The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-01-05

where the government has ever assumed the payment
where shown that the property would have been
lost if it had been destroyed by the government Of
fcer
seems to me- therefore, that the case turns upon the
question whether the property sold and transferred
10 the government not Ii il was sold, the payment
should of be made whether the goods were after
wards destroyed not On the contrary. if they
not transferred if the claimant saw fit to follow the army
with his own property he subjected himself to the acct
dents of war; and if the properly destroyed, owing to
the inability OF the government to protect It, It is his own
Mr.. RUSK. The testimony shows that the goods were
placed under the charge OF the quaermaser at San An
tonic that they were carried with the army for the ben
et of the army and not for the benefit of the individual.
from San Antonio for some 100 miles, to the Rio Grande
and that it was at the instance of Col Harvey that
these goods placed ut the quartermasters command.
Mr.. BORLAND. WISH in the first place, TO disavow
any intention of making any charges against any officer,
charges, sir certainly hapreer them in very differ.
eni form from the language which has been alluded to
containing such charge merely stated facts which
circumstances under which this expedition to the
Rio Grande, and the circumstances under which these
goods were carried there stated the facts for what
they worth 81
The certificates far they Co. show that the con.
tract of Mr. Calashan that he to furnish Certain
articles OF supplies Tor the army. and for them he to
receive drafts upon the proper department Of govern
ment That was the contract, and to that extent GER
tainly the government ought 10 be responsible for the
supplies furnished Admitting the expedition to be
proper one (Which do not admit,) government is bound
by the of its officer and should accept the contract
The contracts that for the amount OF goods furnished
drafts upon the proper department should be given; and
these drafts would be the proper evidence should
think that the goods had been received by the govern
ment officers But this bill provides for payment for
goods beyond that for his goods, carried out be-
yond the wants of the army for private speculation 1t
is imputalion upon Mr.. calaghsn or upon any one.
ulation. He is of the NEST respectable men in
the country. But it is well known fact that he car
ried with him not only goods to supply the army.
but an additional amount of goods to sell to Mex
leans and other persons on private speculation. Now,
the question shall the government OF the United States
be responsible Mr. Callaghan for the failure
of his private specuations Mexco !, for one think
Then say the evidence is insufficient to show that
the goods destroyed by proper military authority
The evidence of the officer in command is not furnished
1t to second hand; and my opinion is that
Mr. Rogers, who cees to this effect, was not there at
the time. The regular troops returned from the Rio
Grande, with the exception of two companies,
which remained under the command Of the officer who
destroyed the goods Now the necessity for the destruc
ton these goods think, is not shown and base this
upon this fact, If upon other that when COL Harvey
received the order to the Rio Grande he return
ed with all his troops with the exception to which have
back all the supplies Mr. Callaghan however, believ
ing that there no necessity tor retumng-believing
that there 10 danger of atack-remained there
with his goods and when the Mexcans. contrary to
his expectations down and fired upon them, it
that these goods were destroyed stated by the
know that they were DESTROYED, as well as know
anything The destruction OF the goods consider
tain But the question is, whether these goods were de-
stroyed under such circumstances impose upon this
government the obligation to pay for them II they
necessary supplies which Colonel Harvey had contracted
with Mr. CaIlaghan for ard for which he was be paid
in drafts the government should pay for them, admitting,
as said in the beginning OF my remarks that the exped
ton was lawful one
which carried for the purpose Of private speculation
whether the speculation lawful not, there
obligation the part of the government to pay certainly
until the evidence furnished, not only that the
goods destroyed but until satisfactory evidence
furnished that there was necessity and proprety IN that
cm aon as By
shown that the necessities OF the required their de-
siruction prevent their falling into the hands Of the
enemy. The evidence not being sufficient upon that
point cannot vote for the BILL
Mr., WALKER made some remarks, the other day,
upon this when asserted principle or two which
ongh in my opinion, to govern the Senate in case of
this kind | said that ii property was likely to fall into
the hands of the enemy and was ordered to be destroyed
by public officer it ought to be paid for because it
qualified taking of private property for public use;
and under the principles stated could not be taken with
out payment Upon that occasion the very distinguished
senator from Massachusetts Mr. WEBSTER -whO,
sorry 10 notice. not in his seat at present-fet it his
duty very carefully his views in regard to that
leso carefully indeed that he pronounced his views
from written direct issue with me upon this
principle. confess here sir, that felt overwhelmed
by the opinion of that senator, that neither felt dspo
suon o-nor could at the time, if had been SO dis
posed-reply to it, gratifed, however, to be able to
say now that my memory of international law upon this
pontahough I have not for nine years past adverted
10 mat SuOlect-WaS correct. nave now IN nanuS
the authority satisfy the honorable senator that my po
son correct and that his opniondistinguishe
he for superior knowledge on the subect-was wrong.
Under the head of whether the State is bound TO ndem
Nifty its subjects for damages sustained In war, reads
thus: 49,
damages under consideration be distinguish
ed into kindsihose done by the State itself,
reign, and those doae by the eueny or the frs. kind
d)ne debs rately by way oil projections as when
field, hJoe, garden belonging to private person,
taken for tho purpose o erecting the spot town,
her OF iortic when his stand
fn he
oil the Such damages are TO be made
good tue individual, who should bear only his quota
OF the loss y
That is the authority from the memory Of which as
serted the principle and rise now to state again. with
the authority to sustain me.
regret very much the motion made by the senator
from Texas to strike out the declaration that this proper
ly was destroyed to prevent its falling into the enemys
hands, which can only understand implying that it
was not destroyed for that reason.
pend upon that assertion did SO, because several
Tors objected to that principle in the bill There
asserting principle which unnecessary in the bill.
Mr. BALDWIN, The question, Mr.. President, of the
Liability of the government for these goods, depends
materially upon the circumstances under which they
came into the possession, were placed under the
control of Colonel Harvey, or the quartemasters de-
prepared to act upon simply the report made by the
Committee on Claims. l do not think the facts under
which the goods into the possession under the
control of the quarermaster of the department. or under
which the goods ultimately destroyed, either OF
them stated with sufficient expctness in the report 10
enable to act intelligently upon the bill therefore
move, sir that it be recommitted to the Committee on
Claims.
Mr. WESTCOTT. | must confess, Mr.. President,
that this session of Congress have been very much