Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1849-01-05

a person of the name Of Larche, for payment
for a negro man who was killed at The battle
of New Orleans. The slave, together with
a horse and cart, the property Of Larche, were
impressed into the public service by order OF
the commanding officer. During the battle
the negro and horse were killed, and the cart
destroyed, by the cannon shot Of the enemy.
The Committee on Claims reported in favor
of paying for the horse and cart as property,
but against paying for the man, because he
was a person. This was one Of the strong
est cases that could be presented to the con-
sideration of Congress. The owner had not
hired the slave to Government, but the slave
had been impressed, against the will of his
master. If any cases could be attended with
circumstance which demanded pay from the
Government for the loss of a slave, this was
surely such a case. Yet the Committee,
composed Of men from the southern States as
well as from the northern States, appeared to
have come to the unanimous conclusion that
10 allow this claim would be an overturning of
the established usages OF the Governments
That committee said, that upon examination
made at the Treasury Department, they had
learned that no instance could be found Of
slaves killed during the revolutionary war, or
during the war of 1912, being paid for, altho'
claims had been presented in various instan-
ces. If gentlemen would examine into our
past history, they would find that it had been
an established principle Of the legislation of
Congress never to pay for slaves as property.
He referred 10 another case, in which this
subject had undergone a very deliberate con-
siderdtion by Congress in the year 1928 it
was a claim presented by a Mr.. De Autriene,
for payment for a negro man who was press
ed into the public service in 1912, at New
Orleans. In this case, the slave was not
killed, but was wounded. Time was lost in
healing those wounds, and a medical bill was
incurred. The committee who had charge of
the case reported against paying for these
items; and a gentleman who was then a dis
tinguished member of this House from Lou
%isiana, mir. Livingston, moved to amend
the bill, by providing for payment for the
time lost and the services rendered by the
slave. The question underwent discussion
r in the House for three weeks and gentlemen
who would refer TO that debate, would find
from its tenor, as well as from the ultimate
result, that Congress did not contemplate
payment for the time and services of this per-
son as property and this had been the uni
form Legislation Of Congress.
Within a few years past, he knew that ef-
forts had been made to establish a different
princiPle-the principle of paying for slaves
q rs property. 1t was that which the minority
Of the committee resisted, and which they re-
sisted on constitutional grounds. He would
] not now enter into the constitutional argu.
ment; but he contended, that in this .partic.
) ular case, Independently of the constitutions
obiections,) Congress were not bound, by any
D principles of law or equity, 10 sustain the
claim.
2 He must ask the Clerk TO read to the
l House the statement Of facts as presented by
the majority Of the committee, and which he
believed were correctly stated.
The Clerk commenced the reading, when,
. Mr.. WHITE interposed, and asked the
: gentleman from Pennsylvania if it was neces,
I sary to have the report read! 1t was very
4 long.
Mr.. DICKEY said he should like to have
the facts presented to the consideration of thu
e House. This case involved a very importan
principle, which must be presented to thu
consideration Of Congress.
The Clerk then continued and CONCLUDED
T the reading of that portion of the report (gi
5 ven above) which sets forth the facts of tn,
d case.
d, Mr.. DICKEY continued. The ITous,
would perceive Che sadly from the statemen
: Of the facts, that this negro was hired as al
n Interpreter or guide in Dade's command /; tina
5 he was captured by the Seminole Indians, o
C escaped to them; that he was subsequent
S recaptured, or came in with Chief Jumper a
c the capitulation with General .Jesup in 1887
S that his former owner claimed him as his Pre-
S perty that the officers refused TO deliverhin
S up, because he was a captive taken in III
war fighting against our country. Applica
q ton was made 10 the court of Louisiana b
the owners of slaves for the delivery of slave
who had come in under the capitulation wit
General Jessup. General Gaines defende
them against the claims of their masters, 0
ne the principle that they were prisoners {
p war, who had been captured bearing arm
against our country and the court of Lou
so siana sustained General Gaines's view, an
of refused TO deliver them over and they WEI
rt TO the western county, and were now Their,
mr. Mr.. BURT wished the gentleman fTol
,ir Pennsylvania to do him the favor to mentio
n. the case in which that decision was made.
al Mr.. DICKEY replied, that he could not
he the moment give the honorable genllema
m from South Carolina the title of the case; bl
~ he would refer him to document No. 90
Ga third session twenty-fhh Congress, in whic
he he would find set forth all the facts he WI
re now stating TO the House; and it might /
AT when he (Mr. d. came to re-examine hi
v, document No. 225, he might find that Il
X man Lewis was one Of some sixty slaves ca
at tured by the Creek Indians, and claimed |
n them as their property under the General o
ders of General Jesup. Our Governme
IT. finding itself in difficulty, growing ont of III
at order of General .Jesup, instead Of payir
is some Sc, 1000 or 81, 900 for the negroes tn
Is, captured. concluded to deliver them over
10. the Creek chiefs, and they sold the right ar
adj Atle to them to a Mr.. Watson, whom the ge
ed tleman from Georgia (Mr. COLBY knew. +
"a. was not certain but that this man (Lewi
"a would be found among this number.