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

s 10 the destruction bat because the property was subject
ed to exposure and consequent desucon by the act Of
the government appropratIng h preventing the Owner
rghnl control over IN removal 10 place of safety and
clearly the takes possession for its use
Of the of removing the properly il the
the free Of has property and is the direct OF
the injury which otherwise would have been sustained
Il here Is such case made out here do not deny the
prneipe applicable either OF the cases to which
have Just referred do deny that they were proper
for relief but their principles do not attach upon the
present case.
ustiiaby destroyed by the enemy IN order make the
responsible. He admits must be destroy
in consequence Of by the Uaited States and he
daaxons make that the property the claimants was
used said before and adhere TO the declaration that
the this tobacco well as tho other devasta
uon by the British in the of the Patuxen not
JUSTIFIED by the usages Of civilized warfare These tobacco
warehouses situated generally the banks of tbs
streams, and the enemy had their vessels those
Now, does the fact that the government of the United
States turned out, If you please, portion, ALL OF
the tabaeco at Nottingham for the purpose of making
breastwork, and that the troops scaled off fired off
non Justify the destruction Of all Or other words be-
had been used in particular instance for
the purpose of Defence could tie enemy treat tobacco
article coming within theterm munitions Of war; and 80
destroy III
Mr. PRATT | spoke of this tobacco.
Mr. BAYARD. Yes, sir; this particular tobacco The
particular tobacco used at Nottingham not from any
proof here the tobacco for which claimants conpen
saton only small portion, according the statement,
chow much is not mentioned turned out for the pur
pose Of erecting temporary breaswok AT Nottingham IL
not destroyed in that position there proof pre-
ence Of that sort admit, unhesitntingly that if had
been formed into breastwor and the British had landed,
they would have had right TO destroy the beastwok but
deny that they had right destroy other tobacco
houses because the tobacco probably be breast
works. any than because General Jackson used cotton
bales at New Orleans they would have had right under
the rules of civilized warfare, to destroy cotton whenever
they across It, The particular cotton the tobacco
which made the fortress might be justly the subject of de-
and of compensation, destroyed ,oi But
deny that enemy carry the principle further and say,
that because you private house for the pur
pose of Defence that justices its Obstruction any subse
quen period Sir, illustrated this before by reference
soldiers Mexico. l thought the principle clear
enough, that while the going Monterey,
for instance and the enemy filing them from their
houses II they found necessary make their through
private houses ia order daodge the enemy per.
ectiy Unsuitable; but when the defence ceased and the
ict over the American troops had destroyed all the
houses which had been used for defence, from which
shots had BEEN fired they would have been barbarans
stead of being American soldiers They would have done
precisely what the British did during the of 1872 and
would have violated the principles and usages of civilized
| warfare.
Them cir issue with the honorable from
Maryland to the right Of the British TO destroy this
properly under the circumstances, because in
casesand there but twolt thrown into the
biance Of breastwofk do consider that the
house Msgruders, and the tobacco in it, received the
of fortress from the fact that the militia got be-
hind the time the British boats coming up take
away The tobacco. The the British took the
tobacco consequence Of s defence by the troops say
they there to take H. and the militia went down to de-
fend IT,
MIR. PRATT. The senator will persii, say that
there not " Of evidence support that assertion
He has COMPOUNDED Nedar Point with Mngruders Ferry.
Mr.. BAYARD admit that there is direct evidence
in the this point All the evidence have upon
4 from the claimants, = the opinion Of James Baden and
Mr. selby; they OF opinion the British destroy ed the
tobacco in consequence Of its and occupation by
troops; but they do prove any occupation all
They prove that the militia got behind the and
fred until their ammunition exhausted and then
treated. Is that any oecupation But they only
Their opinion and endeavored to eounterva that estmo-
NY by showing that regard to another warehousethar
at Cedar Point-Mr Jenlcr proved that the British were
taking off the tobacco before the militia down to de-
nd and that they repulsed the militia and then destroyed
carried off the tobacco have shown Also that Alex
anda where there defence they carried off From
these general facts drew the inference that the only
sonable presumption that the British approaching
this warehouse for the purpose of taking tobacco;
and the inability of the American troops defend
did not justify destruction according the ussges Of civil.
zed warfare because The government had impressed upon
II no public character. VIII the honorable contend
that because in the midst Of war, whether city or in
the country, the troops in engagement, get behind
house and fire from house the enemy after the contest
over would be justified in destroying the house because
had been cabe Of being used for temporary protection
from their fire. Ii that principle be true OF you
have no right TO defend your property a and every
case enemy justified in devastating and burning down
every house which he across because be that
American troops could get behind the house defend them
4 elves.
Then, the value Of tobacco as a fertilization think
1t rests IN the fancy Of my honorable friend than in
reality There but all these proofs which
nave oeen able 10 md where attempt made
1t as fertilization should think rather danger
Gus fertilization and clumsy for If they threw up
bacco breaswork and used cannon it would be diff
cult arrange port holes in hogsheads And il cannon
used both sides, the spn,ers from the hogshcads
would be rather dangerous sccompenimens Il may be,
that If the tobacco could be taken Of the and
used alone would be proof and that is the case
with other materials IL is tbs with cotton but that
does not justify the destruction Of cotton except where
used as foruhcaton embankmcnt, breastwotk by
an enemy. You might MS well say that because are
the means by which war is actually carried you could
put every prisoner Of DEATH and refuse to ransom
him, because II he released he might subsequently chr
~ arms against you. The principle would be jusinbe
IN the W the other Without men you eanpo,
carry without tobacco you may and the necessity
would exi, to much stronger extent and it would be
much more ushsble TO destroy every prisoner OF than
adopt the principle that article Of property may be de-
sroyed, though not in use for military purposes merely
cause similar article may have been used particular
case and particular me under the pressure OF emer-
gency, for temporary defence
submit, the whole MIR President that my prnciples
have not been conoyered; and thnt though admit iha,
relief has been granted where ought have
been, there TO be found la which relief been
allowed by the Congress OF the United States To q party "a
The claimant Of personal property irrespective OF his owner
excepted case IN which, IL justified in OBTAINING Inc
Senate could show plausible grounds why the committee
might suppose relief should be granted though confes
differ from them. think 10 . misfortune that y, late as
l5as or 1850, when that claim allowed Congress should
have departed, the ease from principle. 10
which they adhered from 1916 down that times and
sii greater misfortune Il they should open the door
after the lapsc Of forty years let in claims large en-
tent not only IN this nsighborhood but ell along your