The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-04-18


Representatives la l54S had before then TIC claim OF MRS
swan Of two results certain they ponsd against
t. because il did not come within the principles OF the laws
OF 1916 and 1917 II had beeo principle of equity
snd Justice which, in their opnion would nave ushed tbs
aowece does the honorable senator suppose that the com
mtee would have recognized that prineipel " hai
been proper 20 extend those laws grant relief TO
Mrs Swan presume such would have been the recon-
mendaon Of the committee As there such
mediation think may safely say that the committee OF
the House. in l645 intended 10 report not only that the
OF Mrs Swan, which identical ~iih this did not
within the principles II the laws OF 1916 and ISL
but also that those principles couec and that the
party coming within them ought not 10 be relieved on
any loose notions of equity That is the result OF their re-
port and that Is the result OF any which rejects esm
of q similar character
But the honorable alleged Il think under great
misapprehenson that the why these restrictions as
TO relief adopted IN the i5l6 and 1917 crosse Out
OF the fact that The government then embarrassed IN s
circumstances and that lis pecunary embaras ments ne
cessany required stricte adherence restrictive principles
the rejection Of claims than necessary The hon.
oahe mistaken point OF fact lie VIII hnd
think examnaton that during the 1917 and 1915
instead of United States stocks selling for sixty cents 10 the
dollar, they stood premium of from ten TO twelve per
for six per stocks Mo doubt during the war
there had been dcnesi but after the the credit OF
the Immediately recovered and 1917 land my
recollection goes back sufficiently to ~ the stocks oil
the AT premium OF from ten 10 heen per
But independently of that TACT there cannot be found
til. report of committee AZ that time which places the re-
usa of relief the ground of the then state OF the treas
uy and therefore will do that these claims
rejected because the of The treasury would not
allow payment when the grounds taken at the time
totally distinct and such as endeayored to develop IN
my former remarks.
The honorable referred to the limitation imposed
by the act of 1916 that compensation should be confined
property destroyed whilst in actual OF the troops
Of The United States and he though that under this mia
on damages for which the government would be RESPONSE
BILE would not often Sir Congress, in passing that
act had reference the exgonces of the attacks and
repuses which take place. the injuries private property
which happen when argc district in possession Of the
enemy and considered upon what precarous and unreia-
fputtn the nt the mn
fence and the extent of occupation always must rest Con-
gress the ground of the pecarous character of such
testimony and the danger Of fraud and misrepresentation
required by the laws of lie and 1917 that the officer in
command should be examined if olive IN order to prove
the fact that the order given and that supplemental
subsidiary proof should be taken unless his non-exami
nation accounted for This, thnk, very
sary rule and founded upon the panest principles of
Propriey.
Again the honorable senator ID mistaken in supposins
that MIR Madson suspended the operation Of the law of
1916, the action Of the He suspended the
awards OF the commissioner, the taking of testimony
The parties could 60 ard take testimony but the awards
of the commissioned, which to be final,
pended by the President until further legislation by Congress-
Nor Sir, was the act OF 1877, the honorable senator
supposes, restrictive than the act Of 1916. 1t
more definite. 1t mean, to guard sgnns loose
srucon 1t rather extended the former act than otherwise
because tho law of 1916 oy provided for relief of
houses occupied places military deposte and of
1917 allowed relief where the property was occupied
military deposIc barracks. The difference was, that
under the amended law Of lSi7t required the specific order
CURED that should be done under the authority of officer
The honorable read portion of the report of the
committee Of the Serae in the of Cae
my views That report was made by gentleman, then
member Of this body who afterwards became President of
the United States If lad discuss the prin-
cples Embodied in that report and could task the patience
OF the Senate by investigating them, think could de-
monstrae their indefinite and usory character This much
Is certain that the bill which he reported the Senate,
founded upon the principles contained in his report,
rejected by the body The struck the
allowing the claim to be settled upon principles of equity
and usce"words so loosely used when applied TO the
settlement OF claims against the introduced
words requiring that should be settled upon the principles
OF the laws of 1916 and 1917 In doing they repudaed
the principles announced in that report But sir, ap.
ea that when the decision of'he Auditor under their bill
WAS before the Senate 1882 and by the
mee, that asked be discharged and were ds
charged from the further consideration of the subject thus
evinng approval of the opinion the Audi
and proving that the Auditor opinion of the
miec OF the Senate had carried the law which had
been raised as Congress meant should be carried
Tho same inference must also be drawn from Mr. Ramseys
report.
The honorable has also stated and relied upon
some cares IN which relief has been granted contrary the
principle Tor which contend regards personal properly
destroyed by enemy. do deny for a moment did
not before that there special where the prn
cpes Of the laws Of 1916 and 1917 had been msnpped and
admit now but commended that Congress he'd adhered
the principles Of those laws and purpose cited
reports 70 show that when proposition had been made
late as 1882 TO extend those laws the committee reported
against II upon general investigation Of the principles.
Then have right say that Congress has adhe, ed
TO that general procple and have not right qualify
the statement the mode which have suggestedthai it
may be true, and have doub, is sways lrue that
tabiish what principle you may general law, may
creep through Congress where the not within the
application OF principles which Congress has previously
ognscdl
apply these remark the of MIR Sothoron which
have reod tevera times. consider that clenrly
violation Of the acts of 1916 and 1917 do not think the
evidence brings within them; but certainly is much
stronger than this because there facts
with which might under all the raised
doubt as TO whether the party had time and opportunity
remove has properly The occupation of the property for
barracks clearly proved. The same man owned the
time. In this no individual has ever claimed for
the destruction Of the warehouses Whether owned by the
county or by the STATE the suggests by
individual, no claim made the government for
be real estate and you asked pay personal
property situated in the real estate the real estate
was destroyed by the consequence OF s occupa-
ton 10y the United States when that real has
been claimed paid for IL claim had been made and
could have been proved the real estate would
Of 1916 and 1917 fn occupied for military purposcs
and destroyed usuhaby consequence of such occupation
Compensation for 'he real has been claimed
by any one and yet you asked TO pay for the
ON the testimony Of solitary Witnesses ono Of whom
and he the material one have endesvoted to show has de-
,racied from his crdbly by the farne,s and
accuracy IN his mode Of refer to Mr. Baden.
The testimony Of General Bscoo does sustain the pre-
at ALL
Il IA that in Mr. sohoror's case in Is47 the com.
nee assumed the ground that hoy could not draw any
distinction between personal and real propery but did they
give you any argument Mono whatever They merely
say that they distinction have endeavorcd TO