The daily union., 1852-08-01


case would be the only principle upon which relief could
equaby be demanded on account OF depfedaiions oc
curing BY the act OF The enemy during the war. The
right OF civilized nation Is drawn from the struggles OF
civilized nations. which should not interfere with the
safety OF the people. The rsAi as between civilized ma
lions The par OF each Lon 10 destroy any public
stores, public buildings, armaments, public property
OF any kind OF the enemy 10 whom they opposed ;
and the principle necessarily follows from that that ii
the government oil any country mpresses upon private
property public character by the mode of its oceupa
uon then the party ought TO be entitled 10 redress II The
destruction is IN consequence OF ihe aet OF the govern
meat This, IT seems 10 me, is the true principle Now.
The laws OF lsl6-i7 in their language, guarded against
what might be evil arising from this loose notion OF
what does impress upon private property the character OF
public property They provided that the occupation by
our troops as barracks, places OF deposit oil military
stores, should be continued 10 the time OF Inc desue-
ton. That essential because the character oil pubic
property would not be Impressed upon ~ any longer IMAM
the occupation continued. 49,
Of the United States take private property and turn into
fouhcation as according 10 this report appears 10 have
been the case IN this instance although admit ha' lhs
would wish The principle IS correct, that If this was
public property the enemy had the right TO destroy IT, In
this case according TO the statement OF the facts the
reportwhich. il had been specific, should have
liked the beiier-l am inclined 10 think The claimant
titled TO relief. The government took certain mills and
turned them into forihcation--I do not whether
it was regular forlhcation or mere stockade-and
they remained in that iorthcation until within two or
three days from the time of the destruction,
Mr. CASS, (in his seat) 1t was with the consent OF
Mr.. BAYARD. Whether they had the consent of the
not is immaeria if the government took pos
session of the property and turned into forlhcation
Ii al the time of the destruction il not occupied by
the troops of the United States he would not have been
entitled 10 compensation, unless public character had
been impressed upon it by that forfcation, making
public property | think that character was impressed
upon il by the act of the goyernment-in other words,
think that If the government occupied temporarily the
house of citizen, without altering its form, fortfyng
way; then il they retreat its character Of private
property returns 1t is only while il in actual occupation
that the enemy is entitled TO destroy il, that the party
Is entitled To redress But II the government fory that
budingi they turn into fort, regular irregular,
and leave in that shape upon the approach of the
my and II is destroyed in that shapeand that seems TO
be the case here think stands IN the relation OF p
vae property which has acquired the character of public
property by the act OF the government and that there
lore the government being responsible Tor the conse
quences OF lis own acts, necessarily TO be presumed
the of It's destruction, and 10 make compensation
therefor. No civilized nation would otherwise destroy
it, Any civilized nation hnding private property turned
into FORT occupied unoecuped, would have the right
according the usages of civilized warfare to destroy It,
Now, sir, il that principle obtains among civilized ma
tious and ii they would have had the right under the
circumstances TO destroy this property, most certainly
with regard 10 savage nations you would extend the rule
quite far. The reason why the government does not
undertake to remunerate lis citizens, in wars between
lzed nations, for depredalions committed by the enemy
not under the rules OF civilized warfare, is very palpa
Bile. You would justify the act il you did. The govern
ment with which at has the right TO break
down the public treasury IT well 10 destroy
lis armament But the most civilized nations have said
that they will not touch private ropery and such the
law OF nations and the general usage OF all civilized
tons But you adopt it as your principle, that in all
cases OF Observation-Disclosures the character OF public
property has been impressed upon the property OF private
citizens noyou will remunerate them, then the
my will destroy the property; and his reasoning will be
very apparent. He will say, "We shall exhaust the
treasury of the United States and regards the prnc
pie OF humanity 10 The individual prevent the deslruc
lion of private property where there is redress,
exempt from ii, because know that, al later day il
may be- but still ultimately the party will be relieved by
their government and they have chosen 10 take
that position, they justify treating all the property OF
the country public property" suppose it is from the
apprehension OF that OF reasoning that the laws of
the United States have always refused, unless the prop
ery at the time of its destruction had the character OF
public property impressed upon it, TO hold the government
responsible for it, believe this TO be the true principle
of construction under the law OF nations, and The
principles OF the laws OF lSl6-17.
As this case stands, although as said before the req
sonng and statements of committee do not quite
also in debate think there Us evidence quite sufficient
to justify the remuneration. The government fortified
the property, and therefore placed upon II the permanent
character OF public property As therefore, the govern
nent had impressed upon it permanent character of
public property s actual occupation by troops at the
time OF The destruction ~ not necessary that they may
claim compensation, Where the character OF public
properly impressed upon temporarily, there actual
cupalon necessary and the destruction must take place
during such occupation In this case permanent public
character given by the iorhcaon by the government
and that permanent character beng given IT within
The pncp pie of the laws OF Isi6l7, and think the bill
ought to pass.
Mr.. BRODHEAD | understand the facts OF the case
differently iron the senator from Delaware, Mr BAY
ARD Understand that these mills occupied with
the consent OF the owner, and not fortified. The
troops merely occupied them while they Ia opened TO be
there and when they left, the property was private
property.
MIR. BAYARD win the senator allow me to read
from the report take the facts they stated here
although not stated specifically ! should desire
The report says;
In the case under consideration the petitioner had
originally erected his buildings and other Improvements
the given in the Presidents proclamation
that the and property o settlers should be projected
these buildings converted into tempo
rsy fort by officer of the government, and such be-
the point of assault the Indians immedat after
their sncce.sfui attack Fort Mmms and the OF
n garrison"
Now, understand the words " converted into tenn
porary fort necessarily to imply by which the
mills were forlhed-either stockadc or other
species Of focaton and that remained attached to the
place. although troops bad retreated and thus the
character wbch the government had impressed upon the
property by the fortihcaon still remained so under
stand IT.
The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third
reading.
On motion by Mr. MASON, the Senate proceeded to
he consideration of executive business.
fro BIZ Continued
SATURDAY, JULY 81, 1852.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
After the reading of the journal,
MIR. HEM asked leave TO move TO take from the /
he hill three