The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-04-21
The statds Of the cIaImants.
Recommendations Of the Report.

Recommendations Of the Report.
Special 10 The Buening telegraph.
HARRISBURG, April 21.--In the State Senate
to-day the committee on the claims known as
the "border county claims" presented the fol-
lowing elaborate report
BORDER CLAIMS REPORT.
The select committee to whom was referred the
petition OF 1--WE hundred citizens of Chambersburg,
for the extraordinary losses of property sustained
by them during the late war, make the following
That they have considered the subject matter OF
the petition referred TO then, and generally the ques
ton Of losses by our citizens OF the southern border
during the war; by reason OF depredations upnn their
property by the Confederate and Federal forces and
particularly by raids Of the former, and will proceed
to state their conclusions upon the several points in
volyed in the question Of public responsibility for
cluslons rest Their report is made thus broad be-
cause they understand that their investigation was
not Intended to be confined to the Chambersburg
losses alone, but to extend to all the losses which
occurred upon the border which heretofore have
been subjected to examination under the authority
LIABILITY OF THE UNITsD STATES.
The first question to be considered is whether the
United States are liable for the losses upon the
border, either by reason of direct constitutional
obligation or by reason Of particular facts connected
with the several invasons OF the State or botn.
BY the fourth section OF the fourth article OF the
Constitution OF the United States it is provided that
the United States shall protect each OF the States OF
the Union against invasion. This guarantee is
coupled with two others-the one for protection OF
the several States against domestic violence upon
demand of State authorities and the other to secure
to them republican forms Of government. Against
every form Of external and internal danger, accom-
panied by violence, this comprehensive section OF
guarantees was intended to protect the States and
the obligation assumed by the United States under
1t has but one expressed limitation which is, that
the interpositon OF the Federal Government against
domestic violence must be invoked by the LegIsla-
ture of State by the Executive thereof when the
Legislature cannot be convened. No one doubt,
upon reading these guarantees OF the Constitution,
and duly considering the general objects for which
the Constitution was made, as announced in Its pre-
amble that complete defense to the states was pro-
missed and intended thereby, and that an obligation
OF self-defense which, in the absence OF the consti
tutional compact, would have rested exclusively
upon the several States was thereby charged upon
1t is not necessary insist that the States respec
lively parted with the right OF defending themselves
against external DANGER when imminent, or against
actual invasion, but unquestionaby the whole duty
States Nor can it be doubled that this obligation
and duty of the United States to protect each State
against invasion Is not confined to cases OF invasion
general language and is without Limitation. An in-
vason OF State from another State or association
OF States s much provided against as an invasion
from abroad. This is the clear conclusion to be
drawn from the language of the guarantee and from
considering the known reasons which dictated Its In
sertion in the Constitution. Hence Judge Story, in
his work upon the Constitution, section 1918, in
speaking Of this guarantee, declares "tha the lati
tude OF the expression here used seems to secure
each State not only against foreign hostility, but
Il beyond dispute that the United States did not
keep this guarantee Of defense upon the several
occasions when our border was struck by the enemy
during the recent war of the Rebellion. The guar
b @ es and by their
our citizens were assaled In their peaceful homes
sumed. They were Completely Innocent q al blame
They had performed all their duties both to the State
and Federal Governments, by contribution OF taxes,
by voluntary assessments upon themselves in aid OF
the common defense, by the raising of troops and
But tleeir just claim-their absolute right to protes
tion and defense against external volence-was not
maintained by ei her OF the Governments tc Wnlcn
IL ia true, as general principle, that "protecton
napts Is composing IT, (Story on Con, sec 1857
This correlatlve Of allegiance rests upon every
tween States is exclusively State obligation. But
under our system OF dual government tne case Is
widely different, already shown. Primarily, this
obligation unquestionably rests on the United
States and was assumed by them In the Federal
compact for full and valuable consideration. The
contribution OF State strength to the Unon and the
assumption OF numerous and Oneroas duties to the
Of each Slate, constt1te the solid foundation upon
which this Federal obligation rests IL follows that
State may demand this protection Ior its ctlzan
case, and hence in no case Can the answer be made
by or in behalf OF that that the State
II, then any obligation or duty rests upon State
to protect Its own people against INVASION IL mns
State and its own citizens In view OF the peculal
relations which subsist between them. The United
States cannot assert any such State obligation ol
duty in the face OF their own clear guarantee con
tanned in the fourth article OF the Constitution.
In the default OF the constitutional protection o.
the State by the United States against invasion, an6
of an actual defense OF the State by herself lin con
outlay incurred by State for defensive purposes
would constitute just demand against the unltet
States? In such cases ought not the guaranteeing
party to make good the outlay incurred by reason o
It's default, and when the State makes her demand
for reimbursement would 1t not be most unreason
able unjust to repudiate or reject 1t? But cal
losses incurred by the state or by her citizens
consequence OF a breach OF the guarantee be pu
upon different footing from the outays incurre'
by the State In self-defense? In each case the de
fault OF the guaranteeing and protecting party Is tn
cause and foundation OF the demand The commit
tee can discover Limitation in such case upon tn
responsibility OF the United States except their In
ability to respond to the demand. II Is admitte
that war rayages may be so extensive as to rende
indemnity TO innocent sufferers impossible. IN
burden may be too great to be borne and canno
therefore, be accepted or assumed. But In tn
present case this plea OF bankruptcy or inaollit
cannot be iRterposed.
II is to be observed that the guarantee in the Cor
sttuton is one in favor OF the several States In tn
capacity parties to the compact, and it Is there
fore to be asserted by the States and not by ind
vdual citizens in all cases OF It's violation. Hence
is proper and becomes necessary, In the presel
instance examine the relations and intercourse bt
tween the State and the Federal Government durin
the war and the conduct OF each in relation to tn
defense OF the State. Did the State perform all he
duties to the Federal Government, and Is she in
position to claim that the guarantee In questio
should have been Kept? The answer to this questio
is furnished by the statutes OF the Commonwealth
and by the public records OF the war.
The State furnished her due share OF militia an
volunteers under the several calls made by the Pr
sident OF the united States and she submitted wit
ont Complaint to the vigorous execution within ~