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

That asked him: If the American forces had
pied the house Of citizen who had his furniture IN the
house and after the battle foo h. the house the
had taken and burned with the furniture, whether hs
would be squoy bound 70 pay for tho fur
niture a. for the housed The honorable senator from
Delaware said no, that he could conceive Of N
which the federal would be bound 10 pay fo
personal property the troops Of The United States had
taken deprive the OF the
of removal His principle therefore, this; II enemy
land upon Shores and is for The profession
Of forces for their comfort, their convenience ina
they should take OF private property Tor uos
and they do take of my house from which
they fight The enemy, he admits the right OF The enemy N
such to burn the house, but he rays hatmy persona
property that house which you have occupied not to
be paid for unless prove that you forbade TO take
| ii away, and prevented me from taking il away
| My friend stated, furtberand admit was somswh.
surprised ihat he could And in which this
government the Congress Of e United States had ecog
Missed the principle that there obligation TO pay undei
any circumstances for personal property destroyed py an
enemy except under the qualification which he laid down
where troops Ind taken posse Of IN such mao
prevent its removal from houses occupied ny
them he referred TO sut having any bearing upon
the question contest between to which shall presently
advert The proposition of the COMMITTEES that TINS gov
eminent 10 bound pay these claims provided you are con-
WINGED from the facts evidence that the personal properly
Of the claimants used for military purposes by The
order OF officer Of this ana that II was de-
sroyed in consequence of that The senator says his
distinction TO- that this liability does not exist unless the
parties further show that they after ths
from taken the property away beyond the reach OF the
enemy lie contc0ds that there no case TO be found 10
principle which he has announced The rs case 10 which
he referred that Of Mrs Swan. Il
Mr.. BAYARD do not desire interrupt the sanator;
but wish inform him that that Ia not my statement
ognsed the principle for which he contends Admitted
that the application OF the principle Of relief there were
special laws which had doubt should deem mlsap-
plicaton Of it,
Mr.. PRATT. The senator said in his speech:
"The only ground on which claim can be made by a
citizen his government for remuneration, arising
,sncxk d,rsu t.a
has impaired to the property by its act character
which us6es its destruction under the rules and ussges OF
warfare recognised by civilized nations The honorable
mttee think that this character can be impaired 10
personal property say il cannot"
There is his principle He afterwards says:
q" now the facts of this The will
fnd ink that compensation for personal properly to
party in Consequence of its destruction by the enemy,
whore has not been taken possession of by the
ment, has instance been made will not say that in
the multiplicity special laws which have been passed. the
principle of the laws Of 1916 and 1917 may have been
msnpped and that there may rot have been soms cases IN
which property destroyed has been directed 10 be
paid for by special law where the application of the true
principle Of relief may be questioned
He FIRST that where personal property has not been
taken possession Of by the has not been paid
for in uny and then qualities the assertion In the
in which have read The frat which he
fered that of Mrs. Swan which for tobacco dcpos
tied in offs those warehouses; do not know which.
Mr.. BAYARD. In both
Mr. PRATT wish only to read short extract from
that which he commented manly
relied for the support of his position:
"The claim appears to be unsupported by any testimony
of nature 10 constitute legal demand upon the treasury
II the claim had been fully proved-whish is, in word
that the British had destroyed n the last war; five hogs
heads Of tobacco belonging to the pettonerts payment
would be with the provisions of the Of 1916 and
1885, and with the precedens established az various times
by Congress- Congress has steadily refused to enlarge The
provisions of those acts, to take claims for ndem
nifty for destruction OF personal property by the public
enemy"
So that the committee here go the full length of the
ator from Delaware tina, lha government has always re
fused extend the principles Of the of 1916 and 1911
and 1925 10 make the principles applicable to persona
propery and the author Of this report and my friend from
gone beyond the principles Of the
1916 and 1871. The whole argument of the committee
therefore in this of Swan reference the tobacco
deposited in these warehouses; and destroyed at the time
whst, That there legal claim that there
claim under the Of 1916 and 1915 and that the prece
dents of the governments do not show that have hereto
fore gone bcyo nd these acts What does that
The of 1916 and 1917 applied exclusively real
tate, and they qualified in reference to
10 do manifest injustice to the citizens Of this
try. readily imagine that government situated a,
in 1876 directly after coming Of the with
Great Britain with her treasury exhausted with credi,
when she was borrowing money and receiving but fifty
sixty the dollar might be disposed eHtent
justice fully ought do in paying the indemnify
due TO its citizens; and that the government, when
became prosperous, would be willing to pay
ts Just debts We have arrived at time when ind tina
the public domain OF the country not necessary for hs
treasury, bat is used in building upI will say mprop
eys network of internal Improvements hroug bout III,
country when End the treasury full that try
ing exhaust by every possible gay there is
dsncton 10 be drawn between what would be deemed
hee on the part Of government situated
| 1916, and "a Il is now.
| My honorable friend from South Carolina Mr.. Evans
yesterday had b before the Senate provide for lh
claims of the officers of the revolutionary army. Suppose
fathers, Immediately after the revolutionary war,
| in the position which now occupy: would there hav,
been representative who would hesitate to support the bill
introduced by that honorable senator, Would there her
have been representative the people in either braoch
the national legislature who would sve dared TO refuse
give the officers OF the revolution whit they had oet by
receiving their pay in deprecated currency, II The govern
ment at that time when these claims could be Ssceaned
| he'd the capacity TO ray ,hemi
Then, ar say that the restrictions which throwt
around the laws Of 1916 and 1917 IL they
IN OF the inability Of the government thst time
not necessary now; and If show that according q
equity justice and honor this
TO pay s citizens, not whether satisfy senator
that bound pay under the law OF 1916 1917 o.
any other aw and that every who vii
be convinced that according TO equiy and justice the gov
trment tins money, will DO nt the
Of the obligation to pay notwithstanding those ace
What the act Of 1852 The ninth section Of that ee
| provided;
THAT any person who in the aforesaid has
damage by the destruction Of his her house building
by the enemy while the was occupied minar,
depose under the authority Of officer agent OF th
United States shall be allowed and paid the Of suc
damage Pyorid,d shn appear thst-uch occupation WA
the of its destruction"
Now what here in order 10 the obj