The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-03-06


| take il that assumed in the report Of ISIS ana.
previous acton--the ground upon which The esia ~ "
then allowed. This was not the property of the na
men These parties may have supplied The goyssNl-
or lhsy may not. They had private rope-walk nv,
vast amount OF property IN II OF various kinds 1
deed il appears from the statements brought beio,. ~
committee that most OF II consisted OF unfinished ' ls
OF various kinds. very small proportion OF II wa p"
dage The rest OF il unspun or in various slagss
finished. know OF no principle which would inssl
lis destruction by the enemy, But the army al 'Cy
Britain did not pause during that war in their deslrs,
of property, because II was not IN accordance with ~
usages OF civilized warfare and the party did NOT venue
TO claim il on that ground. The committee rejected a
that ground, and allowed il on the other. "~
Mr.. UNDERWOOD Mr.. President once erami,.
this claim, (when member OF the Committee OF CIai%0I
and came 10 the conclusion that it had no just oun%
lion aud rise now sir, Tor The purpose Of stating a
think il ought not 10 be allowed. wy
We have navy yard Just upon the east branch n A.
Potomac and just in the neghborhood OF thai n,sr t
yard-aecording TO proof-was this rope. walk M
twine and everything which is used al such ma6ui
tory or rope walk. Now, say that, according ia A.
usages OF civilized warfare, invading army Toa1
burn up this navy yard and all It's appurenances AnS%
general who would not burn up such navy yard ana ali
it's appurlenances, II he were IN my service, | womb
cashier. Now, SIR, when an invading army sees M,
there is a navyyard, and Just by that navy yard ton
walk, where all the coIdage and Irvine, and, II yon
please sails for vessels may be prepared, would moi ~
cordng 10 the usages OF civilized warfare, The genera n
rect the destruction OF The property which used m
furnishing the navy-yard close by Can anybny h.
palmer! Ii seems 10 me that nothing can be,
Now, take il for granted that there was not par.
Gle of this Irvine, this codage OF any OF those things
il had all been removed by these wagons which thew had
provided for such removal. But IT not removed
and therefore properly paid for But suppose lsy
had succeeded IN removing every particle OF it, 50 hat
nothing remained but the house. Them | ask wh,t
would have been the consequences OF thus presenting n
the appurtenances OF rope -walk close by nayynM
where supplies were manufactured What would have
been The consequences OF such presentation 10 the g
of general commanding an invading army He womb
have said, "Here The enemy obtains his supplies for NJ
shipping" Would he make the distinction whether NM
was public or private property Could he tell whether
this rope-walk, with all It's appurlenances and houses,
did not belong TO the government as appurlenancs
TO the navy yard He could not He could know nob
ing about it. 1t would have been rational conclusion
TO suppose that if the government owned the navyya
il also owned this adjacent rope-walk.
Now, sir, il seems to me that The laws OF civilized
warfare required the destruction OF this property Ii seems
to me that if general OF ours should invade any for.
egn country, and find navy-yard with aropewak ad-
Joining IT, he would destroy them both for The purpose Of
disabling the enemy. If our generals ought TO DO that
then British generals ought to do it. 1t seems that
the laws of would require the destruction Of prop.
erty thus situated as public property.
Now, sir, take the case OF private mandatory Of
guns and everybody will at once see that il an invading
enemy could destroy the establishments Of that kind
Springfield or Harper's Ferry, it would be right and
places where the Mexicans obtained their supplies during
the late Mexican war-where they MANUFACTURED hsn
guns--it would have been lawful, just, and proper Bot
il General Scott had lett in his rear mandatory
cannon or small arms, and marched on to Mexico i
would have deprived him Of many Of those aurels which
we all so unanimously concede to him. Ii would have
argued great want of prudence and foresight.
But suppose, instead OF being property owned by h
government for manufacturing arms, il was private prop
ery, employed-just as Mason's works above the city
are-n manufacturing cannon would not an invading
enemy say that "he government derives supplies from
this private establishment and for the purpose OF l
bling the enemy | have right to destroy ip' Tint
is the case, seems 10 me, IN regard TO this ropeWa
and all its appurienances Being near the navy yaH
This is the place for the navy yard TO derive its supn
from, and OF course when we burn the navy-yah@
will burn up lis appurlenances, whether private pro
or not.
before the Senate joined The senator from Kentucky (t
UNDERwooDl in opposing II and believe It was owing
TO his and NY opposition on the last night OF The session
that il defeated had my attention called 10 The
claim afterwards by the gentleman, in whose udgmen
had almost unlimited confidence and have become sails
he'd that was wrong IN opposing II. generally contu
with the senator from Kentucky on claims OF this kind
aud lake it for granted that the age ID objecionp
them but am satisfied that this claim has menl, and
that the amount proposed TO be paid by this bill is noh
ing more than the parties are entitled TO- do not know
that could make a better Argument upon the subra
than is presented in the report hold in my hand IN
dersiand the Committee OF Claims 10 have made H.
vorable report, but that the senator from Delaware M
BAYARDl objected. shall ask 10 read the report and
call the attention OF senators TO il. II states in vuy
clear, concise manner the point OF the case. lhen
port is made by my colleague, [Mr. WHTcoMB, amen.
Der OF the committee. | think the facts Of the cs
are narrowed down simply 10 this: that these Fats
for whose benefit this bill is presented were ownend
certain materials referred 10 that they made all net
sary and proper arrangements to remove the cordat
hemp, and other materials, and were upon the verge
doing SO when the means they employed were ass y
the government officers and employed for other pufse
nd all the testimony goes 10 establish the fact thai had
not the government officers nterered and taken The V@
ons and boats which these parties bad employed and
pressed them into the service OF the public, the benz
cordage and other articles would have been saeyN
moved The fact that these articles were left as con.
bustibe materials in the building led 10 the hiring m
building and consuming the materials. Inc commune
that formerly reported reported in favor OF paying aM
materials. And such has been the uniform report Of CON-
mittees the subject There is doubt therefore, u@
that point and the only question remains as TO The oa
ing. think, legal point, presented TO any couI ne.
can be no doubt about the jnstce oil The United Saa
paying in this case for all that is claimed HeresnsE
port OF the committee, which is better argument uA
any senator can give.
1.-THE report was accordingly read
MIR BAYARD. | do not mean TO discuss this qaa
ton any further. The Senate has heard enough OF y
and, with view TO test the OF the Senate nov
that il be indefinitely postponed. -.
The question being taken on the indefinite posFOLJ
meni OF the bill, on division only IL voted IN me !"
hrmative 50 the question was lost. "a,
The question then recurring on the engrosslns " ~
bill for third reading, il was agreed TO-.
ADJOURNMENT OVER.
Mr.. STOCKTON moved tina, when the Senate adloup
il adjourn ill Monday A.
Mr.. BRADBURY Some time ago. Mr., President ~ ~
Senate assigned special day for the consideration o Y.
bill making provision for French spoliations. de,I
call that bill up al early day II is time II shos ss
acted upon and was about TO propose that The oep''
meet tomorrow, with view TO take y up
Several SENATORS. Oh, no. u,
M at ia