The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-08-25

TO THE EDITOR OF THE UNION.

/
Elisha WhinIsssy, Governor Vance, (,0ho Is The oldest
member nOio Ia the HouSs,) Hon. Mr., CO'osn, (ths
brother Of the learned Judge COtOeIl, Of NsU York;
Hon Mr.. Ramsey, Of PENN yipania, and sUtn by Mr.
j. X Giddings, the abOih0nistN
have carefully read the veto message or Prtsi-
dent Polk upon the bill for the payment OF damages
sustained by our citizens, prior TO leO0, from the
unproyoked 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,
J Will do so. | shall, however, pursue different
method from that followed either by Mr.. Polk
Col Benton; and although have neither their abll-
ny nor their skill to call to my aid, ! hope To
be able TO make the justice and the necessity Of the
lnterposltion of the veto manifest and clear 10 the
understanding Of the most illterae IN the science Of
government.
set out with the general proposition, that neither
this nor any other civilized nation ever guaranteed
the property of It's citizens against the hand of ex-
ternal violence.
The United States did not pay for the property,
belonging to Americans, destroyed, either upon the
sea or upon the land by the British during the rev.
loluuonary war. The losses were almost hume
rous as the little neighborhoOd settlements, and the
value OF the properly destroyed both upon the sea
and upon the land, was very great. The distress
| occasloDed by the savage depredations committed
by the British during that desolatng war is alto
geIher beyond our power to appreciate. Yet the
property thus destroyed was not paid for by the
| United States.
Can any oPposer Of the veto assign 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 the defeat Of
General ST. Clair
Can an opooser of the veto tell why the United
States did not pay the value of it to the owners
/ ~ IFaa 4 - rI.s.-
in 1893, lisa, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1893,
vast amounts OF property of American citlzens were
seized by the French. British, Spanish and Tripod
| ltan and Algerine cruisers.
| Why did not the United States pay its value to
| the spoliated citizensi
During the war of 1912, large amounts of private
property were wantonly destroyed by the BRUSH
and Indians.
Why were not the owners of that property in
Identified by the United States
In none Of these cases did the United States in.
demnfy the citizens for their losses will let Gov
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, 440,
destroyed on the Niagara frontier on the 18Th of
| December, 1918, by the British. He peutIoned
Congress to indemnify him for his loss; he thought
It was the duty of government to protect his prop
erty, and II II failed to do so, that he ought to be
paid the value Of what destroyed by the pub
lie enemy. The petition was referred by the House
TO the Committee of Claims, and Gov Vance made
the following report. Read 1t carefully!
| "Claims Tor remuneration for losses inflicted by
public enemy have been frequently presented, and
the subject mas become familiar to those who have
| been called upon 10 examine them. Certain pTin-
cpes, having their foundation in the great code of
public law, have been established tOhich furnish pre-
else and distinct rules bu ichich cases Of this description
IA he "a.
and by the practice OF the government the doctrine that
The nation IS 10 compensate all losses sustained by the CIT
iEen from N. public enemy has been distinctly Ttpudid
ted. No such obligation Is imposed upon the gov
| eminent by any system of law, and no nation has
ever assumed its existence the revenues Of no CON
siderable nation would prove adequate to defray the
charges upon the national treasury, which the dis
charge Of such an obligation would impose upon it
during the continuance of long and desoating war
In public war, every citizen Is an object of hostl
ty to the common foe, and must submit those in
coLveniences, losses, and dangers 10 which he, in
common with every other individual in the commu-
nifty, Is exposed.
The committee, therefore, respectfully report to
the House, fer its adoption, the following resou
uon:
RESOLVED, That the prayer Of the petition be re-
ected. "-Ho. Rep. No. 499 lst sess. 2Sth Con.
This is the true doctrine. Congress is not bound
to pay losses occasioned by the shameful spoliaons
of the French, British, Spa ish, Agerines, Neapo-
itans, Peruvians Mexicans But when those
nations plumber our commerce, the administration
endeavors, by negotiation, TO obtain reparatIon for
our spoated merchants; and, if successful, brings
home the sum obtained and divides 1t amongst those
who have been plundered. But, if unsuccessful,
the government does not indemnify them out of It's
treasury; it labors TO obtain justice for them,
but if it fails to get it, the people not taxed to
make up to them those losses which the United
States failed to persuade or force other nations to in
demnfy.
In other words, the government of the United
States guards, but does not insure the property of
the citizens thereof, against external and internal
violence.
civilized enemy violates the rules of war as
recognised among civilized nations, If he wantonly
destroys private property. Note this doctrine.
Hence mans property is safe and he has
nothing to fear from invading foe nles, that foe
violates the law of nations.
Hence, again, if the United States take mans
house and convert it into fort, barracks magazine
arsenal, deposite, it, by such act, becomes public
properly; it loses its private character, and may law
fully be destroyed by enemy. A house thus
taken by the United States for public use, and de-
stroyed by enemy because thus used, must there
fore be paid for by the United Staeso for the
sttution itself makes provision to that effect
law making provision to this effect was passed by
Congress in 1916
Mr. Cary, of Maine, in commenting upon a pr-
vae claim before Congress says, and it should be
specially noted, as II contains the views OF Mr.
Whittesey:
"That these buildings ever used by the
authorized agents Of this government forts, bar
racks, arsenals, military store-houses, magazines or
military depots, and, SUCH usu6ably desroyable
according to the laws of war, as recognised by civil
lied nations, this committee have seen evidence
of character to command belief. The marching
Of companies of militia through farm, a set
Element, or a country, does warrant invading
enemy to destroy such farm, settlement, and coun-
try, even though such troops were to purchase and
cook food at the places through which they pass;
otherwise, an enemy would find authority to devas-
tate all of the invaded country through which he
drove retreating force
"Mr. Whittlesey, in commenting upon propo-
sition 10 srtend the provisions of the law Of 1876
says with great force and propriety:
"The question was raised Tin 1861 whether
property destroyed by the enemy, not in The military
service ofe United States, should be paid for; and it
was decided in the negative, principally on the
ground that the act of the enemy wanton and
unauthorized by modern warfare between civilized