themselves the terms of the compromise? What was necessary to secure them? Answer-by accepting the compromiserand signing it, They did accept it and I believe evry man at the meeting informed Mr. Christie that he would call and sign it at his office-The form of the Scrip was deemed a secondary matter, for if they did not obtain the form required, they concluded they would sooner rely upon the compromise without it and trust to the future Justice of the Government to grant scrip in a proper form. If you deny the right of those who enter into a contract with you to express an opinion as to the mode of executing that contract. You may as well at once delcare to the world that all contracts which you may make afterwards, are to be null and void at your pleasure, for if a contract is not faithfully executed it is violated. So far as Col. Gray & myself are concerned at least the contract was signed and completed by us, no further act remained to be done by us to make it binding, and because the contractors ventured to express the opinion that the form of scrip offered does not conform to the contract, are not only they to be punished for this presumtion, tho' they accept the compromise, but those too who have actually long previously ratified and signed it. A Government if not answereble to law, will if Just, act upon the same principles as if it were. Suppose then this case were to come into the court of Justice, what would be the plea for abrogating the contract- answer-that the lenders did not consider themselves bound by it- they having neglected it when tendered to them, the Government was no longer bound. This plea would be sound if founded in fact, but is it so? Do they not declare that the Government has acted with honor in making the compromise, and is not the inference that they accepted it verry clear? Nothing more is wanting but their signatures, and if they did not sign it, it was the result of carelessness, for I know that those who were present had determined to do so. Now if the compromise be accepted, which stipulates how the Scrip shall be issued and when it comes to issueing the scrip, the parties differ as to the form which embraces the terms of the compromise is this difference of opinion such a crime as to merit a forfeit11re of the contract which has been accepted? Would a court of Justice so determine it, or would it say if the terms cannot be condensed to suit both parties, the whole instrument must be embraced and then no difference of opinion can exist I imagine you will admit the latter, then wherefore should your Government do otherwise? No good reason I think can be given except that it has the power to do as it pleases and will exercise it. I instance such a case as a strong one, to put the matter in a strong lighr, not believing however that your Govern·
268
Powered by FlippingBook