Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1820-03-24

per Accounting Officers be instructed TO de-
duct from the value OF each horse the amount
received, or which each proprietor is autho-
rised to receive, for the use and risque of the
same.
This motion brought on short debate on
the merits of the bill, between Mr.. Plea
SAINTS, in opposition to it in its present shape,
and Mr.. Eaton and Mr.. Williams, of Ten.
in support of the bill-the first named gen.
tleman contending that il was not proper
that the volunteers should receive pay for
the risk and use of the horses, amounting in
many instances Ito the entire value oil the
horse, and then to be paid, in addition, the
full price in case of the loss of the horse
that it would be much better for the govern
ment in the first instance to buy the horses,
and after performing the service, sell such
as we've lett, sc. Itwas notjust either, that
the price OF the horse should be estimated at
his value when he entered the service, but
according to his worth after he had perform
ed the service for which the per diem al
lowance of 40 cents was intended to pay,
&c. :,
Mr.. Eaton thought it incorrect as we'll as
unusual to bring forward such motion on
the third reading Of bill, after it had been
fully discussed, and its principles understood
and sanctioned by majority of the Senate.
The documents lately printed by the other
house disclosed but one fact that bore on the
subiect-that in relation to the pay tor
clothing that this fact was now provided
for in the bill, and that it might be very
safely left to the accounting officers OF the
Treasury. From full and impartial exa-
mination Of the subject, MIR. E. believed
the provisions of the bill were most equita-
bic, and that justice would not be done to
large and patriotic class OF citizens, unless
it were passed He took view Of the act
of 1917 authorising this force, to shew that
the claims grew out of fair contract with
the government, and that the faith OF the GO
yernment would be violated unless they
were paid-that the per diem allowance was
merely for the risk OF casualties. and wear
and tear of the horses-not to indemnify
their loss, when that loss was produced by
the failure OF the government to provide
subsistence for them, &c.
Mr.. Williams, OF Tennessee, observed that
the FIRST law passed to make compensation
for horses killed in battle, was in l795-the
horses were valued at the time they went IN
10 the service. The law OF 1916 was IN
conformity 10 the law of 1895 and the prac-
tice under it; and this bill accorded with
the laws aud with the usage of the country
down to the present time and why, he
wished to know, was an invidious distinc-
ton now to be made between the claims OF
Tennessee and those heretofore allowed Ia
all other parts of the Union Such dis
tinction, Mr.. w. said was unjust and impoli-
tic. And what, he asked, would be the
feelings of the people of Tennessee, under
sense Of SO invidi"us and unjust distinction?
The former laws granting similar indemnity
were received with universal appreciation by
the people, and as there was no good reason
for Withholding the same measure OF justice,
in this case, as in others, he hoped the bill
would be permitted to pass
Mr.. Pleasants assured the gentlemen that
he was as free from prejudice in the present
case, as any man in the Senate. So far from
wishing to make an invidious distinction "a
gainst the people of Tennessee, he said they
had proved in The late war with England, as
well as in the wars with the Indians, that
their valor entitled them to the highest niche
in the temple of American fame. He pro-
ceeded to say that he was not present when
the bill was discussed on the second read
ing, and had no wish to throw unnecessary
obstacles in its way. But he did think that
when these volunteers got paid the full va
lue of the services of their horses, they had
been paid enough and if they are now to
receive the full price for those lost, the for
mer allowance ought to be deducted, or that
the value ought to be estimated when they
came out of service, not when they went in,
because the din inished value produced by
the service had been paid for by the daily
compensation, &c.
Mr.. Eaton replied, and Mr.. Peasants re-
81 a.