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

ly Destroyed by an enemy Is not 10 be paid for, up
on two grounds; first, because such destruction is
contrary TO the law Of nationsi second, because
such payments would INDUCE an enemy to destroy
property IN order 10 exhaust III treasury, and thus
prevent the raising and supporting Of fleets and ar
mics. lie gives a third reason, the frauds that
would be practised upon the government after a
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 Vance's
report in the celebrated case of General Herman.
desi
SIT Isl principal duty Of governments to protect
private citizens IN the enjoyment of their rights, so
lar as It may be in their power. This obligation is
not confined 10 cases Of public and foreign enemies
nor TO the security of such persons and property as
may be within the territorial limits Of the State; but
II extends 10 every species of injury wherever the
national sovereignty exists The obligation to pro-
lect, does not carry with il the obligation 10 make
good all losses which may arise from failure to full
NJ this duty. The government does not insure the
eiuzen against loss OF property, or injury Of per-
son, from the acts Of foreign enemies, or domes-
tic violence, or individual acts Of frand or force"
1T Is our duty TO administer Justice with an even
handi and If General Hernandez be paid this claim
out OF the treasury, why should we not, upon the
same principle, make good the losses which have
been sustained by the unfortunate sufferers from
similar injuries, during all foreign and Indian wars
silce, anu even before the ToVOluuOm
"How many thousands Of the adventurous pio
neers, who have led the way civilization has ad-
vsneed westward, have been reduced from plenty to
restitution, and from affuence TO poverty to say
nothing OF the cruel mass6cres Of the unarmed and
the defenceless3 Upon what argument can this gov
eminent stand justified in Withholding compensa-
ton TO those sufferers, If 1t be granted here Why
should those who were driven out into the wilder
ness, houseless and homeless, in the back settle.
ments, during the revolutionary war, and in the
northwest during the Indian wars be denied relief
II the principle upon which this claim rests be sane
TONED hs OF binding forceI Shall we now under
take to make compensation for all the property de-
stroyed by the Indians since the revolution
"No one can contemplate these cases without feel
ing deep and strong sympathy for the sufferers
Looking at single and isolated cases we are prompt
ed by the best feelings Of our nature TO relieve Bat
when We consider that we are required TO admins
ter justice Impartaly and upon fixed and general
principles, considerations Of paramount importance
compel US TO deny ourselves the pleasure OF reliey-
ing one sufferer when we cannot relieve all. An
application for relief for losses by Indian depreda-
tons came before the Senate as early as 1900 The
committee TO which that was referred, in their
report, say:
KNOWING that an immense number Of citizens
OF the United States have been plundered Of proper.
ty TO very great amount, both by land and sea- in the
same unwarrantable manner; and believing that the
be commensurate to meet the demands of applicants
IN similar cases should compensation be made in
this, the committee of opinion it would lie mex
pedlent TO open extensive field, and therefore,
that the prayer Of the memoriallsl cannot be grant
ed '-(See American State Papers, volume Claims,
page 222)
AT that early day it was thought that, if the
principle Chen and now contended fOr) were admit
ted, II would open door for claims upon the treas
ury, which would very nearly absorb the entire
enues of the government Since that day, they
have accumulated to extent far beyond the in
coming revenue; and though many Of the claims,
on account OF the death and dispersion of the claim
ants and their witnesses, 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 was shut in the year 1900
against paying for property wantonly destroyed by
an enemy.
Hence, now when the greater part Of The claim
ants are dead, shall that door be opened II we
let IN class, shall be able TO bar out the bal
ance? II those persons who lost property by the
French to be paid, shall not those who lost
property by the Indians be paid also' If So where
is the money to be got' Surely Mr.. Polk was
wisely employ ed when engaged IN securing the
bolts and bars Of this door through which would
flow in such multitude Of claims!
In this oplnlon-the propriety and wisdom of
keeping the door shut-Gov Vance and Mr.. Whit
tlesey concur. See the following from the pen Of
Governor Vance in proof thereof and also as show
ing a second decision Of Congress, made 81 years
ago. IN accordance with the principles of the veto:
Fourteen years after the rejection of the claim
by Congress, the claimant again petltioned Congress
for reet, and submitted all of the papers support
of the claim that now presented for the action OF
this committee. The petition was referred by the
House TO the Committee Of Claims, where it seems
to have received thorough examination, and was
fully reDOrtel hV he thrpuoh
the Hon. E. Whittlesey. That report,
which fully sets forth the merits of the claim, and
which is adopted and made part of this report,
closes by remarking that the loss is a severe one,
and one the committee would recommend to the ia.
vorabe consideration Of Congress- if they could do so
ichom riolating the rules established by Congress
In this sentiment of Mr.. Whittlesey this committee
fully concur. AT this late day, (neary 80 years
after the war, numerous claims still before Con-
gress, involving similar principles with the claim
now under consideration; and the adoption by Con-
gress Of conclusion different from that to which
the committee have arrived ,oould open a door to
most extensive appropriations TO individuals from
the national treasury. The principle involved has
been repeatedly and deliberately discussed, and de-
liberately settled by law and toouid to be al
,oar ,oh sound policy TO reverse at this late day, in
the absence Of any national object to be gained By such
reversal The principal and the his
tory of its adoption, and of its final settlement in
1926, thus briefly set forth by Mr.. Whittlesey,
in his report upon this case ten years ago:
."By the laws Of 1916 and 1925, one essential re-
9usIte for the claimant PROVE entitle her the
benefits Of either Of those laws, was, that her house
or building Vas occupied as barracks, place Of
military deposte, by the order Of an officer Claimants
had found much fault with the restrictions imposed
by the law Of 1916. Perhaps no section of coun-
try suffered than the Niagara frontier by the
devastating torch Of the enemy. The representa-
tive from that district (the Hon. Albert II. Tracy
took deep interest in behalf of his constituents,
and urged upon Congress the passage of some law
for their relief, after the act of 1Sl6'l7 had expired
When the bill was before Congress in 1926, various
attempts made TO renew the provisions Of the
act OF 1916, so far that act made any compensa-
ton TO those who had lost their buildings by their
being destroyed by the enemy. After long and
able discussion, the act of 1926 passed-a
amendments having been rejected for enlarging the
class of cases. for relaxing the rules of evidence
The committee think, if these principles and rules shall
be broken do,on, that all the rejected claims miH be pre-
sened again, and that all The legislation upon The subject
uiH hare been in uain. The committee think there
is not evidence of military occupation Of any Of the
buildings mentioned
"Entertaining these views Of the merits and of the