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


committee 20 whom the subject referred reported
against The loose construction given by the
and they also reported amendment 10 this secuo ANU
that amendment went thus far In the original law inc reel
given when the buildings occupied as place OF
military deposit under the authority Of an ohee or agent
OF the United States The amendaory act required thar II
should extend only TO houses other buildings occupied
order OF an officer agent Of the United States as place OF
deposit OF military stores barracks for the military
forces Of the United States That is the language OF the
law which gave the only relief for depredaons committed
by the enemy The property OF our citizens NO COM
pensaon is given for personal propery but the eompen-
sasn given is where by the order OF officer OF the uni
ted States real property occupied place OF deposit
military naval stores barracks for the troops then,
if the destruction Is consequence Of the occupation The
is be responsible for IT, Such As the language
Of the law What is the principle Of the law Il is there
that differ with the committee, | suppose there must
necessarily be restriction the principle OF eomPensa-
ton 1t be doubted that government can under
ing war from the depedaons OF enemy whether they
carried according the of civilized waife
not Such principle would encourage and saneuon IN
enemy, The utmost of devastation. But no nation
has recognised such doctrine. No nation ever
recognise such doctrine But the principle whchls recog
ned, and winch comments itself TO the intelligence and
which is declared by the committees of Congress who
thoroughly investigated this matter al The tme thai the
construction placed upon the law by the then Secretary
Of Var than whom venture to say no ADLER statesmen
existed in This counry,he late William II. Crawford, Of
Georgiaha il must be the climate destruetonof prop
ertyit must be eompe nsaon for property that the ene
my has destroyed according % the usages OF civilized war
fae consequence Of the OF the governmentwhere the
government, by its act has impressed upon the properly
such public character would justify It's destruction by
Che eneny That Is The sole ground Tor reei 4 .hal IS
the property you the destruction by the enemy oil
private property will Where differ from the commit
is in this hold that the cardinal principle is that the
only class of in which the citizen call upon the
government for remuneration, where the government has,
by s act impaired to the property destroyed character
which usfes the enemy destruction. If the govern
that he
He must take the chances and hazards of and sustain
with every other citizen, the Injuries inevitably attendant
upon state Of war which fall TO his lot whether direct or
indirect.
Mt SHIELDS. win the honorable senator please to
state his position again
Mr.. BAYARD. II is this: That the only ground
which claim can be made by citizen his govern
ment for remuneration arising of the acts of enemy
during war s that the has impaired to the
property by lis acts character which uses It's destruction
under the rules and usages Of warfare recognised by civilized
nations The honorable committee TO thEk that this
character can be mparted to personal property say
Your troops may take personal property and
in such you should pay for but how and in what
mode you to mpr personal property such charac-
ter would justify its destruction by the Destrac-
ton of personal property by the enemy not provided for
the of 1916 1917 The speaks in reference TO
real estate and points the mode in which such property
is given character which usti6es its destruction You
may employ as barracks for soldiers and that viii justify
its destruction You may employ place OF deposie
for military stores and if while they deposited there IN
the destruction of the the enemy destroy the property
cause the enemy justly have right destroy AL military
stores and therefore, destroying the they destroy the
property Of the individual citizen which occupied by the
stores the government bound Compensate for IT. But
how could that take place reference personal property
If the possession by the United States of The real property
which the personality situated of the character 10
bring II within the of the law, that occupied by
order of the United States officer place of military de-
pose barracks then necessarily the must be
exclusive. You might as wen say that because few
soldiers entered house. and the enemy made that
IT,
going in coming because soldiers summoned
defend the house, and sheltered themselves behind IT, that
ustabe ground for destruction after the resistance
ceased You might well say that private family moving
into public barracks changed the character of the barracks
and made Them private property as 10 say the act Of the
soldiers going into private house converted into barracks
II the exclusive and continued occupation for pull lie
purpose which npresses public character upon private
property, and jushes its destruction by the enemy
Mr. SHIELDS II the honorable senator will permit me-
will state III the very point on which
this case, in my mind turns. Suppose the government
takes possession of house and converts into fortress
temporary fortress The house, in the mean time, s
perhaps, filled with available personal property Of some
kind In consequence OF the house being thus converted
into temporary fortress, If the enemy destroy that house,
The government that fortress is bound TO conf
pens for the houseor the real property; but n conse
quen.e of the of the house for that purpose the personal
property niris destroyed at the me ask whether
the same principles do not apply TO the personal property
That is where the doubt is in my mind.
Mr.. BAYARD, II roy answer will influence a SUPPOSE
tous case viii give the honorable senator from Illinois
~
the government takes possession OF the property and con-
into fortress, and forhes impress upon
II the character Of public property, DO not doubt that
IL II IN actual occupation at the time Ut de-
strueon, II had impressed character Of public property
upon permanently, the enemy would be justified IN de-
stroyng IT. and the government ought compensate FOR its
Destruction. AS regards personal property II you could
suppose possible case Of the government taking possession
of the read estate, and Of the personal property kept IT,
against The right Of the owner to IT. the government
having taken such possession, would be responsible the
ground Of s appropriation of the property aken
possession Of II IS the ground Of ia possession.
II takes possession Of the realty and returns the person
atty IN ~ have doubt that the possession OF the person.
ally the possession OF the government and that The gov
ernment responsible, whether destroyed by the enemy
or not But II takes possession Of the real estate only,
oni the doeg choose the personal prop
ery having the power to do he leaves his risk
That is the distinction make between tho real and tho per-
Hona property. " the government retains the personal
property, and keeps IN possession the government
ponsble precisely II thad taken any other property Of
citizen without compensation. Il is boud compensate
ground but IL the government finds necessary
take POSSESSION Of the hoBse Of citizen for the purpose of
warfare aad il s uadea fortress and he chooses voluntarily
To- leave his personal properly thinking perhaps that II -
place than any other aud that security fails
him, say that the responsibility the Part OF the govern
does exist Has not the government the night
take mons buildings for military purposes during the war;
II hes hos the right to take the exclusive possession
and say TO the party take your goods away II damages
sustained 70 yourIea estate Of the
Of the government the government V responsible for H. but
the party chooses, for the sake Of greater security,
supposing ba 10 consequsnce II the occupation by
government bis personal properly safer there than else
whore, to leave personal property the building
pied and the properly Afterwards destroyed because Of