late memoriat, transmitted by their committee, represent to Congress that the half-pay granted by sundry resolutions was regarded in an unfavorable light by the citizens of some of these States, who would prefer a compensation for a limited term of years or by a sum in gross, to an establishment for life, &c. To satisfy the memorialists and the country five years full pay was granted in lieu of half-pay for life, and it is for this commutation that petitions are pouring in upon you, and claims, arising under the resolution just referred to, and those, the adjustment of which the bill proposes to transfer to the Treasury Department, with rules of evidence which might possibly facilitate, as the committee suppose, the allowance of some just claims, but which will at the same time open a wide door for imposition and for the assertion of rights which have no legal or equitable foundation, and which may still be honestly urged by the heirs of deceased officers. Sir, (said Mr. P.) is it not admitted by the report that this will be the operation to some extent? Speaking of these rules, the committee say: "It is possible that their universal application may lead to the allowance of some claims which do not come strictly within the original terms, but this will be no new evil; and it is certain if they are not applied many just claims must be rejected for the want of technical proof." To the correctness of this last clause he must be excused for withholding his assent. If evil has heretofore arisen or is liable to arise, from application of the said rules of evidence, is that now to be used as an argument in favor of transferring duties from the House to one of the Departments and transferring them with instructions binding the Secretary, and making certain the continuance of the evil? He trusted not. If presumption and not evidence was to be the ground on which claims are to be allowed in any instance, would it not be more wise to retain them here, where a spirit of liberality and yet a sound discretion, may be exercised in each particular case, according to its circumstances, than to give them a direction anywhere else, accompanied by instructions which it was admitted might lead, and which in his humble judgment would inevitably lead, to the acknowledgment of many unjust claims? Again, the committee say, "If there is any apprehension that the principles here declared are too liberal, it must be recollected that the tendency of legislation for individual claims is constantly to enlarge the basis of right; while the effect of transferring them to another tribunal, more judicial in its character, will probably be to retain that basis essentially within the limits fixed at the moment of transfer. If, therefore, it should be supposed, or even admitted, that the principles asserted in the bill are more liberal than the present practice of Congress, it may be considered certain that in its continued action, they would soon be surpassed in liberality." That is, if we are acting upon too liberal principles-too much upon presumption-we had better at once send out these presumptions to be the guide of others, than longer to trust ourselves. Why? Because "The tendency of legislation for individual claims is constantly to enlarge the basis of right,” and we are in danger of being further from those principles which should govern prudent legislators, watchful of the interests of those whom they represent, as they would be of their own, than we now are. Mr. P. said, however just this might be in point of fact, he was not yet prepared to admit it as a principle of action; and, while no one would lend his support more readily to any claim that might come here sustained by proper evidence, he trusted the correctness of such a proposition might never find support in any vote of his. Speaking of the operation of the limitation acts, the committee say further: "Driven from the ordinary means of redress, individual claimants, from time to time, resorted to Congress for relief. At first, it may have been matter of consideration and of serious question, whether relief should be afforded after the limitation had expired, and the party was at least held to account for his delay, but in process of time it became, as it now is, a matter of course to grant relief in every case in which the claimant brings himself by proof within the terms of the resolution on which the claim is founded, and has not been already paid." Mr. P. trusted that wrong practice and precedent, founded in error, were not to be regarded as a guide here. He solemnly believed that if precedent and practice were to be relied upon, gentlemen might readily find justification for going almost any length in any direction. In the case before the House, it was so exceedingly probable, that all claims founded in right were adjusted, and so fallible and uncertain was human testimony, after a lapse of fifty years, that he had no hesitation in declaring it as his firm conviction, that the former course was the proper one; and that applicants who came in after the extension act of 1792, should always have been held to account for their delay. It was not, of course, intended to give commutation to those, or the heirs of those, who received certificates in 1784, or who have, at any time since, under any circumstances, received commutation. Before, then, examining more particularly the presumptions which this bill directs the Secretary to assume, let us consider, for a moment, what are the natural presumptions in the case. The commutation provided for by the resolutions of 1783, was originally directed to be adjusted by commissioners or other accounting officers, appointed by Congress; and it was supposed that certificates were almost universally granted in 1784. Why should it not have been so? They were ready, upon application, and the production of the proper evidence; and he put it to the House, whether the provisions of that resolution, and the rights accruing under it, considering the circumstances under which it was passed, upon the application of the officers themselves, must not have been known to every officer living within the limits of the United States? Mr. P. thought it ut terly incredible that it should have been otherwise. Whenever there had been any action upon the subject of pensions in latter times, what period had elapsed before that action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and almost every particular attending it, had, through one channel or another, reached the humble dwelling of every survivor of that noble band. But upon the supposition of their remote situation from the accounting officers, some might, by possibility, have been precluded from obtaining their rights. An act was passed on the 27th of March, 1792, suspending the operation of the limitation act, for two years, and under this extension, remaining claims, or such as were presented, were adjusted at the Treasury Department, by what were then termed "certificates of registered debt." Again, he inquired whether it was within the bounds of reasonable probability, that any claims were held up after this period, if they were ever intended to be enforced? Sir, (said Mr. P.,) it is to be remembered that, during all this time, it was not, as it unfortunately now is. There were hosts of living witnesses among the officers with whom the claimants served, and the soldiers whom they commanded. Nor is the advantage which the officer had, from his position over the private soldier, of |