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

would have fallen into the haRds OF the enemy, unless
had been destroyed by the United States or The ohcer OF
the army acting under Its authority Ihe claimant has
lost his property in consequence OF IT'S having been de-
stroyei BY the government 81, ne United States Would
he have lost anything more by the destruction OF the
property the command OF the ocer, than By the de-
strucon OF the Indians! Let me ask this question, and
by it would argue the Suppose the property be
in this condition. and the officers OF the army had said
ave vii! take This property Tor our government" He
only said, mo, sir this IS my property The officer OF
the army would reply "Why sir II is OF no to you;
it would fall into the hands OF the enemy and you would
lose it, and you will lose nothing more If we take ii anu,
therefore, we take Suppose, IN that case, the
had come here and asked redress According 10 the prnci
pie of the senator from Kentucky, Mr.. UNDERWOOD
Immediately applicable we could MOI grant II. oecause
OF the United States had not taken and therefore, be
is in Just good contlhon now as before; his is the
rule laid down by the senator from kentucky But, SIT,
suppose that il would have fallen into The hands of the
enemy and he now asks remuneraon--wha then The
senator from Kentucky would answer, You have lost
nothing from this and the senator from Connecticut
[Nr NuEsl also contends that the government OF The
United States certain extent appfoprlates this prop.
erty to its use, and thus gets the benefit OF it, by
prving the enemy of lis Now so tar as II goes,
am satisfied that there is certain wel-dehned rule upon
which the action of Congress may proceed that is that
where the property actually falls into the hands OF the
enemy and the government causes It's destruction, she
approprates il negatively TO her own use. And. SIR,
upon this plain principle OF law, that private property
shall be used for public purposes, is the justice OF
this claim based
Again: take this poston--that both this memoriaist
and the senators who advocate this claim have entirely
deprived Congress OF the power OF giving him any com
pensatlon The memoriast takes the ground ex.
pressy that the lead would not have fallen into the
hands OF the enemy. In this case, what position does
the government of the United States occupy TO make this
appropriation We have here act which appears
be piece OF righteousness the part OF the glitter
This memoralist says that there was no manner of
danger OF this lead falling into the hands of the enemy
the senator says the same, and the proof IS the
There no person who pretends to say that would
have fallen into the hands of the enemy, except
the officer, Who in Justification OF his own conduct,
undertakes so 10 say. Now sir, would the government
he q /
act was of malicious mischief? In making OF
this expression, do not intend to cast any reflections
upon officers OF the army navy But in point OF law,
have attached as in this Take the relation of
ing his masters service the master responsible for
his conduct. familiar case given in the books is this:
The master orders his servant TO remove ashes In
moving the ashes, suppose That the fire cast against the
building of another and The building takes lire and
burns down; the master IN that case, is liable for the
action OF his servant because the servant was acting in
the performance of his duty But suppose that while
5el IN obeyng the command OF his master, he
man, and draws off and knocks him down; will the
ter that be responsible? Not at all The princi-
pie laid down in relation and is that
the not liable for the malicious acts of his
want, though they may, to some extent, be committed
while in the discharge OF duties to his master. There
fore, come TO the conclusion, both upon the showing OF
the memorial and from the argument OF the from
Florida Mr. WEsrcoTT,] that there justification
the part of the ocer in destroying this property 1t
seems TO have been piece OF wanon and malicious mis-
chief.
desirable that the Indians should be gotten out of their
Businesses. 1t very desirable to get at the Indians
Why sir the difficulty and the necessity were great,
that celebrated military character of that day,
who has recently become great and prominent civil
character, suggested to the government that even bool
hounds should be procured from the island OF Cuba TO
hunt the Indians down among the everglades of Florida,
| and they procured and usel And yet, here is
naval officer who, when a vessel is stranded off the
coast is fearful that these Indians would do Just what
we wanted them to do; that they would come from
their sronghoIds in the everglades 10 convert this
dams would do that, the very thing OF all others which
il would seem the government of the United States would
desire they should do; for, they had from their
Businesses, would not be what the officer had desired,
and have given him an opportunity of attacking that
party and OF conquering portion of the enemy which
they could not otherwise get al; Yes sir; the argument
here is, that it to be feared that the Indians would
take possession OF the lead, and therefore il de-
stroyed say Sir that this piece of evidence shows the
true state OF the case II convEces me that there is
something peculiar and astonishing in this case, the
destruction o that property Now, the claimant is asking
Congress 10 make an appropriation to renunerate him.
Again, sir, if we to make remuneration in of
this kind without looking TO the principle have
TONED, great injury may result to the government of the
United States, II we do not look to the fact whether the
property was positively negatively appropriated to the
Uped States, whether government derives benefit direct
" indirectly We leave ourselves subject 10 COLLISION
and fraud in almost every particular Suppose sir, you
adopt the principle that wherever officer in the
else OF his duty destroys property, must pay for it.
Mark my words, war king its progress the
country wherever an individual perceves he pre-
his property, he will bend his efforts TO procure its
quenty, we Will see HIM coming forward and asking
Congress TO renuDerate him.
This conclusion may appear manifest now; but it
will appear so when the memorials sent to Congress
asking remuneration for losses consequent upon such
acts Ii will become of the most terrible conse-
qucnces of war in this country, against which the gov
ernment cannot protect itself 1t will be consequence
which will follow from necessity
There is another view of the case If the property
would not have fallen into the hands of the enemy what
Is the remedy! Supposlng this to be wanton desuc-
ton OF property why sir the remedy will be against the
officer in.vdaay and thou h there may be hardships
IN this-because the senator from Texas says, the
officer may be there that time, and month afterwards
at the other extremity of the United States-these are
hardshps that private individuals have to suffer They
are consequences resulting from the relations between
man and man. A man may not be able 10 catch his
debor; he may be migratory being, and may be of in
another part OF the country These hardships which
citizens subjected, and which government exer-
cses control But does the particular individual against
whom the trespass has been committed, stand in any
worse condition than any other individual against whom
trespass has been committed Not at all | contend
that the remedy against this officer be by private
action Them SIR the officer will be Interested in miti-
eating the damages much possible; and after that,
sir, it becomes question whether Congress will ndem-
niiy him Tor the act; and that up upon his presen
ation Then the question will be- what your case
Suppose he says 81 destroyed this property honestly be-
evng that II would fall into the hands of the enemy in
the failhful discharge of my duty" Then suppose
that he whose property destroyed should swear that
1t would not have fallen into the hands of the enemy
suppose that others should come forward-suppose The
senator should be willing give his testimony he has
here would the Senate for take the fearful
<tNf,