The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-08-01

the part OF The petitioner in presenting his claim. which
had been left unsettled owing 10 the shorness OF the
time Tor which the commission was apponted-to wa,
two years The destruction Tor which the petitioners ask
indemnity did take place while the troops occupied
the property but there be no doubt that such oc-
cupauon the cause OF lis destruction so thai ne
case, in the opinion OF the committee, comes clearly
within The pir IL not the letter OF the act OF 1916, aud
the supplement thereto II the military occupation be tho
exciting OF the destruction II is dltcut 10 imagine
what difference the precise moment al which the deslIuc
ton took place make IL Is the feeling OF hostility.
created on The part Of the enemy by the act Of the gov
ernnen III erecting source OF annoyance IN their neigh
borhood which max the liable for the
sequences OF It's own act and not the particular time
chosen by the enemy satisfy its vengeance. In the
case under consideration the petitioner had originally
erected his buildings and other improvements under the
assurance given in the Presidents proclamation that the
persons and property OF settlers should be protected.
Subsequently these buildings converted into tenn
poary fort by an officer OF The government, and such
became the point o assault TO !hs Indians immediately
of its garrison II is true, the party OF troops
which had occupied the premises had in their panic, oc
casoned by the destruction and slaughter Fort Mimms,
retired but Immediately after that destruction, and whilst
The military defences still in existence, the premises
were attacked and destroyed by The enemy Your com
mttee therefore, recommend the passage OF the accom-
Mr BRoDHEAD. believe, Mr. President. that this
is the first time that bill of this kind has been
ported upon tavoraby The claim here sir is for the de;
suc,on OF property by the Indians, when il or had
been occupied by the military forces oil the United States
The rule in civilized warfare is this Where property s
occupied by the military forces OF the conendng parties,
in consequence of such occupation is lawful, according
to the rules OF civilized warfare Tor the enemy TO destroy
it. That is the rule which prevails In civilized warfare,
and when the enemy is civilized one But, SIR, when
property destroyed by the Indians in consequence OF It's
military occupation the rule does not prevail The
Indians destroy private as well as public property they
do not discriminate between them at all The fact that this
property had been in possession OF our troops Tor bret
period my opinion did not subject it TO the hostility OF
the Indians, understand they made no discrimination
between public and private property This was private
property understand it, occupied by the troops and
herr nj nrOD
the troops, but was not occupied at that particular
time. The fact that our troops had occupied it Tor very
bre period had brought IT within the rule estab
shed in the OF 1919, that referred TO in this
port under the act of 1916 and 1917 .
Now, there are any Pecedens - iavor OF clam ol
passed. there other OF the same char-
acer the whole frontier OF almost every State as our
settlements have made their way westward would come
here with claims of this kind The Indians destroy all
of property alike: therefore, sir, unless there are
some particular facts connected with this case SHAH
feel myself bound to vote against IT.
Mr. RUSK. MIR. President, the law OF 1910 is general
in lis character and did not draw any such dsnc,on as
the senator from Pennsylvania draws did not make any
distinction between civilized aud savage Warare-none
at all 1t is broad and general and one OF the dlfhcul-
ties which found in the investigation OF this subject.
and one of the difficulties which had in reporting the
hill (ahough has been favorably reported upon be-
fore, yet adverse report has been made upon tne
principle contained in the act OF 1860 was that this ma
had been guilty OF "lachey" not applying under this
general law. But the fact turned out upon investigation,
that he had applied under the act OF 1916 and the reason
the claim not allowed because the board which
sat for the purpose OF determining the amount of damages
under that &c; was limited as the Senate will remember,
TO two years in its operaon and that time expired before
they had an opportunity TO examine this case and nu-
merous other like IT, understand that objection
whatever made 10 the claim, because the law was
general in its principles, and broad enough to cover all
cases-of with Indians well with civilized
enemy
Sir, this within every single provision ac-
cordng my conception OF the matter, that has ever
been provided for by Congress; and far from this
establishing precedent, all these very allowances
have been made upon this principle IN previous cases
which have received the sanction OF Congress- IL Is
some time since investg gated the matter and there are
numerous papers containing statements OF individuals
and officers whose testimony was gwen at that Tune
The facts in the these: There were set OF
mls-or which the claim is made-belongng TO private
individuals troops ordered TO remain 10 that
bohooi, and thes took possession of these mills
because they thought they the most defensibc sta
\ ton in that nelghborhood. number oil troops were
stationed there and they put up sort of ort6caon. or
something like barricades, around the mill, and occupied
| IT as military post
The Indians, during the time the etroops in this
occupation, attacked and, think, massacred every ooe
at Fort Mimms and these troops were but lew
miles below, they pursued and came to this place. and
seeing the forufcaons which had been used by their
enemy and reasoning that this place had been used
once for military purposes, il might be used so again
seeing before them the labor OF their enemies ior the pur
pose of defending themselves they destroyed II, and
burned up the mills, Notifications and all 10 show
that this the moving which led the Indians TO
burn up these mills will mention that there was con-
siderable other property in the and
other buildings-whch left entirely untouched.
These the facts in the case II comes within all The
precedens established and all the rules instituted upon
| the subject
/ Mr. BR0DHEAD. | make a legal point here sir,
and bu, point, which perhaps was not sufficiently
understood before. say nothing about any CLAIM 10 this
allowance, and nothing about any dispute as TO facts, |
do not dispute any Of the facts, bu admit them all TO be
true But the question ia this In civilized warfare,
whenever troops have occupied private property and
the enemy have destroyed that property in consequence
OF such occupaon the government has al ways paid ior
IT, account of its military character; for Is Justh-
able, according TO the usages OF civilized warfare, Tor
the enemy 10 destroy property thus occupied
But, sir, must be permitted TO assert until the record
Indians no such rule has beea adopted has been per
mted to prevail for The Indians destroy both public and
private property alike The fact that troops have
casually occupied gentlemans mills not an inducing
cause and sufficient cause, with the Indians
for them 10 destroy them. In marching from Fort Mmms
TO these mile. doubt they destroyed other private
property that not occupied by troops. III this
bill passes would all these other private individuals
living in that neghborhood have equal claim upon
us raise this question, then before the Senate, whether
YOU apply the rule warfare with the Indians that
| you do TO warfare with civilized nations II you do,
then is right pass this bill and il you establish this
rule, know great many other pending be-
fore the Committee OF Claims that must come forward.
| rest the question upon that point
i Mr.. ATCHlSON. Mr. President, it seems TO me that
the OF the law of 1916 applies TO this case We
may have laws not exactly founded upon reason but
such law would not be considered as authority as
precedent But, sir why property when Is destroyed
while possession OF troops always paid for Upon
what principle the law OF 1916 passed The punc
a ~ .tALA IL. -