The New York herald., 1871-01-05

60 nne and Imprisonment, but the President him.
SELF II he followed the advice and appointed the
honest man, would be made a criminal and sub.
lected TO the penalties OF the proposed law. lie
doubted the sincerity Of its author (Mr. Trumbc In
urging the measure.
Mr.. TRuMBuLL said ne was much In earnest ana
would press the Dill daily until IL was disposed OF
The discussion continuing Mr.. DAVIS, (dem. OF
KY. demanded the regular order OF business
The morning hour, however having expired, In
the meantime Mr. Trumbull endeavored 70 make
the bun special order, but Mr.. Cameron Obecting
1t went over until the next morning hour.
RELIEF OF DIR. BEST, OF KENTUCKY.
lne senate M then .ook up the regular order OF
Padncah, kentucsy.
the former discussion was resumed upon the
house OF the claimant, by order OF the commander
q the Union army during the ba tie there in 1864,
use IN the sense OF the constitution.
MI. DAVIS argued to show the liability Of the gov
efnlnen, 10 the Claimant upon general principles OF
International law. lie quoted from the report IN
the case to show that when the house destroyed
tue battle was not IN pi ogrcss, and was not resumed
until i've hours afterwards that the destruction
was necessary 10 the safety or the Union garrison
10 prevent lis occupation by the enemy. Various
authortles were cited and coplmenIed upon by the
speaker.
Mr.. CARPENTER rep.) OF Wis., arguing to show
the difference between justice and generosity,
indemnity for losses during the war; said the prin
ciple upon which the whole question sh0ulc turn
was whether Grant and sherman merely exercised
in the South an ordinary police power and went
there to aid the civil autnorNes in preserving the
peace, or whether tney led Weir armies into an
enemys country. He argued from authorities to
show that, in fact and In law, the state Of things
existing IN the South from 1851 to 1895 was that or
open, public war; that the constituents OF the
reUel government were one OF the parties
ana that the United States government
as party belligerent could not be
held responsible to indemnify those
VINO were It's enemies, and while II might seem hard
70 treat as public enemy loyal man in South
Carolina whose heart was rigntyet IL was OF the
hardships oil the Case. The government could make
no discrimination between those VINO were within
the DOMINION OF the enemy. This rule held good as
TO the rights o. property. In answer to Mr. Davis
argument that this dwelling house was not de-
stroyed IN actual battle ne said there were recoras
or battles having lasted five days, but il would not
be contended that they were therefore con-
within that tine In the present instance there had
been temporary cessation OF the battle ana 1t had
not ended when the house was destroyed therefore
tne obstruction was an incident OF the battle More
over, ths house could not, strictly speaking, have
been taken FOR public use because 1t was destroyed
ana CO ld not be use FOR any purpose. In Conclu-
sion, he advocated the disposal OF all sO-caed
exceptional claims upon general principles, remark
Ing that We had not yet reached the point when we
could afford 10 be generous
Mr.. HOWE, Chairman OF the Committee on Claims,
replied TO his colleague. Carpenter, claiming that
Dr. Best's property had been taken for public use,
lnasuruch as the government was benehtted by Its
destruction The constitutional term "public nsen
meaning such use as resulted IN public benefit
lie read rQm statistics to show that the estimates
OF LIABILITY devovlng upon the government by the
10 had been largely sverslated.
without disp0slng OF the subject the Senate at
quarter-past four, after short executive session,
adjourned.