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

the chance Of escaping with his property Can take
for granted that the enemy will obtain possession OF II
| and destroy it, aud make that Justification for our
destroying IT! Sir, 1t seems 10 me that the position
which should be justified in assuming by the rules OF
wt, would be different IL is enough that the govern
men assume the right 10 take and 10 destroy private
property their pleasure, with the responsibility of pay
ing Tor H. The officers OF public command may have the
rights but IN order 10 guard against the abuse OF H. he
must exercise t. subject TO responsibility 70 the govern
meut II that Is So he may have the same power over
private property which he has over public property he
destroy that he destroy fort, any public prop
city, if he thinks that the eXgenceS of the case demand
! II and he may exercise the same power over private
pFoverty AS in the the loss necessarily falls
upon the government, II must IN the other II
commander OF army decides that certain private
war he decides that this property becomes necessary to
the government in the prosecution of the war, either to
possess IL or to destroy il BY the exercise OF his
high power, he converts that property to the pHb-
lie use, whether he holds it or destroys il. Ii he
destroys il, he destroys II public property In this
very case, here was the owner attempting to save his
property from The wreck In the very act he was arrested
by officer who steps IN and takes the property tor the
OF the government, and deprives the owner OF the
privilege OF attempting to save IT, lie might perhaps
| have done this
The position of the senator from Kentucky appears to
me to be very alarming and totally inconsistent
with the rights OF property Oneof the articles OF amend
that instrument which the rights OF the
peo,pe-the 5th article, thnk-says that private
pr operty shall be taken public without compensa
therefor. ask If this has not been taken for the
OF the government 1t isl Just much taken for our
use, think i, important for interest to destroy IT,
| III
just much made 1t public property and then at
liberty use it according 10 the eygency OF the
The gentleman from Vermont takes different position
Still think II is not sound and almost ed udly
exposing private property in time OF war He says that
the Responsibility OF the government depends upon the
fact whether the officers exercised this high power with
sound discretion Why, sir this a sound position! Is
the individual 10 be responsible Tor the act OF officer,
whether he exercises sound discretion not Suppose
he mlsnformed with regard TO facts He supposes the
enemy ia certain position; he supposes them 10 medi-
tate movements; and If right IN point of fact he
would have been right IN his conclusion; bat being
wrong in his facts his differences are wrong turns
out afterwards that II was altogether useless and idle to
destroy the property Or suppose that he does misldse
knowing the facts of the What then Is the gov
eminent to be responsible for mistakes IN MS officers,
or individuals 10 be responsible The officer might
destroy Whole town t or yage n an ,sn
OF the enemy, and form very important winter
quarters for them; and he might deem il extremely
important it should be destroyed, that they might
be deprived OF the opportunity. lie burns up the
town. is the government 10 be responsible, or - The
officer to be responsible If the latter where IS the Sc
curly OF thu rights OF individuals The otlcer may 90
before the court and bring testimony to the facts, and
show that the extremity of the eXigency such as 10
require this act That question is partially decided IN
this case, relates the inquiry whether the
my could avail themselves OF this property; but If we
extend the inquiry TO the question how far 1t would be
important in the prosecution of the war; it would be a
question OF extreme doubt and uncertainty and would
leave no security to private property whatever.
| Thea, to the officers of the navy, down to
the eutenans, with this right OF destroying private prop
ery al pleasure, and then turn the individual 10
ton respass Tor redress, or to contest the question
whether he erred in judgment not No, will
not do The of the officer the of the govern
ment when performed in the discharge OF his official
duty and the position taken by the senator from Virginia
is entirely He has drawn the true line. rhe
question whether there necessity for the act
is not whether there was an error IN Judgment upon the
part of the officer, whether he mslnormed with
regard the facts but the question is whether he did
the in the discharge OF his duty whether the property
was destroyed to prevent its falling into the hands Of the
enemy; and not whether there necessity for it.
If performed the discharge of his duty good faith
under the belief BY the officer that was necessary then
was the act of the government, whether wise not and
we are responsible for it, morally and every view and
ought to be held responsible But if he has destroyed
out Of the line OF his dnty- ii is mere wanon tres
passive are not to be told that they have remedy
against the officer remedy against the officer is good
for nothing. There might be destruction of large
amounts OF property, and what would be the response
billy OF individual IN such case n
T Another consideration which tends to shog that the
government should be held responsible for the acts Of
their agents. when IN the discharge OF their duty this:
Il important 10 hold these agents to proper degree OF
responsibility if they ACT without good They
be court narshaled and the reputation OF an Officer
is the only way reach him. Thar is the responsibility,
and the only (no pecun!ary) TO which he can be
called and pecunay responsibility Is oiien out OF the
question Let him know that has acts the acts of the
government, and that the government are responsible for
then and that the government hold him responsible IN
turn.
think this case, Sir, is perfectly clear can hardly
conceive OF case clearer than tins Whether there
or not necessity this saving his own
property, and step and take ii of his hands One
gentleman says the Indians would have destroyed it,
Suppose that they would; have not deprived him OF
the right OF attempting 10 his property Another
gentleman that officer acted indlscreety that he
erred in judgment. Well who is responsible for that
Was this petitioner responslbe Was he the agent oil
the government; Why, it is monstrous consider him
responsible TO turn him over 10 agent when his
performed in the discharge OF his duty, and for which
he justly responsible to As to whether he acted
wisely not, he acted undoubtedly his best Judgment
and is not the deduction conclusive that in the Judgment
of the officer it expedent for the public interest that
the property should be destroyed think there can be
no doubt of this, and have heard of none.
l Mr.. BUTLER had the honor, sir, TO sit upon the
Committee Claims when THIS before it, and
the impression which then received | still entertain.
know il very difficult TO lay down any definite rule to
guide tins body IN relation 10 CLAIMS like this for during
the Florida am satisfied that great deal OF
property very injuilciously ordered to be de-
stroyed, and in COLLISION with the owners. Now
4 sir, | do not believe that government ought to
be responsible in all where the officer act
ed within the scope OF his agency, within the sphere
of his duty Not at all. would have principle to
qualify that materially mot only that he should have
the incidents OF Now the means OF carrying the
very different They cannot be prescribed and
II is in vain for TO take retrospect of what this
officer ought ought no, TO have done He destroyed
the property under the apprehension that il might have
fallen into the enemys hands aud become source OF
| annoyance.
By way of illustration, may be allowed to allule to
one two Cases. | recollect that a gentem from
Alabama pettoned here for payment Tor destroyed
under such circumstances, and the decision that
was favor of the claim. The best mode OF carrying
the appeared to be, 10 destroy this lest 1t
should fall into the hands OF the enemy. Much OF IT