The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-01-03

You will notice che hull of the vessel is taken into
count as the ads and rigging Of such vessel 4, only
be got pat, all the other articles could have been
saved wh'rt difficulty by the wreckers, she had been
danger TO apprehended from the Indians Mr. Baldwin
could hive saved and carried to Key West the ARTICLES
above speced at small and realized much more
than taeir valuation The erchans tina, made the yaiu-
alton under oath are all men OF the highest character Pay
m than twelve years. and can assure you that your
efforts in behalf will be worthy bestowed,
Very respectfully your obeden servant,
Hon T. Rusz Senate U. s.
Mr. PHELPS sent to the Secretary the report referred
TO in The letter of Mr.. Mallory, which read.
Mr.. MASON. do not TO deain the Senate
vesy long by what may say upon this bill; but having
reported by the Dsruc tion OF the Committee Claims,
do not feel myself altogether at liberty to refrain from
answering what fell from the from Vermont The
point, sir to which shall address my remarks is this
The petitioner claims to be reimbursed for the value of
certain property destroyed by officer IN the naval
vice OF the United States in time OF Now, | sup
pose there be question: either a matter of law
of justice that II the property was destroyed by an Of
fcer in the naval service OF the United States in the
rghtfu discharge of his duty, the government, OF the ta
ted States Is bound to pay for It. There be no ques
ton that The senator from Vermont says-and iagee
with him that positontha the fact that the prop
erty was DESTROYED by an officer title him 10
mune from the government 1t must be shown that
in that act he was In the proper discharge OF his legal
duty Now, how can that be shown' 1t can be shown
only by the officer himself, by reference to the crcum
stances under which the act was done What were the
circumstances We engaged IN suppresslng Indian
hostlities in Florida. Government had large army
there The Indians were overrunning the peninsula OF
Florida seeking TO escape from the army OF the United
States in instances, and in others seeking 10
nit depre iatlons; and history shows .ahat the army
was seulously occupied, by all the their power
to deprive the Indians OF the means OF carrying on their
operations.
| Well sir this ship wrecked upon the coast Of
Florida quantity OF ballast, quantity OF lead, &c,
remained in the hulk OF the vessel In that condition
she found by of our ships OF war, and the OIL
Ger who burnt her states his testimony that he de-
the
falling into the hands OF the hostile Indians. Gentlemen
may say, they please, that this is not conclusive proof
but it unquesonably prnd tdce proof, because that
officer, upon his responsibility officer OF the govern
men declares that the destruction OF what con-
tanned in that vessel necessary to prevent Its falling
into the hands of the Indians; and whether the act was
ludicious nIudcious. apprehend thatt was proper
upon the part of that officer. We know very well the
circumstances under which II was done. We know the
great losses OF and money sustained by this govern
men, in suppressing the Indian Expectations appre
bend that should appear that there was IN Tact
nut little risk OF this property falling into the hands OF
the Indians. il still the duty OF the officer to exn'
guish that small risk, "a j was done am per
tecy satisfied with the bill Wherever appears that
wanten respass is committed by military naval Of
cer the government should not be held responsible but
even this property destroyed in the exercise of
superintendent caution (Which fact does not however,
in my judgment, appear IN this case,) we are bound by
equity and justice TO pay this clam.
Mr. NILES This case certainly Involves principle
of very great Importance. Some gentlemen, who have
discussed it, appears TO have only looked upon
side of the They looking TO the consequences
OF the pnncipie 10 the government oil tDe United states
That very proper to be but should they not look
on the other hand to the rights OF private proper,yT
Must we see. that do not recognise the rule 10
govern the acts OF public officers. II will be desruc
the hts OF private property Will il not expose
private property to be arbitrarily seized and to be sacri-
iced without redress!
The argument OF the senator from Kentucky the other
1ay was that not responsibe for If the ohcer
of the United States had not destroyed this property,
the Indians would have destroyed it. Well, sir that is
of doubt whether they would not and do not
know that have the right TO assume that in any
casefor take a strong positionthe public officer would
have right destroy property lest should fall into the
hands of the enemy But what right have we to assume
that the enemy would necessarily destroy private proper
ty BY the laws OF war; private property would not be
liable to destruction but perhaps the indians would not
regard the laws OF That may be the case ; bui in
respect these Indians, who say that they would in
any particular case possession of private property and
destroy il, Sometimes they did, and sometimes they did
not Has not the individual the pghs TO avail himself Of