The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-12-30

by Congress Ii is inviting the people OF the country, IN
case OF invasion, TO abandon their homes and destroy
everything about them, instead OF manuy resisting the
enemy, and then call upon government TO pay them,
upon the principle that the enemy would have anpfo-
prlaed their property II they had not destroyed IT, Upon
that ground there difference between the destruction
following the act OF the officer and the OF the prop
erty himself-none whatever Here is military oihcer
holding possession OF post, giving II his protection until
he finds he longer maintain his position, and then
he marches off with all the people at his heels Does
make any difference al all whether is destroyed by bis
order, whether the owner hmse says will put The
torch to il to prevent It's falling into the enemys hands,
Sir, this is a principea thing that has never been
introduced unli recently During the whole revolution
AIRY war-and was on the Committee on Revolutionary
Claims three four years-there never was clam
allowed for property destroyed 10 prevent It's falling into
the possession of the enemy. And if there were any
such claims allowed, presume they were passed like
great many other similar cases-nobody paying much at
tenon to them to ascertain their justice But IN all thus
class of claims, when you settled the principle, you set
tied upon the ground have Newfoundland if the
envy were defeated by the act of destruction, YOU were
bound to pay; and II made no particle OF difference
whether the OF the property, or some one else, or
dered the property TO be destroyed
There is another thing. Formerly these officers were
sued by the for acts of this sort, and judgment
obtained against them and then they came to Congress
to show that in the discharge OF their duty for the bene
fit of the country the circumstances in which they were
placed of such character to render It necessary
for them to do the act for which the judca and civil
tribunals have held them responsible and under that state
of the have asked Congress to ntepose, and grant
them relief AS much as TO say you have the individual
interest OHlctF 10 arrest judgment
all the facts. and then has TO throw himself upon the
good sense and beraty OF Congress for remuneration
under such circumstances But, sir, in modern times we
have got clear OF that safeguard Now, according 10 the
principle it is necessary for the petitioner only to say
My property has been destroyed TO prevent its falling into
the possession of the enemy an officer has given that
order; you must pay me for it.
Sir IT is all wrong and let me illustrate by giving you
an example. house is on fire. What IS the adjoining
house worth if il be wooden frame, where there IS no
engine to put out the fire You blow it up 10 save the
buildings little more remote, II you have no engine
near What is it worth Nothing at all. And why
Because lis destruction is inevitable Because must be
burnt with the house that was consuming. Well, &C
coding to the principles of common law, the house de-
sroyed under circumstances OF that sort was paid
for. But conventional arrangement has been made
upon the part of cities and townships and the rule has
been established that nasmuch as houses blown up un
der such circumstances may tend to the preservation oil
the rest there may be reason for making good the loss
This is not according 10 common law but mere con
venional principle which has been established; and if
you consult the decisions you will so find it,
II may be said that if there be conventional principle
by which you pay for the adjoining house that would be
inevitably consumed, if you apply the same principle
here you will pay for the property destroyed to prevent
its falling into The hands OF an invading army. trust
that we shall not extend this principle to the latter
description OF cases; but it seems TO that you are
about to do it in your legislation The reason why
think there ought to be discrimination, is this. The
case that have put where the houses are adjoining,
and the flames are consuming the one, is case which
be proved to such certainty to leave doubt
upon the mind of anybody in regard to the fact But in
regard to property scattered all the country, diff
erenty situated il is utterly impossible according my
little experience to have the facts presented with such
cearness and certainty show precisely how the mat
ter does stand You must recoect too, in reference to
such matters heretofore, all the evidence has been entire
ly &c parte
We have freshets sometimes that do great mischief,
which destroy crops of corn sc. Sometimes there may
be little island upon which some farmers stock may
get, where it would perish by starvation, if it not
relieved, where might be swept away by the rising
flood. Suppose that finds this stock upon such an
island. Being benevolent man, he says he had better
hfrspG a,I hnr IN LAT
remain week longer to starve to death Under clrcum
stances OF that sort, he actually puts them 10 death He
is sued for the act; what is the damage! You must
take into consideration the probability of saving il
from the devastating iooi, according 10 the circun-
stances in which II is placed II the jury is convinced
that their destruction would have been inevitable
IRON starvation, that consideration might influence the
amount OF damages. 1t shows that the property was
worth little nothing. But here class of cases SINH
larry situated Under the circumstances have related
you take consideration at all of the circumstances at
tending the property The only thing to inquire about is,
what was the original value? But am sorry 10 say, sir.
you have trebled and quauped the full value and you
pay il without regard TO the circumstances under which
iii destroyed. Sir, have suggested these things time
and again, in my humble way, to the consideration of
the Senate grounds upon which this class of cases
Mr. WESTCoTT Will the senator permit me to
make an inquiry Would he distinguish this case from
the case OF Robert Waaces horse, which he argued
upon the other side!
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes. SIR | can distinguish it
very well from the case of Waaces horse. But il
that if you intended to apply this principle 10 Cener's
case, did not see any reason why should make fish
OF the and fowl of the other. And now, sir, say
that if you intend to carry out all these cases. then esab
fish your rule and will apply it. have been resisting
it all along; but it is established shall insist upon
universal application.
But he must be blind indeed, who cannot see the dis
tinctlon between Walaces and this Walaces
case is where sub ordinate officer obeys the
mand of his SUPERIOR having the right to order him That
superior surrenders his property TO the enemy and
pels HIM to give 1t up without chance to fight for
1t. My principle 49, that you shall compel the citizen
to defend his property and fight for it; but the gentle
man compares II to case where general having the
right to order his subordinate officer orders him To give
up his property to the enemy.
This vessel was stranded upon the coast of Florida.
An officer goes along and supposes there may be in IT
property OF value which the Indians might obtain, and
he burns the vessel That officer he supposed that the
vessel itself ought to be burnt to prevent the Indians
from manning II as sailors and cruising upon the gull
would have turned sailors manned the vessel and gone
out cruising upon the gulf-he moi fit for any com
mand in the army of the United States. What the cir
cumstances were which influenced the officer to have
the vessel burnt, do not know, perhaps, well as
others. 1T could not have been with of prevent
ing its falling into the hands of Indians. TO go p-
rating. 1t was, then, to prevent the property which
might be IN the vessel and about the vessel,
from falling into the hands of the Indians That
property, if the vessel abandoned in all prob
ability, would have fallen into the hands of the Indians.
How much property was so situated do not know. II
the report shows the amount it has escaped my attention
but this bill goes for anything, is to pay for the value
of the vessel -
Mr. WESTCOrT No. sir | stated distinctly yes
ant does not ask cent for the vessel He claims for
the lead on board for the rigging, the anchors &c.