Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-12-31

extracts from history to sustain his asser, ;o
that they had uniformly acted on a stem of nil
laSe and iesolation. lie ad lucci the march O
L Cornwai''s, the attack on New London, tn
Sestruct,ono ION boarl the iison shi,,s &c TO SHOW
The spirit ot 'in siciivcness " dastarliy revenge
winch had actuated the enemy at that time |,
the late war, also, he quoted from the same his
torian, the character aud conduct of Adunra
Cochrauc, The disposition which he displayed il
the chesapeake, in February, 1919. 1t was in
1915, That this Admiral acted so as to iistif,
tne censure OF the historian, by the attack on
frenchtown, the destruction of houses all alone
the BAY, the burning Of IIavre de Grace, the
destruction of Georgetown and Frcdercktown
&c. Nc. He assorted that, after these acts, per-
petrated in the early part of the year 1918, the
destruction OF Newark i'm the December of the
sameycar by ourtroops, was entirely justGable.
Nay, u the Anlcrlcantroops had DESTROYED every
place on the British side of the Canadian from
ter, they would have been ustifed.-But our
government disaroyed the destruction of New-
ark; and this alone took away the right OF The
enemy to retaliatc. General Mcclure stated
that the destruction of Newark was necessary;
but he gave sufficient notice TO tho inhabitants
to save themselves before it took place, 6, to re
move their effects. The enemy hadactcd with no
such moderation. He laid waste without hesi-
tation Or remorse. He (Mr. W. could not
speak of the conduct of the enemy at that time
an terms OF moderation. TWAS brutal and sa-
wage. He put the case of a house occupied by
the military in this city. Ifthat house was des-
troyed by the firing red-hot shot into the city, i'm
common with other dwellings,, he denied that
any claim could be made out against the u. S.
unless the occupation of the said house was the
cause of IFS destruction. He resisted the idea
that the government was bound to give recon-
pense TO the citizens of the Niagara frontier
no payment had yet been made for losses in
CURED during the late war. Our merchants
had sustained heavy losses under the Berlin and
Milan DEGREES, yet no restitution had been
made. lie denied, therefore, that the claimants
for whose relief the present bill was intended,
had any claim for relief. 1t was implied that
we must either make restitution for such losses
as these or gain 1t from the enemy. Did the
gentleman intend to say, that wherever an in
dvdual had sustained the loss of a thousand or
even i million, we must take the risk of a war
which might cost hundred millions or re-
fund tue amount vi the loss ourselves? He OPP
posed every such doctrine.
The gentleman from New York relied on the
merit of the claim of the citizens on the Nigga
IA frontier. He denied that their suderings had
been so great as was represented. They had
settled on that frontier Tor commercial purposes,
and during the prosperity Of that part of the
country, they made more money than would
have compensated for the loss OF ali their hou-
scs. The British had set up the plea of retalia-
ton, in Justification of the rayages. which ,hey
had committed; but the dclicacy of their no
tives, and the fineness of their feelings NAV be
appreciated by their brutal conduct in the
Chesapeake. He Judged of their motives from
their actions, and these were evidence that
their motives were yindictiye, cruel, and in
hostility TO every noble and exalted feeling.
He was of opinion that this bill ought not to
pass. itwopid cause a heavy drain upon our
Treasury, and would stand as precedent for
future bills without limit.
He had always opposed the principle of
the law OF 1916. 1t was true, that in 818, the
committee OF Claims had reported in favor of
some restitution, but 1t was on the ground of
charity-it was a gratui.y. He concluded with
an apology for troubling the House.
Mr.. Cambrcleng said, that however he and
the gentleman from North Carolina differed on
many points, they at least agreed the sub
ject of the atrocious excuses committed by the
enemy during the late He believed, how
ever, that the only difference between them was
as to the application of the principle of occupa-
ton: for, 60 the principle itself, that occupa-
ton constituted claim for compensation, they
did not appear to differ. lie read an extract
from letter of General Porter, to shew the mil
j:ary character of the occupation of the house
on the Niagara frontier. In 1916, a law was
passed in this house-the principle never was
doubtcd--ani in 1917, another bill was intro
ducod on tha ground that the Commissioner had
carried the principle too far. He would never
contend that any government was bound to pay
for all the expenses incidental to war; but he
did contend that wheresoeyer small tract of
country was occupied by the military and, in
consequence of that occupation, was destroyed,
the government was bound to pay for the same.
He never before knew that we had destroy cd
Newark On the ground OF retaliation.
Ge always hal thought tue destruction OF
the villages on the Niagara frontier, had been
according TO the usages of war. Ie did not
wish 10 go into the laws Of Europe as TO the
right OF citizens; the situation of Europe was
sSlch 10 destroy The applicability OF such refer
ence to our country. 1t was the hardship of
the inhabitants OH this frontier to have been in
yadci IN ns lead OF winter; they hal been left
exposed to the enemy, who had rushed upon
them aud destroyed their villages. Hereafter
he had no apprehension that our country would
be invaded. Hereafter our battles will be on
the oceaa. Invasion AMI the dread of invasion
perished together on the plains of New Orleans.
He hope1 the house would consider the suffer-
ings ofthc people on ibis frontier and pass the
bill. He moved that the committee rise
The committee then rose, reported progress,
AMI obtained leave - sit agar
w e extract the following from Snoydcn'5 y