion with ourselves. We have resorted not only to him, but especially to Milne on annuities, which is now before me, and from which I have before read. I will take the liberty again to read, and from his calculations to repeat, that the data given by the Committee are correct. [Mr. WOODBURY here read from Milne's tables] These tables of course differ some years as do those of Dr. Price, according as they are made in different latitudes; in large towns or the country, and within the last 60 years or before, on account of the introduction of vacinnation, the improvements in education, and numerous other causes which reading and observation will suggest. A slight difference, when kept as to the different sexes, prevails likewise in all of these-[2 Milne Apx. 765.] But take the healthiest places in Europe, where these tables have been formed during the last half century, and the probable duration of life at 30 years of age is such, that an annuity for it, would not differ beyond a small frac tion from 14 years purchase. The tables at Carlisle are of this character. Not as many gentlemen, with a slight attention to the subject have supposed, that a person of that age would live only 14 years; but probably live about 34 years; and hence his annuity for that time be worth now in a gross sum 14 times its amount. Can my colleague seriously contend, that the committee have erred in sup posing the healthiness of this country not equal to that of Europe, where the great mass of the people are well known not to be so well fed, sheltered or clothed? Or that Republican institutions are less favorable to long life than Monarchies? Or can he seriously contend, that these offcers at thirty years of age were less likely to live long, than persons who had been in civil life? In reply, should I conjecture merely without any examination of this point, the conclusion would be rather more obvious and natural, that persons, hardened by exposure and severe exertion, would afterwards live longer than persons in ordinary life. But without any claim on my part to unusual accuracy or deep science in these subjects, the Committee have not rested their inferences on mere conjecture: they have not, The annuity tables, when formed with care, are cutitled I believe, adopted a basis "utterly improbable," nor are full confidence, and furnish sufficient certainty for mo- they persons whose habits have led them in their official ed calculations of the utmost importance in common life. duties to "assume essential facts," without evidence. They do not rest on conjectures, but on long and patient The invalid pension roll of the United States in A. D. 1825, servation and on records. (See 35 Quart. Rev. 4 page.) consisted of 3,690, and exhibited only fifty-eight deaths, I have a table before me, where of ten thousand per- In A. D. 1826, of 3,805, and exhibited only forty-eight sons born on a given day, so far from all being swept deaths. This averages about 1 in 70, and is among a class ay in seven years, or even in fourteen, (the time sup- of persons, not it is believed less than 30 years old on an posed by the other gentleman,) over one half of the num-average; and of whom all have seen service and expeer are alive after thirty years. Again, of those alive at rienced bodily injuries. Yet it shows greater health than rty years of age, instead of all disappearing in seven or the healthiest tables, in either Price or Milne in Europe. arteen years, one half of them are alive after thirty two Again, of the Revolutionary soldiers on the continental ears. The table is formed in a healthy country, and of line, who are placed on the pension list, more than 12,000 at character will I show our own to be, notwithstand- survive, after the lapse of 44 years since the peace. Thus, the argument to the contrary to-day. instead of the whole having been swept away in 7, or The hypothesis of the Committee, that the average age even 14 years, this large number remains after more than of the officers in A. D. 1783, did not exceed thirty, was six times 7 years. Even of these, aged and decrepid as assumed hastily, as intimated: it was not adopted they are, only about one in 32 dies annually, which is a less Without full inquiry, and has had the sanction of two able mortality than the average British standard half a century Committees of the other House. Taking that then as a ago, of one in 28 of her whole population. Again, the fact sufficiently well established for this purpose, the Com- gentleman who last addressed the Senate, [Mr. BELL,] SENATE. Revolutionary Officers. MARCH, 12, 1828. contends that if this country were as healthy as England, ject, attempting honorably to discharge a sacred portion and the officers as healthy as common citizens of their age, of what ought to be the public debt-and to strengthen 500, instead of 230 should now be alive. This is another the confidence of all public creditors, that however inillustration of the mistakes, attending doubtless on haste equitably they may be treated under state necessities in and partial examination, and not on any personal predju- great national embarrassment, they shall, when our ability dice or censurable motives. The officers in A. D. 1783, permits, be in some degree indemnified. are, to be sure, supposed to have been, on an average, 30 years of age; and it may be, that if all were in truth no more than 30 years old at that time, between 400 and 500 would or should now survive. Indeed, more than 230 may be alive at this time, though no more have been ascertained. But the gentleman forgets that a considerable number of them were in fact over 30; not a few 40, 50, and 60, and overlooks entirely, that the mortality in 44 years, among those 40 years old and upwards, would be nearly double more than the gain in life as to the numerous officers who were less than 30 years old. In this great lapse of time, more than nineteen twentieths of those only 40 years old, and the whole, save one or two of those over 40, would have passed the allotted age of man, and be altogether swept from existence; while only about three fourths of those exactly 30 years old would have died, and nearly as many of those 21 or 25 years old would have died as those 30 years old. Hence the average ages, though a correct enough guide as to life in valuing half pay, only too unfavorable to these individual petitioners, is manifestly erroneous in ascertaining how many survive, when 44, instead of 34 years has elapsed; and when not a proportion, but all of those over a certain age, have probably perished. To return to the comparative healthiness of all our population in this country, where tables or bills of mortality have been kept: the number of deaths is manifestly much fewer than in the same population in England. A paper by Doct. Barton, in the 3d vol. Philo. Trans. 42d page, demonstrates that in Philadelphia the deaths were often only 1 in 45; and in Salem, Mass., 1 in 47; while in this city, I have the data before me, showing, that for the last six years they have averaged not 1 in 49. In the State of New York computations have been made with some degree of accuracy, that the deaths do not average over 1 in 72; and I know many towns in New Hampshire, where they have been for many years less than 1 in 80. I would show the world, as the member from South Carolina, (Mr. SMITH,) observed yesterday, when dis cussing the bill for interest to the State he represents. I would show them, that a virtuous democratic republic can act, as a virtuous private citizen would act, and mete out the same justice to its creditors, which one honorable man would mete out to another. On this basis then, let me enquire what man, who is a man, who dares hold his head erect in decent society, would not when rich, restore to his creditor what was reserved or withheld when the debtor was poor? Other gentlemen, who vote differently, doubtless think differently on the facts, but, with my views as to the facts of this case, we can with no better grace refuse to grant this relief, than any honest indivi dual could hesitate in his prosperity to make up to h suffering creditor the uttermost farthing that had been virtually withheld from him in the hour of need. I ha intended to notice some other objections adduced against the bill, but the length of the debate, and the lateness of the hour, forbid the attempt. The petitioners will now be left by me in the hands of this honorable body. My duty towards them on this motion has been fulfilled-and quickly as the curtain of lite must close around them, I hope our justice and gratitude may yet cheer their aged hearts, before their departure to a better world. Mr. MACON offered some brief remarks in opposition to the bill. Mr. SMITH, of S. C. followed at some length, in æply to Mr. WOODBURY. Mr. VAN BUREN made some brief observations, and expressed a desire that the question might be taken once. The vote being then taken on the motion of M... HAYNE, to fill the blank with 800,000 dollars, was decided in the negative, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Barnard, Berrien, Bouligny, Eaton Harrison, Hayne, Johnson, of Ky. Johnston, of Lo Knight, McLane, Marks, Parris, Robbins, Sanford, Si bee, Smith, of Md. Van Buren, Webster, Woodbury-19. NAYS.-Messrs. Barton, Bateman, Bell, Benton Branch, Chandler, Chase, Cobb, Dickerson, Ellis, Foc Hendricks, King, McKinley, Macon, Noble, Ridgely, Rowan, Ruggles, Seymour, Smith, of S. C. Tazewell, Thomas, White, Willey, Williams-26. It is to be remembered also that this estimate includes both young and old as well as middle aged-and is of course disadvantageous to the middle aged. The Committee, therefore, have not taken as a standard either the London or North Hampton tables, whether of this period or of an ancient period-once, the deaths, 1 in 28 to 1 in 40; and in 1810, not more than 1 in 52. But they have taken the modes of computation approved by Price and Mr. COBB then moved the indefinite postponement of Milne, and taken those tables in Milne, which come near- the bill, which occasioned some conversation, in which est to the supposed mortality in this country, for the last Messrs. COBB, SMITH, of Md. HARRISON, NOBLE half century; and thus have arrived, as the two Commit- and WOODBURY, took part, and the question being ther tees before them have done, to the conclusion, and I trust taken, was decided in the negative by the following vote a just one, that these officers ought to have received 14 YEAS.-Messrs. Barton, Bateman, Benton, Branch years purchase, or 7 years full pay, instead of only five Chandler, Chase, Cobb, Ellis, Foot, Hendricks, King, years. Whether the commutation was defective by mis-McKinley, Macon, Noble, Ridgely, Rowan, Ruggles, take or design is wholly immaterial to the argument, if it Smith, of South Carolina, Tazewell, Thomas, Willey, was only defective; because, if defective, we have reap Williams.-22. ed the benefit; and these rurvivers being the sufferers- NAYS.-Messrs. Barnard, Bell, Berrien, Bouligny, sufferers from our needs and their patriotism-they should Dickerson, Eaton, Harrison, Hayne, Johnson, of Kentuc in our present prosperous condition be honorably remu-ky, Johnston, of Louisiana, Knight, McLane, Marks, nerated. It is not a violation of economy to pay honest Parris, Robbins, Sanford, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, c debts or restore to a poor creditor, what was once with- Md., Van Buren, Webster, White, Woodbury.-23. held from him; neither is this course exposed to any of Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, then moved to fill the blank the exceptions taken by the venerable Senator from North with $500,000. Carolina, (Mr. MACON,) against prodigality, large salaries and monarchical usages. As one of the Committee, I dislike them no less then he does. But at the same time, to me, it seems always frugal and republican to do justice; and instead of endangering the payment of the public debt by such a measure, we are, in my view of the sub The question being taken on filling the blank with 500,000 dollars, was decided in the negative, by the fol lowing vote: YEAS.-Messrs. Barnard, Berrien, Bouligny, Eate Harrison, Hayne, Johnson, of Kentucky, Johnston, Louisiana, Knight, McLane, Marks, Parris, Robbins, |