Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-09-10


the government after lapse of seventeen years.
What would he not have said, if the claims had been
? forty-six years old
But have even stronger doctrine than this. Read
the following extracts from Governor Vances report
in the celebrated case Of General Hernandez:
principal duty Of governments protect private
citizens In the eynen Of their rights, so far as 1t may be
in their power. This obligation not confined TO OF
public and foreign enemies the security Of such
sons and property may be within the territorial limits Of
the States but il extends every species Of injury wherever
the national sovereignty exists The obligation protect
does not carry with the Obligation 10 make good all luses
which may aIise from failure 10 fulfil this duty The
government does not insurethe citizen against loss Of
perty or injury Of person. foeign enemies
or domestic violence individual acts Of fraud oTee
1t duty 10 administer Justice with hand
and if General Hernandez be paid this claim out Of The
Treasury, why should not the principle, make
good the losses which have been sustained by the
sufferers from similar injuries dung all foreign and Indian
wars since, aud even before the revolution
How many thousands Of the adventurous pioneers who
led the way civilization has advanced westward have
been reduced plenty restitution, and from auence
to poyery-to say nothing Of the cruel Of the
and the deenceleSs Upon what argument this
government, stand justified in withholding compensation to
those sufferers, If il be granted here Why should hlse
who were driven into the wilderness, houseless and
homeless the back settlements during the revolutionary
war; and in the northwest during the Indian be denied
relief if the principle upon claim be
toned Of binding force Shall we now undertake to
make compensation for all the property destroyed BY the
Indians since the revolution
contemplate these without feeling deep
and strong sympathy for the sufferers Looking at single
our to relieve. But when we consider that We
required administer justice mParaly and upon fixed aud
general principles considerations Of paramount importance
compel us deny ourselves the pleasure Of relieving
sufferer cannot relieve all An application fo
lief for by Indian depredations before the Sen
ate early 1900 The committee to which that
referred in their report, say;
"Knowing that an immense number of citizens Of tie
United States have been plundeTed Of property very
great amount both By land and in the
BILE manner believing that the whole Of the
United States would scarcely be commensurate 10 meet the
of tim
be this, the committee Of 0pnion il would be
nexpeden open extensive field, and Therefore that
the prayer Of the memOriast cannot be granted See
American State Papers volume Claims, page 222
Il AT that early day il thought that, if the principle
thcn and contended for admitted, it would open
door for claims upon the treasury, which would very nearly
absorb the entire OF the government Since that
day. they accumulated TO extent far beyond the in
coming revenues and though many Of the cams
Of the death and dispersion of the claimants and their wit
would not be established yet enough would be found
to create an immense debt"
| Governor Vance has furnished proof in the fore
going that the door shut in the year 1900 against
paying for property wantonly destroyed by enemy.
i Hence, now when the greater part of the claimants
are dead shall that door be opened If we let in
one class, shall be able to bar out the balance If
those persons who lost property by the French are
be paid, shall not those who lost property by the In
dams be paid also! If where is the money TO be got!
Surely MIR. Polk wisely employed when engaged
in securing the bolts and bars of this door through
which would flow in such multitude of claims
In tins OplnIon-tne proprlety ana WISDOM OF Keep
ing the door shut-Gov. Vance and Mr.. Whittlesey
concur. See the following from the pen of Governor
Vance in proof thereof, and also showing second
decision Of Congress- made II years ago, in accord
ance with the principles of the veto:
Fourteen years after the rejection of the claim by Con-
gless the claimant again peOned Congress for relief aud
submitted all OF the papers IN support OF ne csln hat are
presented for the action Of this committee. The petit
ton referred by the House to the Committee Of Claims,
where it seems have received thorough examination,
and fully reported upon by the committee, through its
chaiImn the Hon. F. Whittlesey That report which fully
sets forth the merits OF the claim and which adopted and
part Of this report closes by remarkng that the
loss one, and the committee would recommend
the favorable consideration Of Congress- they could
so trhout roldtng the rules established by Congress- In
this sentiment of Mr. WheSey this committee fully concur.
At this late day. (neary 80 after the war;
claims still before Congress involving similar principles
with the claim under consideration and the adoption
by Congress of conclusion different from that to which the
committee have arrived coud door TO most extensive
appropriations individuals from the national treasury. The
principle involved has been repeatedly and eaboraey dis
cnssed deliberately settled by law and mould
10 be at Nth sound policy TO rsreSe at this tate day.
absence Of any national object TO be gained by such
unPedeued reuersaI The principal and the history Of its
adoption and Of its final settlement in 1885, thus briefly
forth by MI Whesey, in his report upon this ten
nv The laws of 1916 and 1926 one essential requisite for
claimant prove entte her the benefits Of either
laws, that her house building occupied
ne 1rocEs or as Mace of i5arV deposife bU me order
If an officer Claimants had found fault with the
sricons imposed by the law of 1916. Perhaps section
of county suffered anhe Niagara frontier by the
that district 1.-THE Hon. Albert H. Tracy took deep interest
Of his constituents and urged upon Congress the
passage Of law for their relief after the act Of 1916
~ had expired When the bill before Congress 10 1925
various attempts made 10 renew the provisions Of the
Of 1916 far that act made compensation to those
who had lost their buildings by their being destroyed
enemy After a long and able discussion the act Of 1926
passeda amendments having been rejected for enlag
ing the of for relaxing the rules of evidence
The committee think if these principles and rules shaft be
broken dotoa that all the rejected claims rH be presented
again and that all the legislation upon The subject pH hare
hnEf col
military occupation Of any of the buildings mentioned
Entertaining these views of the merits and Of the pn-
cpes govern this case the committee in ths
conclusion Of the committees Of 1920 and Of 1894 and there
fore recommend the House the adoption of the following
resolution;
Is it possible for Mr. Polk be ably sustained
by freshly written arguments than he is by these able
! reports of by-gone years But Mr.. Ramsay gOe:
beyond all of these-he cuts off the French claims
blow, by asserting that Congress has always refused
to pay for personal property destroyed by an enemy
and he is right! Hear him
The COMMITTEES Of Claims ,rhO referred The petition
Of Mrs. Frances SUdnn and others, report:
That the claim Appeals to be unsupported by any testi
mony of a nature TO constitute legal demand upon tho
treasury II the claim had been fully proved-which is
word that the British had destroyed lin the last war; fy
hogsheads Of tobacco belonging TO the petOnerts pymen
would be provisions Of the acts Of 1916
1925 and with the presidents established at various time
by Congress Congress has steadily refused to enlarge tn
for destruction Of personal property By public enemy
II House Report, No. los, ID session, 2SIh Congress.
y In this position he is fully sustained by Governo
h Vance, who says: Z" No claim Of indemnity for per
sona property taken or destroyed 10y The British dur
ing the late war has ever been recognized forming
the basis Of claim on government House Report
|, No. 343, LIST session, 28th Congress-
This is at once full and distinct and shows that tn
y claimants under the vetoed BILL in that view
he cannot be paid. No other personal property has
lie beea maid for F.: WHY SHOULD THIS BE MADE AN Elk
y cEPTIoN Upon the grounds taken by Mr. Ramsey