The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-03-21

Mr.. President 10 my mind this case-more strikingly
tIian any have noticed for long time shows The pro-
We'y, 'he necessity, Indeed OF having Board Of Ac-
couns or some sort OF tribunal separate from Congress-
20 aoJudicate prlvaie claims ii would the time
40 Justce 10 individuals and project the treasury All
eu1s come before us, and necessarily passed upon
oy our committees upon &c payfe testimony We get
we can only ge,one side OF the question The claimant
comes forward, as Mr. Callagha in this with all
a' can Dc said or shown IN support OF his claim He
o course says nothing shows nothing the other side
which could hy possibility initiate against his claim
Everything but what Is favorable 10 him s Of course
carefully excluded. No one is here or before the COM
miiiees TO suggest objections find testimony or 10
cfoss-exaInne witnesses in favor OF the government
Indeed there are no witnesses to be exaneder
pare aldavts, dspositions utout notice, were, be-
Ing The only Witnesses before us and there they stand
hxed dogged and impraciicabe Suppose sir proceed
ings IN the courts OF the country involving rights and in
tereslsas between cilizenswere conducted in similar
manner, where one side only Of case was heard, what
chance OF justice would there be 4
oae more word about that order for the destruction Of
TIE goods again ask, where is il Sir this inquiry is
more significant now than formerly Tor The reason that
N the discussion OF this very point at former session.
me sane INJURY was made i was not answered then
and although sufficient time 10 produce i has elapsed
IT was in existence, is not here yet do think
il ever will be produced for do not think exists or
ever did exist IN such form would sustain this claim
Such, Mr. President are the grounds Of my opposition
TO the passage OF this BILL Upon them shall vote
against il.
hoarse TO make myself understood by the Senate. The
proposition OF the senator from Arkansas Mr. Boa
LAND II right would Of course prevent the passage Of
look behind the order OF The officer in command
OF the forces. and ascertain whether thai officer was au.
thorzed TO give the command, or the government is
bound by the orders OF that officer Now, Col. Harney
was in command of the forces at this point He under.
took TO march 10 the Rio Gande, and had sufficient
provisions 10 carry the army under his command TO that
IN charge OF one OF the United States conissares car
ried these goods with bis army 10 the Rio Grande and
used them IN support OF the army while going here and
anna ntnInn Az.
senator IRON Arkansas but he says inasmuch as Col
Harney was unaulhorized by Gen Taylor 10 make that
march, because he had no such authority, the individual
citizen, whose goods were destroyed, ought be paid
tor his loss Now, apprehend the Senate is not pre-
pared to support that proposition.
The senator is mistaken in regard 10 fact upon
which his argument hypothecated He asks why this
merchant remained at the Rio Grande with his goods
Why he did not bring them away instead OF staying there
with then after Col Harney's retreat Why, sir, his
goods were destroyed. lie did return with Col Harney;
but bis goods were destroyed prior TO the army under
command of Col Harney leaving the Rio Grande. The
American army at that point not being sufficiently strong
10 resist the enemy, and 10 prevent the goods from fall
ing INTO their hands, and being unable tor of wag
OILS 10 carry the goods away the goods destroyed.
II required He has The certificates OF these officers
stating the acs set forth in thai report The facts as
set forth in the report understand 10 be They
are, IN the first place, that this army was under COM
nand OF Col. Harney 10 the next place. that the goods
OF this man taken possesso OF by order Colonel
hney and placed IN charge OF one OF the United States
a
thcn used BY the United States soldiers aad the other
part destroyed by order OF the commanding officer pre-
vent ,eir falling nto The hands o the eneny. Now,
tne only point on which the claim resisted is, that
Colonel Harney was Unauthorized by General Tay-
lor, who Was ~ command of all that division, aud
who, SEEMS 300 miles AWAY 10 make this march
cannot conceive that the Seuale will support this
ptopasliioa--iba where an officer OF the United States
government IN command OF United States torces takes
possession oil individual property Tor The support OF the
forces under his command, uses part and burns the
rest TO prevent ITS falling into the hands OF the enemy
that invdua IS not 10 be pai because The officer has
exceeded iranscended the authority which given
10 MN. think therefore that The bill oug hi to pass
regret thai my hoarseness is such that ii is difficult tor
to make myself heard or to continue the Argument
Otherwise would.
Nj. BAYARD. | will ask the senator from Maryland
question. | understand BIN 10 say that the goods
moi destroyed until alter Colonel Harvey aud the regular
tDrses had lett the RIO Grande There is a question o
fact The report suppose, states that II was done BY
order Of the officer in command. Was it, then, Of
hcer OF the United States army who was lett in com
mand, or was not Tee senator from Arkansas says
II officer in the Texas volunteers and that they
were destroyed after the troops OF the United States left
II the goods were destroyed after the troops h do
mol see why compensation should be made but ii,
the contrary, they were destroyed at the time Of with.
drawing the troops the United States, before they
were withdraw, think the compensation ought 10 be
made.
MI. PRATT. They were destroyed by order Of the OF.
hcer OF the United States government They placed
IN possession OF Lieutenant X gers, who acting
mis-afy under command Of Col. Hafney.
Ms. SHIELDS Perhaps may relieve the gentlemen
z
10 stalinS wnai learned IN regard 10 this matter.
We'll acquainted with this clam ant | him on the
spot were the goods destroyed. though did not
toe Destruction, having occurred previous 10 my arrival
Ioned General Wool at thai place THIS expedition
had preceded General Vool's expedition. What learned
tom Colonel Harney was tins: that Colonel Harney
had, stated iaken POSSESSION OF these goods; but
when he compelled TO fall back. he lett The goods
custody oi OF bis officers with INSTRUCTIONS that
II the Mexicans pressed upon him, and he
pelled 10 abandon his position suddenly. he must
destroy the goods rather than let them Tall into The
hands Of the Mrxcans and the officer, In pursuance OF
that order, destroy e the goods by bre go thai tie man
destroyed the goods, they would have fallen into the
hands OF tie Msxieans did not hear The remarks ol
the senator from Arkansas but soppose hs objection 10
the claim s, that The expedition was no, authorized
Mr. B)RLAND. That was ground
Mr.. SHiELDS. TDat is tue. lie went there with
out authority. happened TO be al Monterey at The tme
aud heard General Iay or say hard things about t.
first instance, the Mexicsns being driven Colonel
Harvey would have received great deal OF credit but
that has nothing 10 do with this man. as understand
Col. Hasney in The United States service he acted
on his risk IN that matter and although he did not
go IN accordance with orders, so FAR as understand
It, be had not dsobeyed any orders. But Col Hamey
took the goods from CalIaghao and kept them with him
know Col. flarney, and probably Others here do He
OF those who would not give CLlsghan
time 10 raise any question about his conduct He seized
these goods and kept them there. They destroy
cd By his orders. Under these circumstances | will
ask any honorable senator whether that Is not emil
tod to compensation. AT the time, ii Col Harney had
had the power, he would have ad him instantly, and so
would any OF u.s. But he had no authority 10 do so.
TINS msn's goods were destroyed by the order Of of
Ger the United States The ony question s, will the
United STATES indemnify him Tor the loss OF them