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

for any interest aud that the petitioners have
reasonable and just claim the governments of ihe 70
moveabe part OF their consisting OF rope
spun yarns and hemp, deducting therefom what Ieaso
ably would have been the Of transporting the ga "
place ofsaety and back the ropewak alter the danger
ceased, and damage done the materials by soon re-
mova with, perhaps, deduction rom the prices az
which the articles are charged .
Included in stated OF their loss is $500 esti
mated the value OF the ropewak, which your eonn.ee
think ought rejected, the would have been
burnt by enemy If tho materials Of cordage and hemp
had been removed thereirom" !.
The balance Of The clam-as stated by the claimants
is $24 1857 table of the articles stated TO have been
DESTROYED is here given; but will not occupy the ume
OF the Senate reading IT. Ii was suggested tha e cost
OF removal and the damage done 10 the materials iheie
by would have been twenty per cent, which, deducted
from the whole amount, leaves a balance OF Sly'ol9;
The committee reported, al that time, that II u should
be satisfactorily proved that that amount OF codage anu
hemp was destroyed, it their opinion that TINS sum
than reasonable compensation.
Having claimed at that time ON the ground OF Inc pecu-
afliy OF the case, they claim compensation LOT Inc
destruction OF the real estate. wish the Senate TO un-
derstand that the difference between the other members
OF the committee and myself consists IN ths iney
say that We have right to infer that tue bfitisn
would have destroyed the ope-wak II It's contents mad
been removed. think such IS the reasonable INFER
ence and that if we in doubt upon the Inference
resls with the claimant TO show that II would not
have been burned. They did not prevent him from re-
moving the rope-walk. That is out OF the question
And therefore the ground upon which the former part
Of the claim was originally allowed is not sufficient
to establish the present one.
Mr.. PRATT. II | can obtain the attention OF the
SENATE Tor moment, l Will enueaVOT 10 explain ING
views OF the majority of the committee, and to show
the gentleman who has just addressed us against the
claim why il ought to be paid In the first place,
without conesting the principle upon which my learned
friend has argued, will endeavor TO show from the
facts in this that according to the principle which
lie avows this claim ought to be paid. What is that
prncplel 1t is that wherever private property is de-
stroyed by the public enemy in accordance with civilized
warfare consequence OF any act OF this government or
lis agents the government is responsible There can be
doubt that this is going in favor OF the government
wherever, repeat, in accordance with the usage OF
civilized warfare, the property OF the citizen OF TINS
county is destroyed because OF the occupancy or use
of that property by the government lis agent, the
government is bound 10 pay for it.
Now, in 1914, at the time that the British army came
into the city OF Washington Mr. Renner since deceased,
owned rope walk in the city OF Washington, IN which
he manufactured the rope, and Irvine, and naval stores
necessary for vessels at the yard in this place
There deposite in this rope walk large quantity
OF these naval slores-amounling TO some $4,000 or
SIT 900 in value. The owner of this rope walk had col
ected wagons carts, and boats-pung the boats upon
the Eastern branch OF the Polomac-and had provided
sufficient means for conveying these munitions OF war
from his house, and TO take them away. Now, sir it the
munitions of had not been in this house, then,
coding TO the usages OF civilized warfare, the house
would not have been destroyed. This is conceded. AS
my learned friend states-and the evidence is conclu.
sye-ths individual had sufficient to carry OIL all
these things which would have justified the British,
coding 10 the usages OF war, in the destruction OF the
properly But they taken by army for the pur
pose OF carrying their baggage Hence IT was that Con-
gress has already paid for the Irvine and rope.
Now, my honorable friend says that we ought not to
pay for the Iope-walk. For my life, cannot see any
distinct on Here an Individual who had the twne
and rope in his house He had provided the means OF
carving them away The fact that the Irvine and rope
were there justified the burning Of it. Now, unless the
honorable senator show that 900 worth OF twine
and rope could be burned in house without burning the
house, he must come 10 the conclusion, 1t seems to me,
that nasmuch he admits that the Irvine and rope were
proper to be paid for ought also pay for the house
am not given 10 making speeches for the purpose OF
prolonging debate. have given TO the Senate my view
that the bill may pass. We have devoted much more
time to various claims oil minor Importance to this This
claim is just; and in my apprehension when The gov
paid for the burning OF the rope and twIne they
conceded the principle because the house destroyed
consequence of the rope and Irvine being III IT, and IN
consequence OF the right OF the army to destroy The
MIR BRADBURY The honorable senator from Mary.
land this claim upon the assumption that the build
being stored in IT, That assumption 10 be contra
dcted by the record This investigated in 1915
committee, having il under examination, made their
port They made allowance. and reported bill In
Iavor OF the parties them for the loss OF the
time and rope which IN the sorehouse; and IN that
report they express stated that the building would have
been destroyed If they bad not been stored in It, will
call the attention oil the Senate to the language OF the
port:
Included in the sum stated of their loss is So $50 e
mated the value Of the rope.wak, which your commit
think ought be rejected the would have been
burnt by the enemy il the materials Of cordage and hemp
had been removed thererom."
A SENATOR. How did they know it,
Mr.. BRADBURY They had better means OF know
ing IL than have. They investigated IT when the
facts fresh, and when witnesses could be called in
They Investigated II IN the immediate vicinity where the
transactions occurred And they find in their report that
this building would have been destroyed had the mate
rails been removed Now, the question IS this Whether
when committee, investigating under such clrcum-
Stances find certain fact, SHALL after lapse OF more
than quarter OF century, infer, without any proof
whatever that their finding was erroneous think II is
saer, where finding OF that kind is explicit, for 10
ovean the report OF the committee that investigated the
matter at the time. My apprehension is that If we un.
derake anything Of the kind 1t will lead to vast amount
OF cases, where the parties have settled down satisfied
with the investigation
Mr. PRATT. One word, sir The senator has read
from the report, which he has stated fact; and he
says that il would be unwse for to override that fact
so found by that committee long time ago. They say
this rope-wak would have been burned Is that fact
II may be opinion, sir Au how the senator can say
that II is fact which the committee reported, or had
right TO report, | cannot conceive. They say II would
have been burned down take the question according
to their own showing. Either that committee did not
act in accordance with The principle that has been stated,
or we are bound TO pay for this house The whole
according 70 the usages OF civilized warfare This house
properly burned according TO the usages OF civilized
warfare, or we ought not 10 have paid them II was,
therefore, according the concession the other side,
properly destroyed by the British army They had
right TO destroy and il is from that proper destruction
alone that grows obligation and right to pay for i
Ii was therefore properly destroyed by the British. II
IN this house. The party could have removed il.
They had provided the means OF removing IT. The ene-
my had right destroy II but according to their
cession they could removed it, and would have
been destroyed 1t destroyed because il not re-