Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-09-10
From the Washington Union.
French Solicitations

tedtHnS duFtiB tItS CettuTy-rR-: on Hon. Elisha
WhiHesey, Governor Vance, (lrho as The Oldest
member in the House,) Hon. Mr.. Cosren, (the
brother Of the learned Judge Co,een, Of Ne1 York;
Hon. Mr.. Ramsey, of Pennsylvania, and eren 5I
Mr. j. X GiddiHgs, The abOliiiOnist!!
| have carefully read the veto message of Presi-
dent Polk upon the bill for the payment of damages
sustained by citizens, prior 10 1900, from the
unprovoked spoliations of the French. | have also
read the able speech of Col Benton in support of the
veto, and that Of senator Clayton in defence Of the
BILL
Mr.. Polk is clearly and demonstrably right, and as
have some means at my command to show it, will
do so. | shall, however, pursue different method
from that followed either by Mr.. Polk or Col Benton
and although have neither their ability nor their skill
to call to my aid, hope be able make the justice
and the necessity of the nterposition of the veto
manifest and clear TO the understanding of the most
Iillterate In the science of government
set out with the general proposition, that neither
this nor any other civilized nation guaranteed
the property of its citizens against the hand of exter-
nal violence.
The United States did not pay for the property be-
longing to Americans, destroyed, either upon the sea
upon the land by the British during the Revolu-
tionary war. The losses almost as numerous
as the little ncghborhood settlements, and the value
of the property destroyed both upon the and upon
the land, was very great. The distress occasioned
by the savage depredations committed by the British
during that desoating war, it is altogether beyond
power to appreciate Yet the property thus des-
troyed was not paid for by the United States.
Can any oPposer of the veto assign a good reason
why that property was not paid for by the United
States
Immense quantities of property were destroyed by
the Indians prior and subsequent to the defeat of
General ST. Clair.
Can an opposer of the veto tell why the United
States did not pay the value of it to the owners!
After the breaking out of the French revolution in
1793 "a, '95, '96, 97 '9S and go vast amounts of
property of American citizens were seized by the
French, British Spanish and Tripoitan and Algerne
cruisers.
Why did not the United States pay its value to the
spoliated citizensl
During the of 1912, large amounts of private
property wantonly destroyed by the British and
Indians.
Why were not the owners Of that property indem-
ni6ed by the United States
In of these cases did the United States indem-
Nifty the citizens for their losses. will let Governor
Vance mot Mr.. Polk "give the reason Why" his
authority certainly ought TO be conclusive with the
wings.
An American citizen, by the name of John Robin
son, had house and other property worth 81 4l0,
destroyed on tie Niagara frontier ON the 18Th of
December 1913 by the British He petitioned Con-
gress to indemnify him for his loss; he thought il
the duty of government to protect his property
and if it failed to do So that he ought be paid the
value of what was destroyed by the public enemy
The petition referred by the House TO the Com
mttee of Claims and Gov. Vance made the following
report. Read ii carefully
"Cais for remuneration for losses inflicted by public
enemy have been frequently presented and the subject
become familiar 10 those who have been called upon
anime them. Certain principles. having their foundation in
the great code Of public law, have been established ic
furnish precise and distinct rules by rhich ds-
crption to be examined and adudged By these prlc-
Ps and 6y the practice Of the government the doctrine that
the nation TO compensate all losses sustained by citizen
from the public enemy, has been distinctly repudiated No
such obligation imposed upon by any
10 IA ifs
the of considerable would prove
to defray the charges the national treasury which the
discharge OF such an obligation would impose upon during
the continuance of long and desolatng In public
war; every citizen an object of hostility to the common
foe and must submit TO those Inconvenience losses
DANGERS to which he IN common with other individual
in the community is exposed.
"The committee, therefore, respectfully report to the
House, for its adoption, the following resolution:
ResOfUed, That the prayer of the petition rejected
-Ho Rep No. 499, LIST sess. 2Sth Con.
This is the true doctrine. Congress is not bound
to pay losses occasoned by the shameful spolations
of the French, British, Spanish, Algernes Neapo-
tans, Peruvians, Mexicans. But when those ma
tions plumber our commerce, the administration en-
deavors, by negotiation, to obtain reparation for
spoliaed merchants; and, if successful, brings home
the sum obtained and divides ii amongst those who
have been plundered. But If unsuccessful, the gov
eminent does not indemnify them out of its olen
it fails to get it, the pc - kxed to make up
to them those losses winch the United States failed to
persuade force other nations to indemnify.
In other words, the government of the United
States guards but does not the property of the
citizens thereof against external and internal
lence.
A civilized enemy violates the rules of war as
recognised among civilized nations, if he wantony
destroys priraIs property. Note this doctrine
Hence, mans property is safe, and he has moth
ing to fear from invading foe unless that foe
lates the law of nations
Hence, again, if the United States take mans
house and convert ii into fort, barracks magazine,
arsenal, deposite, it, by such act, becomes public
property; 1t loses It's private character and may
fully be destroyed by an enemy. house thus taken
by the United States for public use and destroyed by
enemy because thus used, must therefore be paid
for by the United States for the constitution itself
makes provision to that effect. A law-making pro-
vision to this effect passed by Congress in 1916
Mr.. Cary, OF Maine In commenting upon a prl-
vate claim before Congress says, and it should be
specially noted, it contains the views of Mr.
Whittlesey:
That these buildings were ever used by the Authorized
agents of this government forts barracks aTsena mill
taTy stoehoues military depos and as snct
sr1o his committee have seen
evidence Of a character 10 command belief The marching
of companies Of militia through farm, settlement
country does not warrant an invading enemy TO destroy
such farm settlement and county, though such troop
purchase and cook food at the places through whc
they PASS otherwise enemy would find authority to de
vssiae all invaded county through which he drove
Tereaing force.
"Mr WhittIesey, in commenting upon a proposition Z
extend the provisions Of the law Of 1916, with gea
force and prOpIiey:
The question rAised lin 1861 whether pFOpert
destroyed by the enemy not in the military service Of N
United States should be paid fort and decided IN tn
negative principally the ground that the act oil the ene
was wanton and unauthorized by modern warfare oet~ee
civilized nations and that such payment might induce
enemy h0se object would be to exhaust the resources OF IN
government lay waste the country polluted by his mac
Another reason entitled much weight If all pro
pey to be paid for that an enemy might destroy n