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


emanated. viii nexi refer several reports which .ave
been made In order 10 show the correctness OF hs prnei'
plies for which contend The reasons are gwen III lns
ports to sustain these principles much better man oouu
express them that prefer reading much as necessary
for that purpose In the American State Papers, volume OF
claims, there number Of such reports w feau
the principles which stated in two or h1ee OF hen
order 10 yindicate the positions which take ihey west
ALL believe bat one or two made in the House Of Repre-
sentaives They are reports of singular ability, The
principles may well be referred govern as ~ our acton
claim made or the destruction OF property N
1914, by two men named sansburyi and these are the
principles laid down ge 5si Of The volume IN reference
to IL
admitting The evidence perfectly sasfactory as 10
the oss and the of IT, the committee are OF opinion
that is not made in which, by law OF The 9th Of
April 1916 upon any other proper grounds the claim
ants would be entitled relief unless the government
should proceed upon the principle Of remunerang for all
Losses resulting from the Of the enemy whether lawful
otherwise IL believed by the committee that the gov
eminent in be bound emunerate for osssa
incident state OF except where property shall have
been destroyed by its officers agents. where the gov
shall have impaired TO it character which, ny the
usages of civilized warfare, would justify ta destruction by
enemy.
"1his being admitted presents question Of some diff
Guilty determine what of The government WILL and
what will give the property Of It's citizens that char
acter. On this point the committee respectfully suggest
what appears Them the only safe ard cortec, rule and
by which they shall be governed IN theit decisions, UNI
less overruled by The House.
f the buildings the shall be occupied places
Of depose for military supplies and the burning OF them
shall lie necessary effect the destrclon OF such supplies
if occupied places Of defence barracks, they
might while thus occupied legally be Destroyed and the
owners claim compensation from the government It's how
ever believed that the circumstance Of troops having tenn
porary and partially occupied the house Of citizen whose
family and effects shall not have been removed from can
give il military character than the removal Of
the family of citizen tayraeks in the occupancy Of
troops would give such barracks the character of private
properly property -, !. -. 49,. d,.,o.. !
to adopt be thought somewhat rigid one, so far as IT
affects their suffering feloWcltzens and certainly is more
than they would willingly act upon there con-
sderatons be taken other than simply ques
ton between the and the sufferers but the com
mee of opinion that connection with this subject
there considerations of national policy which ought not
and cannot with safety, be overlooked.
1T 10 the duty ofa governments particularly that OF the
United States to crcumscrbe within the narromes POI ST.
BILE limits the losses and uerags TO which their citizens
shall be exposed during Of and with view
to that object that by the usage of civilized warfare, pr
te properly and citizens unarmed, except upon the high
seas are exempt from destruction or capture.
The committee opprehend IL will readily be perceived
that whatever extent the shall emunerae for
losses by the acts of enemy will 10 the extent
30 far sanction their legality to preclude itself from even
uerlng complaint against enemy Who in future
shall commit the like acts; while the direct tendency Of
tending remuneration TO not strictly legal would be to
invite enemy spread his devastauons far and WIDE
not for the purpose of producing individual calamity but 70
effect national bankruptcy, and thus subdue and conquer
with the torch nation who could not be overcome by the
bravery skill Of fleets and armies legally employed
The committee therefore, resolved that the petitioners
not IN that entitled to the relief The name of
the member who made that report is in blank and do not
know who he
Again there is another from which | will read,
ating TO the destruction of property at Mondays Point
Virginia which will be found on page 1876 After going
into the history of the principle of the law of ,tons which
will trouble the Senate with readings the report is
very long, they upon in this way, to show that
enemy could not have right 10 destroy private property
according to the usnges OF civilized warfare;
at must be obvious that men both the aud prn
cipal Of hostlty and if the laws of thus
careful to preserve human life when, by destroying it, the
might be speedily closed in how much greater degree
let be asked ought those laws to preserve me property
the goods, and effects Of begerenls, respectively As
party would have right to put prisoner to death
the ground that he had fought that, when exchanged he
would again join the standard of his countrymen he
would have the right TO destroy private property either
because had been used might again be used the
progress Of the would, indeed, just as
able TO put TO death every citizen Of the country because
he had been might become soldier, 10 destroy
private property because il had been might be used
IN war"
The committee then go into the facts of the There
rs another case page s5 to which will refer, in which
the principles lad down very strongly The committee
say;
1.-THE necessity for observing rules in regard the APP
phcaon of which there may be ,oleabe degree of
certainty has induced the committee 10 bestov the most
RENTED attention upon the claims growing out OF the late
for, whatever rules shall be made applicable these
claims they should be such could properly be applied
other like the of future The fact also
has been kept steadily view by the committee, that their
decisions must affect the Of The great body of the
community who necessarily supply the Of the Treas
ury, well the rights of the claimant, and the nme-
diate resources OF the government"
There Is another report in which the question 10 argued
somewhat at length, but cannot just pu, my hand
upon IT. But the principle of the argument this That
during state of the losses OF may be either
direct incidental and you might well be asked
pensate merchant for the lcss Of his commerce. and the
rum OF his shipping the farmer for the depreciation
the price Of his produce arising from the war; compen-
duriu ihe xo
which DO from the fact that the ust-
fed the destruction of the particular property by isparng
to u public instead Of private character or the lim-
being.
Mr. President connected with The necessity OF this rule
another ground also IL You do adhere 10 the principle
that you viii oAly compensate where you have pressed
this character upon property and that you viii compen
safe merely because you unable TO defend the proper
ty, because the property destroyed Ivy dep edaon
patriotism is your fellow oountrynun BY refus ng 3D.
here this rule you hold Involvement uon-d
the pur Of bo citizen because he may ssy my goyerr-
will ray fr the deptodeuons 81 the enemy, and
therefore why should hazard my life risk my sc the
defence Of my propedy when an a,c fln back upou
the government when the endel Coz enumeration
But, again, It is another great obecon you adopt the
principle that the depredaons of the enemy accord
with the usoges OF civilized warfare shall be sufficient
ground for remupeaon that you Justify die and i you
remunerne the citizen for all losses the enemy in future
may well say, have a right atteck the United
States IN every mode can. The law Of humanity alone
orbds us from destroying the property Of the private c.
zeni but II the law Of humanity Is by the United
States itself by remuneretng czsps for the deatruc-
ton OF their property, relieved from MI pressure
on that scores and inasmuch bresk down the gov