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

a.. ! a1 ~ IL lima for he acceptance of the State re-
greet that the Senators from Missouri and Illinois Mr. BEs-
TON and Mr.. BHEEsS) not in their Places but must
Mr. UNDERWOOD I will make motion that the con-
alteration Of the bill be postponed till tomorrow and Twill
add that If this motion does not prevail the Senator from
Rhode Island must be prevented from offering his opposition
Mr.. WEsTCOTT. Is the Senator from Rhode Island
any where in the city
Mr.. UNDERWOOD. do not know where he is
Mr.. WESTCOTT The bill might pass for an hour
or So until the Senator shall appear.
Mr.. UNDERWOOD. | apprehend that the Senate Will
adjourn shortly and it will be all the whether the bill
lie over only for an hour or till Tuesday.
Nj. WEsTCOTT. Very well. urge no further OBJ
jefton.
So the consideration of the bill and amendment then
postponed till Tuesday.
JOHN p BALDWIN.
The Senate then proceeded consider the bill for the re-
lief Of John p Baldwin and the report having been read
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr.. President, this claim belongs
to class Of with the principle of which have never
been satisfied since have been member Of Congress
do not know, that until the present session OF Congress
this principle has been discussed may have been dis
ssd at former sessions Of Congress, but if am APP
prized Of the ac Il does appear me that the new principle
upon which this claim is baseo liter looking az y IN al s
various aspects is TO be sanctioned and established by
hoy Of Congress- it will lead to very dangerous results
rise now therefore, in few words, to enter my last pro-
test agaifit II.
Now sir the simple principle involved in the matter is this
that when officer OF the Of the United States
the hands Of the enemy, and the property destroyed in ac
cordance with that ORDER the Government morally bound to
pay for it. deny, sir, that there is any such principle or
that there ought TO be sucha existing Now suppose
il be true that IL the property was abandoned without being
destroyed would have fallen into the hands Of the enemy
and them been destoyedsuppose that to be the case
what has the individual owner Of the property lost Nothing
sir not one What does the Government gain by the
destruction of the property Not cent sir. The only
gain the Government derives from the destruction Of the pro-
perry is, the preventing of enemy from coming into
a. IN IN his
use Sir that the principle you intend to establish, that
when property abandoned because Of the approach OF an
enemy, be destroyed in order prevent its falling into
the possession Of that enemy and that the sufferers by such
destruction be reimbursed for their losses Is that the
principle sir If let us look for moment to the con-
sequences.
ask the Senate this question If the property would in
evaby have been destroyed by the enemy in case had
been abandoned what has the individual Of that
perty lost affirm that he has lost nothing In the case
Of Capt Center you pass bill claiming damages for proper
ty lost in small place called Micanopy. The troops quar-
tered there and all abandoned place. They
could carry all the property in the place away, and acr
cordngy the property remaining was destroyed to prevent It's
falling the hands Of the Indians and portion of be-
ing owned by Center he here for reimbursement for
his loss. Let illustrate with this fact moment Suppose
this property for want of means Of had been
left at Mcanopy, and that in the of an hour after its
abandonment the Indians enter the place and appropriate the
property their USE would the appropriation Of the
property by the Indians their benefit have been equally
much loss Center have it destroyed by the United
+. w, IL
hypothesis that all these bills based say if il be
tue that any the property would have been destroyed
what again ask has the individual owner lost When you
to value and for property destroyed should OF
course, take into consideration the circumstances connected
with its injury and destruction and put to any MEM
Der present. what any article Of property worth in frontier
after the town has been abandoned and left the
of Indians How much would any sensible give for
property left in such a situation What would il bring in
any market upon earth II would be worth nothing sir,
nothing But yet in the allowance Of this class Of
compensate the individual for the full value of his property
when taking the peculiar circumstances in which it was
placed into consideration, you should make individual
transaction, no man living would have given cent for the
property.
has been advanced in this discussion has been argued
the property had been left without being destroyed, it would
have fallen into their possession, and would have enabled
them to prosecute with vgor their campaign besides in
ficing greater amount Of injury upon this country will
admit sir that good Forging ground is always advantage
TO the enemy rich fields wellled barns and good smoker
houses arc Of as'aaess IN the prosecution OF military
campaign not to be depised But is this the principle
that are about to establish, that when country ID
invaded the inhabitants Of that country may burn up the
haysacks kill their buock destroy their houses, and make
with all their property and on from the defence
their country, and afterwards Congress and have tho
Government pay them Tor all the loss they have sustained
such destruction But say you, in this the officer burn
because he found be could not defend the property agains
invading enemy this the difference and this constitutes
the principle upon which you reimburse the sufferer, that
you had not caused the property be destroyed would have
pcen used oy the enemy advanageousy against This
very cowardy principle, nves the people Of the coun
y in Of INVASION abandon their homes and destroy
all their property instead Of manuy meeting and resisting thu
enemy and when they have done that they call upon
Government TO reimburse them for their property upon thu
principle that il they had not done So the enemy would have
taken IL into their possession, and made profit Of it,
Upon that ground is manifest that il makes maera
difference whether the destruction is occasoned by the Office
by the act Of the Of the properynone whatever
that point of for payment for loss sustained will be made
IN either Where is the difference, let ask Here
Is military officer holding possession Of certain location
country, and giving protection the inhabitants residing
there and in the immediate neghborhood An enemy ap
poaches and the officer, fearing that he will not be able 70
maintain his ground ees from the place. marching OFF with
all the people at his heels Now, does il make any differ
ence whether the property owned IN the place destroyed by
the officer or by the Inhabitants TO prevent its falling into the
hands Of the enemy, regards payment for that destroyed
property In either case, before stated, IL you establish
this principle the value Of the property destroyed be
turned TO The owners This principle, and
introduced until recently During the whole of the Revou-
uonary war-to my knowledge, and for four years
member Of the Committee Revolutionary Clams-there
never was claim allowed in Congress property DESTROYED
TO prevent It's falling into the hands Of the enemy or there
were such claim allowed suppose have passedas
was said the other day the reducing the mileage OF the
messengers bearing the Presidential was passed-at
time when nobody paying any attention IT, But in all
these cases. II you settle the principle al ALL must be on
the ground that the would have been benefited by
property had not been destroyed. Bot see that
TINS circumstance can make any particular difference either
0fn cvfv hac