The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-12-27

recognise this individual as having been in the service OF
the United States because he did not enter that service
regularly. The whole matter turned upon that point
IL was claimed by the gentleman from Alabama that THIS
service was irregular and Illegal commanding oicer
had called around him. as aids, certain citizens. They
could sanction practice OF that kind. But there was
another fact IN the present case, which did not seem 10
have been attended to- Gen Hull not officer in
the regular army at any time, but was governor OF the
A SENATOR. He was commander of the forces of
the Territory also.
Mr. NILES Perhaps he also acted in the capacity OF
commander in order TO defend The Territory His =
hority governor of the Territory might enable him to
draw around him such aids as he deemed proper. But
even if it So it would be question which de-
served consideration, whether il would be just towards
individual who had engaged In this Irregular service,
when called into il, and who had continued in i for a
whole year, TO dsavow his entirely and treat
him a sranger1 This iueguarty might and ought to
be punished upon the officer who was guilty OF IT
but there could be no danger IRON an act OF resog
milton Of this kind. The officers would be amenabe
Others entitled to pay for services rendered under such
circumstances, should not be preudlced III consequence
OF the msdeeds OF those under whom they acted II was
rather severe for a who, in time OF war; volunteer
ed his serycesbeing connected with the highest staff
IN the State and aid to the goyenorwbch were accept
ed by the officer governing the Territory being employed
whole year i'll that seryice-to have said to him, 1--WE
know you not" 1t would be rather hard I; and though
there were difficulties IN this case Mr. N was inclined
10 vote for the bill
Mr.. WESrCOTT said, TO the allowance OF the pay
to Col Wallace extra aid to the governor of hlich
gan, the Senate at last session, in the OF Col Charles
l.. Dell, who acted aid To Governor Reid of Florida
during the Seminole had decided the principle 10 favor
Of the claimant That reported by the Military
Committee Of both Houses and they allowed IT on the
principle that where services were bona ttde rendered
to the United States the officer should be remunefaed
On the authority OF that precedent he disposed TO
for the claim of pay Tor the services thong he did
not conceive that the claim Tor the horse was quite salts
factory -.I.,.
Mr. DAVIS of Mississippi The case to which the
senator from Florida refers rests upon very peculiar
grounds Under the authority OF the governor OF Florida,
to furnish troops this aid had mustered the troops and
he paid not for his services aid but as inspector
general and mastering officer. would say to the sena
tor from Florida in such cases this, we must always
make discrimination; for there no legal claim the
part of any such aid, because, as the gentleman from
Alabama has asy said the General has right TO take
such aid The aid who offers his services must do it for
the honor of the position He expect to be paid
and he is paid, IS grauy and II Congress decides
in particular that shall be paid II must be after
examination as 10 what such services were Therefore,
every case must be particular case, and discrimination
must be made upon the nature OF the services rendered
None of them have any legal claims it is altogether out
side OF any legal claim for any OF them TO cone here for
pay.
As TO the claim for horses. do not wish to present
gumenls. it favoraby reported upon BY the Mill
tary Committee, which report has been referred to.
will merely state that not in favor of either OF
them-wheher for the horse or Tor the service Though
the senator has stated that the law does authorize pay
nen for horses lost in battle in each particular case which
tie senator has eied yet have heard OF the law
allowing payment for horses which seemed to have been
surrended by the voon of the individual himself. II
General Hull had surrendered to barbaous na,lon,
who appropriated to their own use the property OF
individuals, the case would have been different But
all know the laws of war; and who OF Us believes
that any British officer took from any individual his prl-
propertyi This not the 1t does not appear
in the evidence If the senator from Kentucky therefore,
will supply the want of evidencef he will show that
this officers property lost to him through seizure
made by authority Of British oiicer-he may demand
compensation therefor Then admit the is made
out put the senator from Kentucky on his guard He
must show that the horse actually seized in violation
tbor Rr,f,c
Mr.. UNDERWOOD | am happy TO get the vote OF
the gentleman from Mississippi as am certain shall do
according to the principles ne has lad down nave
mics OF British and Indians and know, SIR, that IN
of that Sort the indians tolerated in seizng the
officers property, and converting to Their own use AS
to the horse here the proof The last that was seen OF
this horse, Indian upon his back and we all
know that when surrendered in the last war to a
British army, composed partly of Indians the rules OF
civilized warfare respected. Here is the proof
TO show that this horse was actually taken by the In
dams.
MIR. DAVIS of Mississippi There being an Indian on
him, is not the proof called for, you understand
MIR. UNDERWOOD. The proof is-if understand
The gentleman the way-that the rules OF civiZed
warfare were not respected Well can prove Una. ,eS
my case, know they were not; and II the TACT tfai
in this case after the surrender, the man was severed
from his horse and the horse was found IN the posses
sion of Indian, does prove that he was not per-
United retain his possession of the ANIMAL my proof
does not up to the requirements OF my friend but
1t seems TO me mat III does come up W AIN,
shows that in this the rule of civilized warfare
not carried out
Mr.. DAVIS of Mississippi. intended toput the Sena-
tor on his guard making out his because this is
not new There is very great distinction between
an officer losing his horse the field of battle and his
horse being taken from him in violation OF the rules OF
war. He may have abandoned his horse. The horse
ran off, perhapswas caught by the Indians, and taken
away. 1t may have been his neglect. II he shows
however that this officer entitled to serve on horseback
dsmouned from his horse on his surrender, and his
horse taken from him regardless OF the rights OF
property then think he will have made out his case
Mr.. UNDERWOOD. | think ! can come up to that
sir The evidence is that the army had surrendered ;
and that after the surrender the horse was seen IN The
possession of this Indian Can the gentleman infer that
the horse escaped by accident and ran away, and
that the Indian caught him afterwards or rs not the IN
ference rather that the horse surenderej as well as
the officer to the enemy, and then the enemy allowed
him TO be taken possession of by the Indian! leave
senators to make their own deductions.
Oae more word, and then am done with this protract
ed argument | am requested to suggest that HUI was
actually general in the American army, and not merely
the governor OF Terrory-thc general acting IN that
capacity. ., >,
Here is another case-and will inform my friend from
Alabama that have not cited hundredth part OF the
cases; but since the argument commenced, turned TO
this case, which provides shat the Secretary OF the
Treasury be authorized to pay out OF any money IN the
treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Samuel -,
the of $50, the value OF horse lost In the late war;
y of his being dsmounted by order OF Governor
Shelby, at Portage river, while on an expedition to
Canada"
Now SIR here is soldier dismounted by order OF the
governor OF State, not IN the service OF me United
States by any commission, for Governor Shelby was
never commissioned by this government He orders the
soldier dismount separates him from his horse the
horse is lost; the government pays Tor IT. Here your