Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1871-01-12
The Claims of Southern Loya1sts
for Payment for Property Des-
troyed by the Union Army.

tanned from the Union army uuring tho
war. There are large number Of these
claims, and one of the largest has been
presented to establish q precedent Inc
bill that has been under conslderatioh'
appropriates $4,000, to pay Tor the owei-
1ing bouse of J. Milton Best of Paducah,
Kentucky, which wac destroyed by order
Of the Union Commander to assist the
range of guuners in the Union fort erect
cd near it, in the battle there in 1864, at
which time the owner was surgeon in
the Union army.
1t seems that the committee on claims
Of the Senate, gave the matter thorough
and mature consideration and reported
positively in favor of the claim, and it
passed the Senate by vote of % to 10.
1t, however, met with stern resistance
in argument, and acute lawyers took both
sides of the question Some insisted that
legally, equitably and morally, the claim
ant is entitled to compensation for the de-
1truction of his house. Others, with equal
earnestness, contended that payment for
the law which governs such cases, and
that it is not right to tax the people to
make such payment.
Senator Edmunds opposed the claim on
general principles, denying that the des-
truction of the premises as an act Of self
preservation for a Union garrison came
within the constitutional clause prohibit
ing public use of private property without
compensation. He commented upon the
TACT shown by the report of the Commit
tee on Claims in the case, that the claim
ants house was at times during the battle
in possession of the enemy, and the diff
Guilty of separate assessment of the
damages inflicted upon it by the fire of
the Union fort, and by its subsequent de-
molitiou He did not desire Southern
Senators to regard the disposition of this
case as a decision upon all similar claims,
or in other words, he did not consider it
test ease.
Senator Carpenter argued that the con-
test between the North and South was a
public war between belligerents. On the
other hand it was held that it was not
war in the broad sense Of a war between
nations. bu. that il partook Of the more
restricted character of a war between the
State and its citizens Also that the rule
which applied to an enemy's property in
an enemys country, could not hold good
az to the loyal men of the South who
aam0 into the Northern ranks, and whose
property was subsequently destroyed by
the Union forces.
The question seemed III this case, to be
whether the destruction of the claimants
property, occurred as an incident of actual
battle, or independent of the conflict. 1t
as generally held, that when the property
ia destroyed independent of battle the
government is responsible for the loss
caused by the destruction, In this case
IT. seemed that the conflict was commenced
on one day. and was renewed on success
sive daye, and as a matter of record was
a continuous battle, and therefore the
demolition of DR.. Best's house being with
in this period was a part of the battle.
1t appears that the committee in their
report in the case assumed that if the des-
truction had taken place on the previous
day, when the house was in the enemy's
possession, the Government would not be
liable, and that this liability depended
entirely upon the fact that the destruction
Of the house occurred the next morning
after the battle, though the enemy were
then il view and about to renew the con-
fiict This looks like a narrow and hair
splitting distinction, and upon it the argu-
ment was founded that the house had
been deliberately appropriated by the
Government for a public use. We trust
that Congress is not prepared to make this
a tast cssa npon so slim a distinction, for
it is very important that such claims
should be disposed of upon estab-
1ished principles. The making of a pre-
oedent in this class of claims should bel
avoided 70 far az possible. for within ten
years it will not he difficult to substan
tiate every Southern war claim of this
class with sworn proof Of the loyalty of
tho claimant.
We certainly do not desire that this
class Of claims should not have fair con-
sideraton, and that decision should be
reached on tho plain obligations of the
7oun try to it's loyal citizens as understood
by intolr.~ ent men acting as Judges, but
have objections that the public treasury
should be depleted by test case, or pre-
oedent by hastily legi,,slating in favor of a
doubtful claim, which W.T. open door to
heavy drafts on claims not resting on the
national obligations as commonly under
stood This claim, although allowed by
a majority of thirteen in the Senate, wa
meet with considerable opposition in the
House. Mr. Morrill, voted against it. Mr..
Edmunds did not vote having paired off
with Mr.. Warner, but would have voted
in opposition to the bill.
The VETO PowER-Gov. Yarmouth
Of Louisiana has been doing very heal
thy, az well as extensive, business in the