The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-01-16
The Sue Murphy Claims

From The NJ Y. World.
Mics Murpby's claim (she is an estimable
young lady, now about ur-and-twenty),
which has been the chief topic OF debate in
the Senate since the holiday recess, is import
ant, not on account of the amount of money
asked (only $4,000 mot because the facts of
the case are open TO any serious dispute-but
only because il involves principle deemed of
grave consequence as paving the way for
other claims of similar kind Miss Murphy
is entitled to compensation II any Southern
loyalist is under similar circumstances, as
will appear from the following letter ad-
dressed to her by General Grant two or three
years ago.
HEADQUARTERS ARMY UNITED STATES,
WAsHINGTON ID. G., May 4, 1866 Miss Sue
Murphy;-I nave caused TO be examined the
papers which you filed for damages done to
your property in Decatur Alabama. by United
States troops Loyalty IS clearly proven, and
the claim seems to be eDtirely just one, IL any
such claim Is allowed. 1t Is matter left en-
tirey with Congress, and eau only say that,
If any claim for damages done by the army in
states that were in rebellion agaihst the Gov
eTnment is allowed, would respectfully re-
commend yours. L. ). GRANT,
"Leutenant. General"
A bill making compensation to Miss Murphy
passed the Senate about two years ago, but
failed in the House because that Congress was
so near the expiration OF its term that there
was not time to pass it. The merits of the
case and grounds of compensation cannot be
presented with more brevity or fairness than
in the language OF Senator Anthony, day or
two since. He said
"n the Constitution is to be read according
10 its plain understanding, am unable TO see
how this case evades the provision that private
out just compensation. When you can prove
to me that this property, taken for the con.
States, is not 10 be paid for then you viii
satisfy me that any other debt that the United
perty that was destroyed by army on its
march; IL is not property that was destroyed to
ana affardlng him aid and comfort; 1t is not
property that would have been destroyed by
one army II It was not by the other but II is a
States took by competent authority and by
publ iic necessity for the construction OF public
work. and we are just as much bound to pay
for those materials, for the stone and the wood
that were used in the construction of that fort
mounted upon il or the ammunition with
which the cannon was served; Just as much as
we are bound 10 pay fOr tne supplies and the
clothing that were furnished 10 the garrison in
that foIt.
"Tbis case was presented TO the Senate two
or three ears ago. IL was examined before the
Committee on Claims 1t Was reported think
unanimo ously. The evidence oftue loyalty of tuis
lady was presented before US TO he satisfaction
Of every member of the committee. / am not
able 10 recallthe evidence, bat l recOllect that
military Officers appeared before the com miLtee
came ON here voluntarily to testify upon that
point; and the committee wGre perfectly salts.
ned upon that point, and 50 reported, but did
they relied. Toe bin was reported from the
Committee on Claim.. II passed the Senate. II
wenttO ihe House of Representatives. In toe
House Ot Representatives they had a rule which
pIeVeL ted the consideration OF bills of this
kind. The case vas so strong upon its merits
thst ~ q rule was SUSPENDED in its favor and
the b'li would undoubtedly have passed but for
want Of time 1t fell for want of time"
The argument on the other side, though
drawn out to great length by several Sena-
tors, may be very c0ncisely stated. 1t rests
upon the assumed principle that all persons
residing within an enemy's country are to
be treated in war as enemies, and that their
real friendliness caunOt exempt them from any
OF the consequences Of war. This harsh doc
trine ID supported by the old authorities; but
modem usage has relieved it of most OF its
harshness, in wars upon land, by respecting
du private property in an enemy's country
When General Scott was engaged in the
copqdeat OF Mexico, he was directed by oul
Government to levy subsistence upon the in
habitants according TO the old rules OF war
He declined to do 30, aud scrupulously pro
tected all private property. Hs atterward
said in print that it would have taken dOub
the number of soldiers, double the time, ant
have cost double the number of lives to con
quer the country, had II not been for thi
policy of forbearance. Those military com
manders who follow the old rule in operatin
in an enemy's country, generally avoid th
infection OF individual hardship, Whereve
possible, by leVying contributions upon
whole city or whole province, to be equita
bly, raised by its public authorities BY thl
method, individuals bear only their prOpOl
tioual share. II will be seen by this STATE
ment that the radicals are attempting to enforc