The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-02-23


his option TO return to go As prudent man, he
MIR c. thought that he ought to have returned But
he decided 10 go That was legal. He fell into the
rear OF the army and he made much part Of the army
az The suers of the army, and no lie legal (;
and hence, according 10 his (Mr C.'s) conception,
ali was legal when he arrived at Santa Fe. The
duties were not involved, and therefore he would
mass over that point The petitioner mad n right
n stay there hong as the American army remained
there But he was not satisfied with that He wished
10 move forward, and did move forward. Gen Kearny
eond not have gwen permit, and Mr. C. supposed me
nsloner knew he would not have given IT, lie proceeds
towards Chihuahua, and then halted 10 see whether he
could safely go A British officer informed HIM that
he might safely go, at his own risk and hazard In the
mean time Col Donphan overlook hun, and took INN
in his ranks in the army. He must take all the conse-
0uences and there not the slightest responsibility so
Jar as he had heard upon the American government Tor
III that afterwards followed except only to the extent
that the property used That, IN his opinion, was
question involving many consequences ihere was not
ON American trader during the whole Mexican war, if
This claim should be allowed, that would not come for
ward and present strong, or stronger case than
here presented lie thought that the trader ought to have
been ordered back. .
Air. MASON, On his seat He was not ordered back
MIR CALHOUN lie ought 10 have been but not be-
ing ordered back being treated more lenieny, he now
comes forward and asks us 10 compensate HIM for the
failure of his trade in time of war; with the enemy 1t
" $ a thing for which there was no example.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. This case was very thoroughly
eyamined in the committee, SIR and brought my mind
a, engh to for il, and wish 10 state very briefly
The means by which did The gentleman from South
Carolina Mr. CALHoUN,l think has the facts pretty
accurately in his mind. There is no difficulty in the
matter until after the arrival at Santa Fe When Mr.
Harmony left Santa Fe was by the permission OF Gen
Kearny as understand the facts The gentleman from
South Carolina says he ought to have OBTAINED written
permi-that he ought to have applied to him and OBJ
tanned from him written permit | think that he
left Santa Fe under the authority of the officer there
Just clearly as i he had Obtained written h per
and if | am incorrect, hope some member OF the
committee will correct me- After his leaving Santa Re
with those goods under the authority OF the officer IN
commandor take to be under his sanction and author
iv when he left Santa Fe-he proceeded until he got
upon the Rio Grande. There he was overtaken by
Col Donphan; and from the time that he was over,
taken his movements constrained. lie protested
AGAINST being commanded by Col Donphan, and was
RED on with Donphan against his protest; Col Donphan
took possession OF the mules aud wagons and forced
him on to Chihuahua. Now, 1t IS that act OF Colonel
Donphan, The officer of the United States, which
lie in my opinion, to the loss of this mans goods 1t
Col Donphan had not forced him, he would have been
left TO the exercise of his dscetion either to return or To
20 on The government OF the United States through
its officer deprived him of that discretion and constIan
ed him to march with the army against his will Now
sir upon that point that think the government re-
sponsible Tor the act OF It's officer This has lost
his property by being constrained BY the act OF the Uni
ted States officer. against his protest
A SENATOR. Did they take his goods ]!
Mr. UNDERWOOD The government took his mules
and wagons; the goods were IN the wagons, and they
took the goods also must have turned them upon the
Mr. DOWNS How did they get the goods to Chihua-
hua?
Mr.. UNDERWOOD They did lake the goods for
they did not turn thea out oil the wagons. II they had
they would have been all lost Taking them to Chihna
hua, they ultimately lost, because the mules were
aed and the wagons broken TO pieces. that when
Col Donphan offered guard TO go TO Sato, the means
of moving the goods were gone. The condition OF the
mules and wagons was such, that Mr. Harmony could
no, make move Now sir. the whole matter tnrns
upon this That Mr. Harmony left Santa Fe with the au
thoriy OF the commanding officer to get this trade with
Mexico Was il lawful and proper to overtake HIN IN
this permissve journey, and then control all his move
afterwards, contrary 10 his wil' 1t is that con-
toI, hat cuelcion that duress subsequently imposed
upon lAe man. that constitutes the foundation OF the
claim His voon taken from him in every
particular They had legitimatized the trade by sui
lering him to proceed Il act of bad faith, sir
1t was criminal The part of the officers OF the United
States, after allowing this to proceed, to ovenake
him afterwards, and then say your whole trade is legt
innate, and because II Is llegtmate we Will Impose
duress upon you to go where you do not
want to go-bring loss upon you we Will not pay one
cent 1t upon THAT view oil the sir, that feel
constrained to vote for the bill.
Mr., NILES inquired if it in order TO move to re-
consider vote upon the amendments
The VICE PRESIDENT said the question upon
the passage Of the bill motion to reconsider 1.-THE the vote
Mr. NILES | think, MI. President, there is no liza
billy the part of the United States to go beyond the
property actually taken possession of by Col DonIphan
and that property, if understand the facts, was mules
and wagons. This had the control OF the goods;
they were not seized by the United States The officer
dd not claim Them he was 10 have nothing 10 90 WIN
them. Now, them if to pay for goods in such
eases-pay for property taken by the United States Tor
public service, or by an officer Tor military purposes
that claim goes only TO the mules and wagons hat
Is the other claim, and upon what principle does
It rest? Why if there is any at all, 1t must be
be for consequential damages. | will not say 1t IS
not proper to present claims for consequential dam
ages going beyond the property actually taken as io
lowing necessarily, in all reasonable probability, IL not
IN absolute certainty, IN consequence OF the ACT OF me
officer How is this applicable to case OF this
Kind! Mr.. Harmony might have LETT these goods al Inc
point where his progress arrested; and II he had
lett them there, probably he might have had claim upon
that ground He might have taken them on as he
did and the goods had been lost in that way, he
would have had claim upon that ground but such
was not the fact He consented to take them along with
him. There was prospect OF saving them, undoubed-
~ Now, if it was the act OF Col Donphaa which pre-
vented HIM from selling the goods, he might have had
CAIN. Were they captured by the enemy, ana destroyed
would not have bcea ii he had gone alone in his own
way They were protected until they safely arrived at
Chihuahua the very place where he expected to dis
pose OF those goods What happened them He
could not sell his goods. But 1t was on account
OF the prohibition of the Mexican government, and
not of the seizure on the part OF this officer. They
hai prohibited all trade with the Americans lhey
mad even denounced it treason---an act subject
ing them 10 the highest penalties Ga account OF tins
act OF the Mexican authorities he was unable to sell his
goods 1t appears that he was two months at Chlhua
hua with his property protected by the uned States, but
ne could not dispose of his goods Well are we respon-
s'ble TOR this sr Are responsible Tor this act OF the
Mexican authorities' We have protected the goods IN
reaching this point during the two months he remained
there and he had opportunity dispose of them but
on account of the hostile act of the country, he could
not dispose of them Would not this consequence have
been the same if he had unaccompanied by the
army?
1t was a hazardous expedition necessarily, and
cir that yard tn he