Holmes County Republican. [volume] (Millersburg, Holmes Co., O. [Ohio]) 1870-1895, 1873-03-06

journal led to the union of honest me
of all parties. Moreover, if the arg,
ment from persons is to be considere,
it will not be forgotten that the Demo
cratic leader of the House of Repre-
sentatives is as much involved in tn
Credit Mobilier as any Republican. Br
the attempt to make Democratic part
capital from these events is futile $
long as the Republican majority is coc
and firm, and acts only upon prove
facts, and then acts decisively.
Presidential p Veto of Privat,
Bills.
Among the many beneficient reform
instituted by President Grant is one o
far-reaching consequences. When
private bill is presented to him for sig
nature, mindful of the constitutions
duty that he is part of the Legislative,
power, and that he must upon his OWL
responsibility give his assent, said bill
Is submitted to the department and
bureau which ought to be acquainted
with the case for report. This svs.
tenn has enabled the President to return
with his veto number of private bills
OF an Objectionable character, which has
had the effect to make Congress more
cautious in passing these acts, of which
several thousand are pending and being
urged with great pertinacity. We quote
the annexed veto message in full, be-
cause it lays down correct and very i'm
portant principles of national conduct
In regard to the Southern war claims
" TO the Senate Of the United States:
81 return herewith, without my ap-
proval, Senate bill No. l61, entitled aAn
act tor the relief of those suffering from
the deetrnction of salt works near Man.
chester. Kentucky, pursuant to the Or
der of Major-General Carlos Buell.. -
All the objections made by me to the
Dill for the relief of j. Milton Best, and
also oil the East Tennessee University,
apply with equal force to this bill.
Accordingly to the official report of
Brigadier General Craft, by whose COM
mand the property in question was de-
stroyed, there was large rebel force in
the neighborhood, who were using the
salt works, and had carried away a con-
siderable quantity of salt, and were pre-
pairing to take more as soon as the nee
cessary transportation could be procur-
ed; and he further states that the lead
ers OF the rebellion calculated upon their
supply of salt to come from these works.
and that, in his opinion, their destruc-
tion was military necessity. L under
stand him to say, in effect, that the salt
works were captured from the rebels:
that it was impracticable to hold them.
and that they were demolished, so as to
be OF no further use to the enemy.
Il cannot agree that the owners of
destroyed under such circum-
stances are entitled to compensation
therefor from the United States, what
ever other view may be taken of the
subject. 1t is incontrovertible that all
'hese salt works were destroyed by the
U mon army while engaged in regular
military operations, and that the sole
object of their destruction was to weak
IN, cripple, or defeat the armies of the
Southern Confederacy.
81 am greatly apprehensive that the
allowance of thisclaim could and would |
'e construed into the recognition of a |
principle binding the United States to
'ay for all property which their mill
ary forces destroyed in the late war for |
he Union. No liability by the Gov
'rnment to pay for property destroyed
~ the Union forces in conducting a
,attle or siege has yet been claimed but
he precedent proposed by this bill leads
Iirectly and strongly in that direction,
or it's difficult upon any ground of rea-
on or justice to distinguish between a
ase of that kind and the one under
; ''Had General Craft and his command
estroyed the salt works by shelling out
he enemy found in their actual occu-
ancy, the case would not have been
ifferent in principle from the one pre-
ented in this bill. What possible diff
erence can it make. in the rights of
wners or the obligations of the Gov
rnment whether the destruction was
driving the enemy out, or in keeping
hem out of the salt works? l.
"This bill does not present a case
there private property is taken for pub
G use in any sense of the Constitution.
was not taken from the owners, but
rom the enemy, and it was not then
sed by the Government, but destroyed.
IS destruction was one of the casualties
war, and though not happening In
etual conflict, perhaps, as disastrous
the rebels rs would have been a VIC {
,ry in battle.
"Owners of property destroyed to /
revent the spread of confiagration, ,
J general rule, are not entitled to
therefore; and for reas-
rs equally strong, the necessary de-
ruction of property found in the
ands of the public enemy, and consti-
lting part of the military supplies,
'es not entitlc the owner to indemnity
ON the Government for damages to
i'm in that way. II
"I fully appreciate the hardship of the
lse, and would be glad if any convic- I
ons of duty allowed me join in the Z
roposed relief; but cannot consent to
lie doctrine that is found,in this bill, as '
seems to me, by which the National a
reasury is exposed to all claims for b
roperty injured or destroyed by the ?
mics of the United States In the late
-otracted and destructive war i'm this
'untry.
AZ. S. GRANT.
EXECUTIVE MANSION,
"February IL, 1873"
Rheumatism Discussed Is the $
eme of Western editor. A neigh s
'r suggests that he drop the first syl- 4
BILE from the last word and go on with [
Is harrangue.
A Farmers wife in Dakota Thoughts :,
ssly used bundle of old letters to {,