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

the treasury, by the officer | believe Congress has
never held itself responsible in all and under all
circumstances for the action OF its officers believe the
contrary has been the rule As to the officer IL sued
and il he asks for indemnify it viii only be allowed in
sueh cases where Congress is satisfied that the was
necessary The gentleman from Florida [Air WEsrcorr]
the other day, put the cAse believe upon this gulg
lie insisted that whether the officer Judged right or
wrong whether the eXgency of the public service re-
CURED the destruction OF the vessel not the govern
ment was bound, OF course to indemnify in this case
against the act OF its officer, without nqurng into
the which induced the officer TO destroy the
property, and into the proprety Of the act
My object IN rising merely 10 say that this in
wolves this question: and this alone II stands upon lis
own footing. Ii stands upon the ground that to admit
the claim for remuneration for act OF the officer ii
unnecessary to ask it in the discreet performance of
his duty, OF otherwise that being the act of officer
IN the public service the government Is of course and at
all euents, bound to pay for II.
For one cannot admit this to be true and though
was for many years member OF the Committee on
Claims, know OF no case in which such principle was
Mr.. BRADBURY have bestowed some attention on
the bill under consideration, and find myself unable 10
adopt the principle referred TO by the from Yer
mont understand that the principle which he nvokes
TO govern the decision of this Is, that where an Off
OF the army navy OF the United States in command
IN time OF hosthes directs the destruction OF private
property, the government should refuse make compen.
saton unless Congress shall be OF the opinion that the
officer was guided by sound discretion There would
be serious difficulties attending the ppcaton of this
principle It would lead to dangerous collisions. Take
the of commanding officer, who honestly and in
good faith believes that the public interest demands the
destruction OF certain property OF citizen, TO prevent ITS
falling the hands of, and becoming useful 10 the enc
my, and he thereupon orders IT To be destroyed backed
by the bayenets that the government has pPced at his
command in the execution of his orlers,--ii sir the
principle of the honorable senator is TO he adopted the
of the property must regard the officer and men
Hnder hun as mere tespassers 1t would he his right
and bis duty to protect himse-o resist by force the
execution OF the officers ofdescall his neishbors
and repe the military naval forces of his own gov
and, if need be- TO exlenlnae them in defence
v ,Iant Ia n.fhn "
him that he shall have redress unless he protects his
property or runs the haza,d of finding the officer
whose judgment consrains tim to direct lis destruction
responsible in pecmniar', point of view TO make com
pensation | think tie safer rule would be this that
where commanding officer of army navy
IN good faith directs the destruction of the property of
individual III time OF war; the government will make
compensation Tor the property destroyed This diff
ers from that of Center referred to in the debate of last
week, IN this par,icuarthat at the time the property Of
Center directed 10 he DESTROYED it worth nothing,
because it inevitable that il would Immediately fall
INTO the hands of the enemy. II in such the prnc
pie is applet that the government should pay it could
be required pay only the nominal value which the prop
erty possessed at the time OF its destruction In the
now before us the property could have been saved and
the officer OF the United States navy IN command directed
the wreck 10 De burnt under the honest belief that the
interest of the service which he attached required
its destruction; and shall that the government
make no compensation, merely because he misudged
and that he TO be regarded in the light OF trespasse
and that the cillzen whose properly was destroyed
ought 10 have stood by and defended IL | think not
and that the adoption OF such principle would inevi-
tably lead 10 collision between The army and navy and
private citizens for redress would be left the
bu to collecl force and protect his property at every
hazasd,
Mr. HALE. know, sir, that ii is very hopeless task
to undertake 10 oppose The provisions OF law in relation
to the doings OF an officer OF the army or navy that
wherever he Judges In his discretion caprice that the
property OF citizen or the life OF citizen is to be
the laws OF Congress and of the judiciary
silent before him. Take the principle sir, that is ai
vocated by the senator from Maine and what all the
Of fha hafp tba
fcer He Judges, he thinks, he pretends to think,
that public interest requires the destruction OF mans
property; or-as was done not many years since IN the
it requires the destruction OF three four
lives without the form OF trial by hw, and the word
goes out of his mouth, aud the property is de-
Of "a as There i' ne p 'a there
no inquiry. Even the judiciary itself is dumb be-
fore him. No, sir; think the principle advocated by
the senator from Maine is monsoas He could not have
looked at it with the discrimination which he usually
brings TO bear upon questions before he would have
the consequences which follow the adoP-
ton of such principle. That principle if understand
him. is that the Congress OF the United States are bound
10 pay whenever any officer of the army or navy,
whether in the exercise of sound discrimination or idle
caprice, may think that the property OF citizen Is TO be
acrhced that the treasury is to be opened to indemnify
Tor such loss, when by the facts OF the case II is clearly
proved that there was no necessity for such destruction
Ant that the exercise of sound discretion did not require
but rather forbade it that then, sir, the treasury is ,
be opened to pay for this property Why, sir we mig mt
as well dispense with the idle forms OF law, and al low
every oHCef OF government 10 run uH
he country, and put his elbow deep " to the
treasury, TO pay Tor his caprices. L thrik, sir,
that the principle suggested by the sens Tor from
ermnnt goes as TAR any one can IN conscience
20. lie thinks that If it turns ont tho the
sites OF the required the exercise Of the power of
an Officer for the destruction OF property nen, and not
t then, ought the government TO pay. But the prnc-
pie OF the senator IRON Maine an url limited How
Is IT, sur, IN the of private Individual in the case
Of false impr sonment? Why, sir, such cases, has
always been held that the officer of the army navy
could not ~ sy the imprisonment he must answer Tor ii
will shory that after peace has been restored, officers
have h ID account for the abuse OF this arbitrary power
eXerc .sed in time OF That is going far enough.
Let them stand upon level with other citizens OF the
re- ubc, ami when they have committed acts worthy OF
uni hmcnt, let them be held responsible. No matter
If they have been backed up by military power and
bayoneis that is much aggrayation, and so much
the vnIrtive should be the damages which they
should pay. But, sir adopt this principle. and 1t puts
the citizen OF the United States at the mercy OF every
subordinate who wears epanet, and the treasury Is
called upon pay tor the denluencies OF that subordi-
nate. do not knox, but TINS attempt TO stand be-
fore the passage OF this bill will be utterly ide but can
consent 10 give countenance sanction TO such
nonstFous principle, and satisfied the senator from
Name will when he comes TO examine 1t with his
accustomed keenness and scrutiny that he must abandon
the principle which he has advocated
Mr., RUSk. do not any OF the difficulties which
the gentleman from New Hampshire Mr.. HALEl has
mentioned think he has not paid very high compll-
either to the officers OF the navy OF the army.
They placed III time oil war very responsible SIT
uation. II becomes their duty 10 defend the country and
to take all the measures necessary Tor that purpose.
They have the power OF the government, as has been
Justly remarked, IN their hands What is the citizen to
do If the officer of the navy OF the army judges that
property should be destroyed, and destroys
prevent falling into the hands OF the enemy? This