The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-03-22

merit IN H. that Is prematurey presented Ii is mere
private claim, and have rejected several amendments
TO the appropriation bills that ground; and hope we
will not depart from that rule when there are 80 many
private CLAIMS on hands BECAUSE in this case, the
claimant is commander in the navy
ME- bADGElS Mr. President | do not concur with
the senator from New Hampshire, Mr. ArHERros,l thai
,lls is mere private claim Inc case IS one aogethe
command OF an expedition for the purpose OF examining
the unknown regions lying far towards the south pole
In the course OF the voyage, he finds IT necessary to nc
punishment upon under his command, that pun
lshment being actually necessary to enable him to carry
out me instructions given him by the government-io
II was designed On his return he sued, as has
been stated by the senator who reported this amend
ment from The Committee Naval Atairs by that man
not upon the ground that the commanding officer had
been guilty oil any cruelty excess OF anything that
would pam the heart OF manuneSs II be the heart OF
the honorable gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr..
! tihEl who is PANEL at the idea OF anybody being
punished but upon the ground that he had no lawful
authority to punish the individual That objection was
stated upon Two grounds First that the person who
brought the suit, being marine, not person be-
longing to the navy within The meaning OF the act of
Congress authorizing the infection of the punishment,
and therefore he was not liable to it, In other words,
he might set the authority OF the commanding officer at
Defiance and be subject to nobody Secondly upon the
ground that the commanding officer had right to retain
him In the service after the term OF his enlistment had
OF Congress, and by the enlistment signed by the person
in question: authorizing the commanding officer to keep
him under his control during the whole voyage,
1t therefore, the OF action brought against
an officer for the mere discharge of public duty No
allegation OF having inflicted excessive punishment was
brought against the officer except that it averred
that he had power OF jurisdiction over the individual
at all 1t was case OF expenses incurred by thus ott
GER not On his own account, but imposed upon him by
the necessary condition which he occupied commander
OF the forces OF this country 1t was in which,
private individual, he had interest; in which.
private man, he could have no connexions in which,
merely Charles Wilkes he had no more conneXlon
than any gentleman s floor has but it is in
which Charles Wilkes was called upon to pay out OF his
pocket the expenses OF frivolous malicious prose-
cuion, brought against the commander of the squadron,
because the individual, Charles Wilkes, united that Of
flee in his person Under such circumstances seems to
me plain and evident, according to the universal pnnc
Piles that govern every government that bound to
indemnify this officer. Governments bound to ndcm-
Nifty their officers engaged in the faithful carrying out of
that which assigned to them by the government where
they sustain losses the before strict
and faithful discharge OF their public duty 1t exactly
the principle upon VIII ch this Senate has passed bill
after bill for the purpose of providing remuneration TO in
dvduas whose property has been seized for public uses
has been destroyed, upon reasonable ground OF appre
hension that it might fall into the hands OF the enemy,
By the military naval officer conducting the deences
prosecuting the lawful warke enterprises OF the country
can no difference in the world between the two
cases They rest upon the same principle, and are gov
erned by the same rule OF right.
aware that the honorable senator from New Hamp-
shire Mr. HaE] is OF opinion that this kind OF punish
ment should not be indcted and, as far as know, he
thinks no kind Of corporal punishment should be IN
hicted on any person connected with the public
service of the United States. That is question
| to be determined by the Senate when the proper time
comes and though the senator may be right IN his opn
ion, that a question which has nothing 10 do with the
present No bias should be raised against the claim
of this officer. because gentlemen may mink that that
punishment should be abolished 1t is abolished; it
is full force and in this for which SUIT has been
brought against Com Wilkes, it was honestly and faith
fully exercised in the discharge OF his public duty duty
discharged in remote quarter OF the world, where 1t was
absolutely Indispensable 10 the of the enterprise
and absolutely Indispensable TO the safety OF the lives OF
all who intrusted his command, that Obedience
prompt, entire obedience, should be enforced from all un
der his control
By the forms of the court, that was the only
Judgment they could render They overturned the ruling
of the court below Therefore, the only course which
they could pursue to order uens facias de nooo
cipes. This question is nothing more nor less in the
world than whether the government will indemnify that
public officer for the expense to which he has been put
not upon the ground that he has been fahess to his
duty not upon the ground that he has committed assault
and battery the from New Hampshire states, but
upon the ground that he has been charged with wrong
fully OBTAINING in the public service, and when 1t
has been proved that he was faithful in the discharge
of his duties the country in that detention 1t seems to
me- sir that to the extent which the committee thought
proper, should allow the claim Reason and justice
require that he should not be subjected to the expense
cessatily incurred in his defence in civil suit OF this
character.
that the Supreme Court has ordered uenire fac'as de
be issued II seems to me we are under PLAIN OBJ
legations that the officers shall not sustain loss That,
think, is the whole Independent OF the question
whether this punishment shall be hereafter lawful or not
This case stands entirely free from any question of that
sort 1t is of the application of power held by law,
without any lust excess, without any cruelty or wan
onness The court have decided that was rightfully
exercised by the officer in question, applied Justly to an
individual under his jurisdiction and control, and subject
to punishment individual belonging to the navy Of
the United States.
Mr. BRADBURY Mr.. President it must be very
obvious from the character of this debate, that this is
private claim-a claim made by officer OF the navy
to be reimbursed for expenses incurred in suit prose-
cuted against him. Now, there large number OF
claims which entitled to consideration, and as well
entitled to be annexed to appropriation Dill as TINS
The true question presented for the consideration OF the
Senate is, whether, upon Appropriation bill we shall
undertake to settle private caims The fact that this IN
ted States makes difference. The honorable senator
from North Carolina remarked that there were several
cases Of bills of character similar to this amendment
having been passed. | noted that remark.
| Mr.. BADGER Gnterposing) would state to the
honorable senator from Name that the bills to which
referred were not bills for the purpose OF reimbursng
officers but for the purpose OF relieving private persons
whose property was lost And this is precisely upon
that principle, because the officer himself was RESPONSE
BILE, and the government assumed the debt
Mr.. BRADBURY | am aware that cases of this kind
have been by officers claiming to be reimbursed
when they acted in public capacity, and would like
to know IT, when private citizen has Clam upon the
government, he must present his claim, subject to the
delays incident to the ordinary action OF Congress upon
claims, but when officer OF the army or navy has
claim II is to be taken up as public claim, legslated
upon though IT OF different character and con
sidered standing upon different principle And
what is the OF this' ii Is because the char
acter OF the individual changes the character OF the
claim Can gentlemen give me any other reason There
is other. Whenever this matter is presented othe
claims it will be proper to consider it, And hope
that this and every other similar claim will be rejected