The daily union., 1852-08-01

them from that point, another question have doubts
myself whether II would not have been better for them q
have stald there and defended the mill and believe they
might have done so, having had notice OF the fact thai
the Indians coming But that is not the question
before The Senate now Is the principle which the sena
Tor iom Pennsy lsahia Mr. BRoDHEADl has rased-lhe
very question or principle upon which lbs ana All o'uei
cases must be decided.
must confess s,f, that cannot any distinction ~
the matter The Indians expected 10 hnd Tins m IN ihe
occupation OF our uoops-lhough IN that the Indians
disappointed, troops having let before they
reached there II is for The Senate TO settle this ques
ton a matter OF principles bat cannot see any dis
lnclion between the Indians supposng that the troops
occupied The mill and The same supposon entertained
by civilized enemy II they had been attacked by Bnt.
sh French troops, and The mill had been destroyed.
would deny bat that the government would be Justly
liable for The damage thus sustained because it is The
uniform custom OF this government and believe OF all
Others under similar circumstances TO pay for all such
damage. But. sir, when the very brought
The Creek warriors TO this little ior,ihcaon destroy
the private property OF individuals which had been taken
possession OF by the United States troopst have
been the troops of the State, but ii is matter OF
sequence as TO that pointwhen the very
brought the Creek warriors to this little forlihcaton that
would have brought civilized enemy TO the point,
cannot conceive Of any why this government
should not pay for the property that has been destroyed
in the well as in the other
Mr.. BRODHEAD. But one or two words, Mr.. Pres
ident entertain very great doubts whether under the
act OF 1Sl6I7 and admitting also that these Creek war
rlors civilized people, the claimants would be en-
titled to damages in this The act OF lSl6v
1T provided for the destruction OF property during the
last war; and there were payments made in no cases
except where the property destroyed was IN the actual
possession and occupation OF the troopsno payments
except in where the property either actually
occupied by the troops at the lime OF Its desirucon
where there were military stores upon the premises.
Now sir, according 10 the statement OF this case by
the honorable senator form Missouri Mr. ATcHIsoNl
those mills private property they not in the
actual possession OF our troops, nor were there any
military stores there therefore, according TO the act OF
1sl6r7, they could not be paid for, even if enemy
had been Great Britain, and the British troops had de-
sroyed them Now the honorable senator says that the
Creek destroyed this mill because il had been
occupied by military force OF the United S;atesno,
because it then IN the actual occupation of the
toops-and that they would not have destroyed il unless
II had thus been occupied should like TO know, Mr..
President. how you can prove fact of that kind How
can it be proved How any tell us what were
then the purposes of the Indians, Ii they had de-
sroyed private property in the neig borhoodif ii
not the common practice Of the Indians TO destroy
private as well public property, private property
cupied for public usesthen admit that the fact might
proved because the Indians in the habit of destroy
ing private as well as public property This was private
property they occupied by our troops public prop
erly, and therefore should be paid for.
But, sir, it neither in the occupation of troops,
nor there any military stores placed there therefore,
according to the principles of the act OF sl6-7, 1t can
not be paid for. raise this question of principle
have no feeling abou, this individual / simply
desire that may have rule laid down by the Senate,
10 which the Committee of Claims can conform their
action.
Mr.. PRATT. Mr.. President, the chairman of the Com
nlitee OF Claims has well remarked that this very
important question, because there many other
which have been sent TO the Senate AMI referred to that
committee and that committee will feel bound to con-
their action upon those 10 the decision OF the
Senate in this case In the investigation of these claims
being member of the Committee of Claims myself, 1
will say that could the distinction undertaken
10 be draw between civilized and unclvzed enemy
The principle upon which the act OF lS6'l7 was based
was that wherever private property was SO occupied by
the public forces OF the United States as TO justify the
enemy in destroying IT, there followed the corealve duty
,t the government TO pay for the property destroyed But
IN making the application OF that principle, so Tar as the
Committee OF Claims concerned, they have applied
exclusively 10 the civilized enemy. never could see the
reason for that distinction.
Now. Mr. President, ask the attention of the Senate
TO the question look upon 1t. suppose we were al
war with civilized enemy-with Great Britain. Our
troops take possession of house belonging 10 nd-
vidual, and they fortify they make fort of IT, Here
is fortihcaton. When the enemy approach the house
troops it be said that this civilized
my would not be entitled under these circumstances, 10
destroy this military forlihcaon Why, no one will
say that they would not have that right In all that class
OF claims the civilized enemy would have universal lib
erty and think we should report IN favor OF paying
them Now, for my life ] cannot see, II such conduct
upon the part OF our government would Justify civilized
enemy in destroying The property, why It is that It's de-
struchon by savage foe, Tor the same reason, would
not equally oblge us to pay for it, Can any one give
sensible reason for the distinction? Ii had been at
with Great Britain and our forces had occupied these
buildings in the manner IN which they were occupied,
and rereaed as they did retreat, II is conceded by the
nOnOfaDle chairman OF Tue 1Onlhltlee OF SlaiHs
BRoDHEAD that should be bound 10 pay for the loss
because Great Britain, according 10 the laws OF nations,
would be entitled 10 destroy the property; and conse
lueny, much occupancy afforded them legal
right TO destroy the property we were bound to pay Tor
II. III that occupancy authorizes civilized enemy TO
destroy the forihcaon, II seems 10 me that il also au
lhorzes savage enemy TO destroy II under the same
circumstances. II this property was destroyed by the
Indians solely because OF its occupancy by our troops,
DO not see, for my part, why not just as much
Obliged 10 pay Tor as i had been destroyed by evil
zed enemy II is, has been said, important ques
ton, and want TO have the Senate vote upon It with
full understanding of all its consequences
MIR. CLEMENS Mr.. President, do not wish TO
argue this question at all, bat simply rise 10 offer an
find that in the 5lh line after the word
moneys" the words "in the treasury left outin
adverten,ly, undoubtedly move, sir, 10 insert those
words, :" in the treasury"
The amendment agreed 10.
Mr.. CLEMENS. Mr.. President, this is bill, ii
seems TO me- which requires argument II Is so plain
and distinct proposition that no argument could eluci
date IT. IL requires statement of the facts The
senator from Pennsylvania Mr. BRoDHEiDJ is wholly
mistaken when be says there precedenis for the
payment OF these claims On the contrary there no
precedens against IT, The thinks il wrong but
seven committees OF this body have thought il right 10
pay such claims, and OF The committees in the House
Of Representatives
Now, sir, 10 the weight OF authority, shall not
undertake 10 decide where II lies Three times this body
have passed that bin and IT the claimant IN this
not entitled to payment there be presented 10
Congres. IN which the private claimant would be ent
tied to payment. These Notifications erected by
United States troops, upon property belonging to pr
individual, after the at Fort Mimms. The
Indians attracted 10 thai point solely because the
fortihoatons there. The garrison abandoned The
fort and sought safety in flight The Indians went there
he al fafl a 1hn1