The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-10-03

dians who DESTROYED them Why, the thing 10 impossi
BILE. The troops being there might keep inem away IRON
the property which their presence was designed 70 pro-
ect, II certainly constitutes just foundation Tor clam
asalas, the United States !, Is enough .hai they dla
what they might TO protect this propery quie out
OIL the question that the presence of the troops drew the
savase enemy 10 the place. The senator has mol been
guarded IN his statement The troops, unless they took
OF this warehouse Tor the purpose OF defend
ing 4, took possession OF it BY rent Now. why the
whole claim i se up BY the chairman Of the Committee
on Indian Affairs - tome ncomprehensble
MI. AlCHl>oN That an old soldier, and such die
Mr. DAVIS. Of Mississippi Oh, no; NO, thai,
MIR. ATCHISON Yes, such distinguished one.
should take such view OF this mater is 10 me quite a.
him Why, sir. what drew Santa Anna and his army te
Buena Vista twas the very fact that tLe American army
was stationed at or near thai place Why. sir, is there
experience that whese hostile troops are stationed there
their antagonists march TO meet them! THIS is always
the case or there never would DC any hgntng. unless
tactics Of The senator Mississippi are strange lndeei
they are ne and Will the necessity Of worlds pcate
for il we have armies in the Held according
this theory, they will never seek each other hsa
most curious fact about either oil ancient or mod
times Why, sir. the senator should have patent
But, in all seriousness the principle embraced in this
amendment has been recognised by law We hayea
law recognising this very principle that when pnvas
possession OF the premises, The government has
failed pay II this is rejected il will be tho first
instance Of hi. kind IN the history Of the government
from Missouri affords illustration OF what would DC
very extraordinary principle in physicshat one body
having strong attraction for another, and that oer not
only having an attraction for this one, but absolute
repulson, should be drawn towards It. For 1t appears
that these Indians, according to the evidence now submit
troops which United States troops not attracted BY
any by their presence but were very much epe
and U.s wes actually dsn leaving sv p S,
this case oil private claims, 10 be investigated and
ported upon the usual form suppose that the report
which was read here was accompanied by a BILL which
bill should be aclel upon by tell We called
upon do what have very often refused to DO We
are called upon TO put into an app9pra,9n oil an sp
upon in the regular way, by considering the bill which
should accompany the report For that reason object
MIR. DAVIS, Of Mississippi | must say something in
answer 10 my friend from Missouri, who has put in
caueat il my Tor patent But It was permitted
for the any else to make his own case, and
give his own answers, he would undoubtedly win the
case But the misfortune in this case was that guarded
my language spoke OF the savage foe, aAd the case
with my remarks In the progress OF civilization the
cultivated nations avoid the destruction oil private prop
ery They march their armies against the armies oi me
enemy and fight battles decide issues between nations
Not with the savage Toe They attack private property
where it is not guarded They assail hamets because
they find them defenceless There is analogy between
the cases The senator, therefore, has drawn a conclu-
sion which does mol apply to my proposition which prop
oston confines itself TO the savage foe he refers TO me
two cases The Mexican army marched against the
American army. Ii they beat the American army, they
of would have the stores which the Americans
then possessed II they conquered the Americans they
would gain one point of honor Tor their nation and
was well understood that il they could overcome the
American army once they were .nen wiling upon pnh .as
analogy between the which have been classed to-
getheT The senator draws his conclusion from an argu
ment which never presented.
Now, the senator may have precedens to give to our
consideration. II there precedents, 30 much the
greater necessity for our examining every case ne
going to bring the in Forids, where we have
paid for damages which never existed, because troops
were the places tell him beforehand that one wrong
does not justify another tell him beforehand inat tnsfe
are which lead to the devastation oil the
treasury of the United States than they do TO the devasa
ton OF the property OF private individuals snail con.
cede such this because one wrong has been
M MIR. ATCHiSoN. The senator has mistaken the pre-.
cedent and the point which wish TO make. Now the
first matter of American history that recoect was the
assault upon Boone, in Kentucky and also upon other
forts and blOckhouses,
Mr.. DAVIS, Of mississippi. There were no troops
Mr.. ATCHISoN Every man was soldier, Laugh
ter Then Fort Meigs during the last war why, had
there been no troops at Fort Mess we would MOI have
Well SIR our history is full OF such instances, that these
savage foes, these ignorant savages do seek heI enc
my Why, sir the hero OF Tppecanoe was assaulted IN
his camp. The American army being at that point drew
A SENATOR. That was where General Taylor had his
Mr. ATCHISON Our whole history is full OF such
instances Now these troops referred TO in the amend
ment who had possession oil the government stores.
were in the warehouses OF Jerngan, and bis premises
were used by these troops Perhaps may have beeD
little unfortunate in the expression that The troops being
stationed there drew the Creeks upon them 70 that place
But so il was The fact is proved beyond all controversy
that the Creek Indians did attack the town oil Roanoke,
and did drive the troops from that Town, and burn ine
warehouses and store Now, SIR, think have an
swered the point made by The SENATOR atnougn 90 ho'
pretend to be military man.
Mr. RUSK In 1916 a law passed by the Con-
gress OF the United States, after full investigation, de-
cang that the United States would pay Tor the desruc-
ton o private property BY the enemies OF the country,
civilized as wen savage provided that destruction was
caused by the occupation OF the promises by the United
States troops That law limited in It's OPERATION and
existed but few years great many cases were paid
under IT, but the time out for the limitation DO not
know however, OF single that has been rejected
since that time. Every that has come before the
Congress OF the United Sates that came under me pro-
visions OF the law OF 1916, has been paid by the united
States Ii has not been refused in any case hat Know
Of. Immense Of money have been graneo Iol tne
payment OF the destruction oil properly IN he negngo1
hood OF this city, OF which the proof mad moi oeen Iuf
nsbed pending the law of 1915 This, hen ~ tne pIn-
cipe and the only question that arises here wnetner
this was destroyed BY the Indians IN consequence
of i,s being occupied by the troops Oh he United
States That seems TO be the controversy oe,wesn tne
senator from Mississippi and the senator from mssoun'
and will not interfere with H.
Mr. DAVIS OF Mississippi The senator from Texas
has only stated he question at issue between the sepator
from Missouri and myself. The senator from Missouri
saws that misunderstood his precedent Why sir, that
which he quoted equally unfortunate, il not more 90
He quotes the of ppecanoe. Now, the Indians ana