He was a member of the committee on Pensions-and many hard cases had come before them, in which it was proposed to go back in granting pensions-and in one instance only had the Committee consented to go back. And he would ask whether the Senate would adopt a principle which had never been acknowledged, in favor of these officers, which had been refused in many instances where individuals were poor and suffering?

[SENATE.

reach of suggestions which would impeach their honor. They have done nothing, in relation to this matter, which is wrong, or which requires apology.

It has always been, and still is the opinion of the officers who are here as the representatives of their compatriots, that they would never consent to come upon your pension list, which they can only do by the humiliating process of swearing themselves unable to subsist without Mr. HARRISON said, he rose to make but a single ob- such pension. Is this the case made by the amendment servation in relation to the remarks of the gentleman now before you? Not at all It requires no previous hufrom Georgia. If there was a scramble upon the floor of miliating ceremony, or any preliminary whatever. It is the the Senate, as that gentleman intimated-if the majority direct unqualified grant of a gross sum and a subsequent of the Senate were in favor of the bill, he thought it a annuity. Less it is true, than the amount due to themfair inference that they acted from a knowledge of the less than, by your own estimate of their claim, they have wishes of their constituents; it was a fair conclusion, lost-less than in your adjustment of their accounts you that the majority of the People were in favor of the have taken from them. The Government made the of bill. ficers a proposal to commute their half pay for life for five Mr. CHAMBERS said, he had been induced to take years full pay, for which certificates were issued to them. the floor by the remarks of the honorable gentleman These certificates, we all know, were not paid, but were from Georgia, [Mr. COBB.] With some of those remarks funded at an amount much below their nominal value. All he had nothing to do, not exactly perceiving their appli- this operation was conducted by the Government. The ofcation. If the cotton crops had failed in the South, he cers were passive, and obliged to submit to whatever you much regretted it; and the more so, as he had relatives, were pleased to direct, and to receive whatever you were and very good friends, engaged in its cultivation; nor willing to give; and thus by your own acts, the result was did he mean to defend the Senate from the charge of a loss to them of the difference between the nominal having been extravagant, wild, and wasteful; that duty amount of their certificates, and the actual sum at must devolve on some member who had more agency in which they were refunded, and this snm came into your the introduction of the measures acted on, than himself. Treasury, and has been disbursed in your service. Now, He did not admit that any vote he had given required give them this sum, with interest on it,, and they will him to plead guilty; he did not either intend to remark much prefer it to the advantages of this bill. on the suggestion, that this was to be a question to af fect the Presidential election, further than to say, that the honorable member from Georgia must allow him to find motives for his own conduct. What were the motives of that gentleman, or whether they had any connex. ion with the election of President, were subjects for his especial consideration-far be it from him to conjecture. But, for himself, he claimed the privilege to assign his own motive, and that motive was," a deep conviction of the justice of this claim." He had declared, and still declared, his opinion, that the claim was founded in the established principles of law; and, if the party from whom it was due could be made amenable to the ordinary ad. ministration of the law, it would be recovered by its pro. cess. In this case, however, the claim is due from the Government who makes the law, administers the law, and decides the law.

The officers have approached you, and properly, with a manly and candid representation of the facts, and claiming what they allege is due to them. Having the sole power to decide, you have said their claim shall not be granted, as matter of right, and now, their friends on this floor have presented this bill, which proposes to give them a small sum in gross, and a small annuity, for the residue of their lives. How is this received? The honorable gentleman from Georgia impeaches their mo. tive-tells you their authorized agents, on this floor, had avowed their intention to abandon all claim, except as founded on principles of law, and their determined unwillingness to occupy a place on the pension list. Sir, said Mr. C., the gentleman has certainly the privilege to clothe his ideas in what words it may best please him; but he could not but think some of the expressions of the honorable gentleman entirely uncalled for by the occasion. Is it not enough that these men have, for a life time, been denied justice? That many of them have been permitted to go off the stage of life neglected and pennyless? That their survivors are now obliged to make their continued appeal to your generosity and your justice, in vain asking from you a pittance of your abundance? Must they, also, be made to hear harsh remarks and imputations of sinister and deceptive means to promote their object? Sir, these officers are above the

As to the suggestion that Senators had committed themselves to abandon the interest of these officers, on any contingency, he had only to say, he had never designed such abandonment, and, while he had breath to expend in their service, he should hold himself bound to raise his voice in advocating what he believed ought to be granted. If he could not get all, he would get as much as he could-now, hereafter, and at all times, and under all the varieties in which this question shall be agitated, he was the determined advocate of these injured and meritorious claimants. It had appeared to him somewhat remarkable, that the adversaries of this bill, although he believed (and he said this under correction) they were all opposed to any and every proposition to extend relief to these officers, have, nevertheless, placed their objections on the forms in which this relief is proposed. In any form, it would be objectionable to these gentlemen. One gentleman says, this is not the proper time. In that opinion he entirely concurred-the proper time had long since gone by-but the present was more proper than any future time, for the very reason, that it was less proper than any past time. Another gentleman had urged, that all who were engaged in the struggle had equal merit, and the representatives of such as were de ceased ought to be provided for, as well as survivors. The object of this was apparent; you can't provide for all-your means are not adequate. An attempt to do so must be abortive. Shall you, therefore, refuse to do what you can? Again, it is objected that the ground of legal right is abandoned, and a pension substituted. The tone and temper in which this word pension was used, evidenced the manifest design to present the officers who may accept it, in an odious character-Names will not alter facts. There is nothing in this proposition, the acceptance of which can crimson with a blush the cheek of these veterans-save only the proof it may furnish of the contracted pitiful pretence of justice or liberality which it may boast for the Government. They may blush for us, not for themselves. The sensibilities of the honorable gentleman from Georgia are excited without cause. These officers are not now, at the close of a long life, full of honor and virtue, rich in the regards of their countrymen, and in the consciousness of their own

integrity-however destitute of the means of comfortable subsistence-they are not now to be warned against an act which is to strip them of all they have left and make them bankrupt in reputation, as they are in purse. They feel themselves perfectly competent to determine their own course on this occasion; and, if they were to take counsel on the subject, they would probably still feel in disposed to place themselves under the guardianship of the honorable gentleman from Georgia.

[APRIL 25, 1828.

cussion of this bill. My opinions, in regard to its general object, I hope, are well known, and I had intended to content myself with a steady and persevering vote in its favor. But, when the moment of final decision has come, and the decision is so likely to be nearly equal, I feel it to be a duty to put, not only my own vote, but my own earnest wishes, my fervent entreaties to others, into the doubtful scale.

It must be admitted, sir, that the persons for whose be Sir, there is nothing in the offer now proposed to them nefit this bill is designed, are, in some respects, peculi. at which they can feel difficulty, except the limited arly unfortunate. They are compelled to meet, not onamount granted. The bill assumes that they have greatly objections to the principle, but, whichever way they merit; that exact justice in a pecuniary settlement has turn themselves, embarrassing objections also to details. not been extended to them; that they are poor. These One friend hesitates at this provision, and another at that ; are facts admitted by them, but they do not involve re- while those who are not friends at all, of course, oppose proach. The sum, in gross, is but a pittance; but, every thing, and propose nothing. When it was contemsmall as it is, it may serve to give decent burial to many. plated, heretofore, to give the petitioners an outright They are daily dropping from the stage of life-some sum, in satisfaction of their claim, then the argument have not left the means of providing the most common was, among other things, that the Treasury could not necessaries for the usual offices at the grave. Here and bear so heavy a draught on its means, at the present mo there one may linger out a few years more-and shall we turn these from our door, to drag along the little remnant of their decrepid old age in poverty and want, or shall we strew the short step, that must presently conduct them to a better world, with some of those comforts which our abundance can spare, and which will blunt the thorns, and smooth the roughness of the path which ends their earthly pilgrimage? Their toils, their blood, have furnished us plenty and happiness: it is but a small return to keep them from actual want. He hoped the proposi. tion of the Committee would prevail.

Mr. COBB said, in reply: the gentleman from Mary land is of opinion that I imputed improper motives to those who are the claimants in this case In forming such an opinion he is indebted to his own imagination, and not to my expressions. I only stated facts; I conveyed no censure. I repeat, again, that it was declared, by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. VAN BUREN] that these officers were not willing to be considered as pensioners, and that, if their claim was not granted, they would withdraw from further solicitations. Now, they are placed in the position of pensioners. If this is all true, it may, or it may not, convey an imputation of improper motives. It is as the gentleman pleases. I stated the facts; I did not impute motives; with the latter I have nothing to do, farther than they may be drawn from the former. The gentleman supposes I have assumed the guardianship of these officers: but I assume no such office. My opinions are these : I do not believe that, in strict equity, there is any thing due to these claimants. I think it is improper to extend the pension system beyond its present limits. I think and I have often so express. ed myself, that the Government has no right to give away the public money, and that such donations are unconstitutional, and, consequently, dangerous.

Mr CHAMBERS said, the honorable gentleman had mistaken him--be made no inferences for the honorable gentleman. He had assumed, that the words used by him, "modest and high-minded officers," were used ironically, and intended to impute conduct to them the reverse of that which "modest and highminded officers" should use. He believed the honorable gentleman would not deny the correctness of that assumption. In relation to the unwillingness of the officers to become pensioners, he had thought they ought not to agree to approach the Government in the attitude of mendicants, swearing to their poverty, and asking for the charity, which, by the existing law, is provided in such cases. But this bill pro poses a grant to them, not as beggars, but as meritorious claimants on the generosity, if not the equitable justice of the Government.

Mr. WEBSTER then addressed the Senate as follows: It had not been my purpose to take any part in the dis

ment.

The plan is, accordingly, changed-an annuity is proposed-and then the objection changes also-and it is now said, that this is but granting pensions, and that the pension system has already been carried too far. I confess, sir, I felt wounded-deeply hurt-at the observations of the gentleman from Georgia. So, then, said he, these modest and high-minded gentlemen take a pension at last! How is it possible, that a gentleman of his generosity of character, and general kindness of feeling can indulge in such a tone of triumphant irony towards a few old, grey-headed, poor, and broken warriors of the Revolution! There is, I know, something repulsive and opprobrious in the name of pension. But, God forbid that I should taunt them with it! With grief, heartfelt grief, do I behold the necessity which leads these veterans to accept the bounty of their country, in a manner not the most agreeable to their feelings. Worn out and decrepid, represented before us by those, their former brothers in arms, who totter along our lobbies, or stand leasing on their crutches, I, for one, would most gladly support a measure which would consult at once their services, their years, their necessities, and the delicacy of their sentiments. I would gladly give, with promptitude and grace, with gratitude and delicacy, that which merit has earned, and necessity demands.

Sir, what are the objections which are urged against this bill? Let us look at them, and see if they be real; let us weigh them, to know if they be solid. For, sir, we are not acting on a slight matter. Nor is what we do likely to pass unobserved now, or to be forgotten hereafter. I regard the occasion as one full of interest and full of responsibility. Those individuals, the little remnant of a gallant band, whose days of youth and manhood were spent for their country, in the toils and dangers of the field, are now before us, poor and old, intimating their wants with reluctant delicacy, and asking succour from their country, with decorous solicitude. How we shall treat them, it behooves us well to consider, not only for their sake, but for our own sake also, and for the sake of the honor of the country. Whatever we do, will not be done in a corner. Our constituents will see itthe people will see it-the world will see it.

Let us candidly examine, then, the objections which have been raised to this bill; with a disposition to yield to them, if, from necessity, we must; but to overcome them, if, in fairness, we can.

In the first place, it is said that we ought not to pass this bill, because it will involve us in a charge of unknown extent. We are reminded that, when the general pension law for Revolutionary soldiers passed, an expense was incurred, far beyond what had been contemplated; that the estimate of the number of surviving Revolution

[SENATE.

ary soldiers proved altogether fallacious; and that, for is one of the cases least of all fit for postponement.aught we know, the same mistake may be committed now. It is not a measure, that, if omitted this year, may as well Is this objection well founded' Let me say, in the be done next. Before next year comes, those who need first place, that, if one measure, right in itself, has gone the relief may be beyond its reach. To postpone, for farther than it was intended to be carried, for want of ac- another year, an annuity to persons already so aged-an curate provisions, and adequate guards, this may furnish annuity, founded on the merit of services which were rena very good reason for supplying such guards and provi- dered half a century ago; to postpone, for another whole sions, in another measure, but can afford no ground at all year, a bill for the relief of deserving men, proposing not for rejecting such other measure altogether, if it be in aggrandizement, but support; not emolument, but bread itself just and necessary. We should avail ourselves of is a mode of disposing of it, in which I cannot concur. our experience, it seems to me, to correct what has been But it is argued, in the next place, that the bill ought found amiss; and not draw from it an undistinguishing not to pass, because those who have spoken in its favor resolution to do nothing, merely because it has taught us, have placed it on different grounds. They have not that, in something which we have already done, we have agreed, it is said, whether it is to be regarded as a matacted with too little care. In the next place, does the ter of right, or matter of gratuity, or bounty. Is there fact bear out this objection? Is there any difficulty in weight in this objection? If some think the grant ought ascertaining the number of the officers who will be be- to be made, as an exercise of judicious and well deservnefited by this bill, and estimating the expense, therefore, ed bounty, does it weaken that ground that others think which it will create? I think there is none. The re- is founded in strict right, and that we cannote it cords in the Department of War and the Treasury furnish without manifest and palpable injustice? Or is it strange, such evidence as that there is no danger of material mis- that those who feel the legal justice of the claim should take. The diligence of the Chairman of the Committee address to those who do not feel it, considerations of a has enabled him to lay the facts connected with this part different character, but fit to have weight, and which of the case, so fully and minutely before the Senate, that they hope may have weight? Nothing is more plain I think no one can feel serious doubt. Indeed, it is ad- and natural than the course which this application has mitted by the adversaries of the bill, that this objection taken. The applicants themselves, have placed it on the does not apply here, with the same force, as in the for- ground of equity and law. They advert to the resolve mer pension law. It is admitted that there is a greater of 1780, to the commutation of 1783, and to the mode of facility in this case than in that, in ascertaining the number funding the certificates. They stand on their contract. and names of those who will be entitled to receive that This is perfectly natural. On that basis, they can wield bounty. the argument themselves. Of what is required by justice and equity, they may reason, even in their own case. But, when the application is placed on different grounds; when personal merit is to be urged, as the foundation of a just and economical bounty; when services are to be mentioned; privations recounted; pains enumerated; and wounds and scars counted; the discussion necessarily devolves to other hands. In all that we have seen from these officers, in the various papers presented by them, it cannot but be obvious to every one, how little is said of personal merit, and how exclusively they confine themselves to what they think their rights under the contract. I must confess, sir, that principles of equity, which appear to me as plain as the sun, are urged by the memorialists themselves, with great caution and much qualification. They advance their claim of right without extravagance or overstraining; and they submit it to the unimpassioned sense of justice of the Senate.

This objection, then, is not founded in true principle; and if it were, it is not sustained by the facts. I think we ought not to yield to it, unless, which I know is not the sentiment which pervades the Senate, feeling that the measure ought not to pass, we still prefer, not to place our opposition to it on a distinct and visible ground, but to veil it under vague and general objections.

In the second place, it has been objected, that the operation of the bill will be unequal, because all officers of the same rank will receive equal benefit from it, although they entered the army at different times, and were of different ages. Sir, is not this that sort of inequality which must always exist in every general provision? Is it possible that any law can descend into such particulars? Would there be any reason why it should do so, if it could? The bill is intended for those, who, being in the army in October, 1780, then received a solemn promise of half pay for life, on condition that they would continue to serve through the war. The ground of merit is, that, whensoever they had joined the army, being thus solicited by their country to remain in it, they at once went for the whole; they fastened their fortunes to the standards which they bore, and resolved to continue their military service until it should terminate, either in their country's success, or their own deaths. This is their merit, and their ground of claim. How long they had been already in service, is immaterial and unimportant. They were then in service; the salvation of their country depended on their continuing in that service. Congress saw this imperative necessity, and earnestly solicited them to remain, and promised the compensation. They saw the necessity, also, and they yielded to it.

For myself, I am free to say, that, if it were a case between individual and individual, I think the officers would be entitled to relief in a court of equity. I may be mistaken, but such is my opinion. My reasons are, that I do not think they had a fair option in regard to the commutation of half pay. I do not think it was fairly in their power to accept or reject that offer. The condition they were in, and the situation of the country, compelled them to submit to whatever was proposed. In the next place, it seems to me too evident to be denied, that the five years' full pay was never really and fully made to them. A formal compliance with the terms of the contract, not a real compliance, is, at most, all that was ever done. For these reasons, I think, in an individual case, law and equity would reform the settlement. The conscience of But, again, it is said, that the present time is not auspi- chancery would deal with this case as with other cases of ricious. The bill, it is urged, should not pass now. The hard bargains; of advantages obtained by means of inevenerable member from North Carolina says, as I under- quality of situation; of acknowledged debts, compoundstood him, that he would be almost as willing that the billed from necessity, or compromised without satisfaction. should pass, at some other session, as be discussed at this. He speaks of the distresses of the country, at the present moment, and of another bill, now in the Senate, having, as he thinks, the effect of laying new taxes upon the people. He is for postponement. But it appears to me, with entire respect for the Honorable Member, that this

VOL. IV-45

But although such would be my views of this claim, as between man and man, I do not place my vote for this bill on that ground. I see the consequence of admitting the claim, on the foundation of strict right. I see at once, that, on that ground, the heirs of the dead would claim, as well as the living; and that other public creditors, as

SENATE.]

Survivors of the Revolution.

[APRIL 25, 1828.

well as these holders of commutation certificates, would who have made the phrase of 'listing during the war, a also have whereof to complain. I know it is altogether proverbial expression, signifying unalterable devotion to impossible to open the accounts of the Revolution, and our cause, through good fortune and ill fortune, till it to think of doing justice to every body. Much of suffer- reaches its close. This is a plain distinction; and aling there necessarily was, that can never be paid for- though, perhaps, I might wish to do more, I see good much of loss that can never be repaired. I do not, there- ground to stop here, for the present, if we must any fore, for myself, rest my vote on grounds leading to anywhere. The militia who fought at Concord, at Lexingsuch consequences. I feel constrained to say, that we ton, and at Bunker's Hill, have been alluded to, in the cannot do, and ought not to think of doing, every thing, course of this debate, in terms of well deserved praise. in regard to Revolutionary debts, which might be strictly Be assured, sir, there could with difficulty be found a right, if the whole settlement were now to be gone over man who drew his sword, or carried his musket, at Conanew. The honorable member from New-York [Mr. cord, at Lexington, or Bunker's Hill, who would wish VAN BUREN] has stated, what I think, the true ground of you to reject this bill. They might ask you to do more, the bill. I regard it as an act of discreet and careful but never to refrain from doing this. Would to God bounty, drawn forth by meritorious services, and by per they were assembled here, and had the fate of this bill sonal necessities. I cannot agree, in this case, with the in their own hands! Would to God the question of its pastechnicality of my profession; and because I do not feel sage was to be put to them! They would affirm it with a uniable to allow the claim, on the ground of mere right, I ty of acclamation, that would rend the roof of the Capitol. am not willing, for that reason, to nonsuit the petitioners, I support the measure, then, Mr. President, because as not having made out their case. Suppose we admit, I think it a proper and judicious exercise of well merited as I do, that, on the ground of mere right, it would not national bounty. I think, too, the general sentiment of be safe to allow it; or suppose that to be admitted, for my own constituents, and of the country, is in favor of it. which others contend, that there is, in the case, no strict I believe the member from North Carolina himself, admitright, upon which, under any circumstances, the claim ted, that an increasing desire that something should be could stand; still, it does not follow that there is no rea- done for the Revolutionary officers manifested itself in sonable and proper foundation for it, or that it ought not the community. The bill will make no immediate or to be granted. If it be not founded on mere right, it is great draught on the Treasury. It will not derange the not to be regarded as being, for that reason alone, an un- finances. If I had supposed that the state of the Treadeserved gratuity, or the effusion of mere good will. sury would have been urged against the passage of this that which is granted be not always granted on the ground bill, I should not have voted for the Delaware Breakwa of mere right, it does not follow that it is granted from ter, because that might have been commenced next year; merely an arbitrary preference, or a capricious beneficence. nor for the whole of the sums which have been granted In most cases of this sort, mixed considerations prevail, for fortifications; for their advancement, with a little and ought to prevail. Some consideration is due to the more, or a little less, of rapidity, is not of the first necesclaim of right; much to that of merit and service; and sity. But the present case is urgent. What we do should more to that of personal necessity. If I knew that all the be done quickly. persons to be benefited by this bill were in circumstances of comfort and competency, I should not support it. But this I know to be otherwise. I cannot dwell, with propriety, or delicacy, on this part of the case; but I feel its force, and I yield to it. A single instance of affluence, or a few cases where want does not tread close on those who are themselves treading close on the borders of the grave, does not affect the general propriety and necessity of the measure. I would not draw this reason for the bill into too much prominence. We all know it exists; and we may, I think, safely act upon it, without so discussing it as to wound, in old, but sensitive, and still throbbing bosoms, feelings which education inspired, the habits of military life cherished, and a just self-respect is still desirous to entertain. I confess I meet this claim, not only with a desire to do something in favor of these officers, but to do it in a manner indicative, not only of decorum, but of deep respect-that respect which years, age, public service, patriotism and broken fortune, command to spring up in every manly breast.

If

It is, then, sir, a mixed claim of faith and public gratitude; of justice and honorable bounty; of merit and benevolence. It stands on the same foundation as that grant, which no one regrets, of which all are proud, made to the illustrious foreigner who shewed himself so early, and has proved himself so constantly and zealously, a friend to our country.

But then, again, it is objected that the militia have a claim upon us; that they fought at the side of the regular soldiers, and ought to share in the country's remembrance. It is known to be impossible to carry the measure to such an extent as to enibrace the militia; and it is plain, too, that the cases are different. This bill, as I have already said, confines itself to those who served, not occasionally, not temporarily, but permanently; who allowed themselves to be counted on as men who were to see the contest through, last as long as it might, and

Mr. President, allow me to repeat, that neither the subject, nor the occasion, is an ordinary one. Our own fellow citizens do not so consider it; the world will not so regard it. A few deserving soldiers are before us, who served their country faithfully through a seven years' war. That war was a civil war. It was commenced on principle, and sustained by every sacrifice on the great ground of civil liberty. They fought bravely, and bled freely. The cause succeeded, and the country triumphed. But the condition of things did not allow that country, sensible as it was to their services and merits, to do them the full justice which it deserved. It could not entirely fulfil its engagements. The Army was to be disbanded; but it was unpaid. It was to lay down its own power; but there was no government with adequate power to perform what had been promised to it. In this critical moment, what is its conduct? Does it disgrace its high character? Is temptation able to seduce it? Does it speak of righting itself? Does it undertake to redress its own wrongs, by its own sword? Does it lose its patriotism in its deep sense of injury and injustice? Does military ambition cause its integrity to swerve? Far, far otherwise.

It had faithfully served, and saved the country, and to that country it now referred, with unhesitating confidence, its claim and its complaints. It laid down its arms with alacrity; it mingled itself with the mass of the community; and it waited till, in better times, and under a new Government, its services might be rewarded, and the promises made to it fulfilled. Sir, this example is worth more, far more, to the cause of civil liberty, than this bill will cost us. We can hardly recur to it too often, or dwell on it too much, for the honor of our country, and of its defenders. Allow me to say again, that meritorious service in civil war is worthy of peculiar consideration, not only because there is in such war usually less power to restrain irregularities, but because, also, they