Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1848-12-30

sucon was means Of preservation to other property,
to be applied to such that before the Senate
seems to me it would be establishing principle that would
pay for all the property destroyed by invading army,
well as for all property destroyed prevent its falling into the
hands OF the enemy trust, therefore, that you will not
tend the principle to this latter description Of cases The
reason why think there should be discrimination made be-
tween the which have given and the before the
Senate is this in the the flames consuming the
property, which fact is asceraned by positive proof and
duced 10 such certainty leave doubt the mind OF
any body while in the other the property in question
having been scattered along the whole country II suly
impossible have the facts presented with sufficient cearnes
and certainty show precisely how the matter stands In
all these heretofore presented the testimony has been
entirely er parfe.
Sir we have what cali feshets sometimes out in the
West which do much mischief to the nhabtantsfreshes
which overflow the river bottoms and destroy the crops Of
corn and other grains, and carry of stock and sometimes
there little hillock these bottoms which the neigh
boring stock collect themselves they retreat from the food
but where they still exposed not only to the encroachng
waters but inevitable starvation Now, suppose property
to be found in such condition by benevolent ndv
dual who would say, it is better kill these cattle than to
leave them remain here and starve be drowned in the river
Suppose that, under these circumstances, he actually kills
them and sued for damages In the estimate of damages
you must take into consideration the probabilities Of saving
s ...@rtv om the food and if the jury should be con-
WINGED that they would have sweep away y
the rising river persisted from starvation they would come
to the conclusion that the property was really worth little or
nothing. Now, the principle which would direct judy
in estimating the value of these cattle is precisely SINH
lar that which should guide in the before the
Senate for if you allow this claim you make no considea
ton of the circumstances under which the property
placed upon which the claim is founded The only ques-
ton must be, what the actual value of the property
should be extremely sorry to see this principle prevail in the
Legislation of the country.
Sir have suggested these things time and again, in my
humble way, to the consideration Of the Senate and Iret
crate them the grounds which, in my judgment,
this class Of claims ought not to be allowed How do these
principles apply to the before us Here was vessel
4 NJ. tho aiefip
from the claim for Robert Waaces horse, which the
other day presented from the other side Of the chamber
and advocated with much ability
/ Mr.. UNDERWOOD. Yes, sir, can very soon show
the distinction between these But if could not, it
would affect my argument for insisted upon that claim
application Of the principle adopted in the Center case
1t will be recoected that did not fix any value TO the pro-
perry upon which that claim founded, under the ccum-
stances in which it placed. All that said then am
willing say only intended to carry out rule which
the Senate had already established and which bad been
ssng all along but which, established, should be applied
equally all this class Of cases. without making any dstinc-
ton The mind of that individual must be very obuse IN
deed that the difference between the case OF al
lace aid this claim Of Baldwin. Wallace was subordinate
officer whose duty obey the commands of his
peror who has right command him and under the d.
recon Of that superior officer, he compelled give up his
property without being allowed any chance light and de-
fend it. Whereas the principle which advocate would
compel the citizen to stand up and defend hispropery
the Senator the distinction between these cases.
argument is useless, and might well take ny seat.
But sir let apply these principles to the case before
This vessel stranded the of Flori An officer
of the United States navy hearing of the wreck and suppo-
sing there might be something valuable In It, when
might Obtain ordered to be burnt Now if dis officer sup
posed this vessel ought to be burnt TO prevent the Indians
from manning sailors and cruising theGulf his head
must have had soft place in il any bead could well
bear. II be could have imaged such thne he not fiji
to command in either the army navy the United States
What the particular circumstances which induced him to
have the vessel burnt do not know perhaps veil others
falling into the hands of the Indians II might have been
prevent the property from falling into their hands The pro-
perry would have fallen into their hands Isuppose, at any
rate. How much the property on board w worth the
port does not show if does has escapedny recollection.
If it shows any thing, them it is that we should pay The
value Of the vessel itself.
Mr.. WESTC0TT. No. no. The case is, as have before
distinctly stated and read from the papers, th this does
claim single account Of the vahc Of the
for the whole but only for that portion of the cargo
board-the rigging, anchors and lead-wch, but for the
order to burn the vessel might have been sad will
to the Senator that there probability whatsoever
: Of getting the hulk of the vessel Off
Mr. UNDERWOOD. II then comes NOR fairly into my
principle than expected The Senator says be does ask
for the value Of the vessel The Indians could
have for the vessel They might have made use Of
the lead and other articles TO be found board and doubt
less would have taken hem Now, sir the question before
is this where the difference to the whether the
Indians take the lead and apply il their USE
whether the officer by burning the vessel melted the lead
and sunk the whole in the gulf-where is the difference
owner mas ne sustained the de-
srucon Of his lead by the burning than he would
had fallen The hands the Indansi None what
You then propose pay this the full value Of the
lead, without regard the circumstances which should right
fully diminish its value which value have upon
by citing analogous have endeavored show that
under certain circumstances the lead would have been worth
less But the lead has been destroyed mgh have been
appropriated by these Indans and be held
that you ought TO pay for it. upon the ground that had the
Indians got possession OF it. they might have made good
Of il for themselves by shooting citizens and sohers with
it,Rhen their country invaded by them. What want
TO say of this principle that, if you determined
abish ~ to engra upon the Legislation Of the country
for for carrying out in the Of the claim for
Robert allaces horse and every other claim where the
principle applies But until the principle shall become firmly
established, | shall oppose it,
Mr. WESTC0TT. regret that the Senator from Ken.
lucky has not made himself more particularly acquainted with
the facts in this cases for satisfied that with the candor
and intelligence which he brings into the review any case
ne could not fail 10 that the principle he discusses here
totally inappcabe this The principle ohs case
would also TO the honorable Senator has cer connex-
ion with that in the Of Wallace and his hor which he
advocated the other day. than he willing toadm For
my part, cannot any difference in the cases. saving that
IN the matter Of Wallace his propery-the hofsewas
burnt will briefly recall the attention of the Senate 10 the
facts IN this in order show that the honorable Senator
from Kentucky has totally msconceived peculiar bearing
y This Is not parallel with that Of Center; it Is
much stronger Let state IT, Spanish vessel is
wrecked on the Of Florida her cargo all taken Key
West with the exception Of two Of lead the anchors
rigging and few other articles and there sold for the bene-
nj OF The underwriters Of the Spanish The wreck