Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-02-20
Another Presidential veto.
The President, Thursday, sent the fol-
lowing message to the Senate

The President, Thursday, sent the fol-
lowing message to the Senate
To the Senate Of tile United States
| return herewith, with my approval,
Senate bill No. 1911, entitled IAN act for
the relief of those suffering from the de
struetion of salt works near Manchester.
KY, pursuant to the order of Ma. Gen.
Carlos Buell.. All the objections made
by me to the bill for the relief of ] Mil
ton Best, and also Of the East Tennessee
University, apply with equal force to
this bill. According to the official re-
port of Brigadier-G eneralCraft, by whose
immediate command the property in
question was destroyed, there was a
large rebel force in the neighborhood
who were using the salt works and had
carried away considerable quantity of
salt, and were prepared to take more as
soon as the necessary transportation
could be procured and he further states
that the leaders of the rebellion calcu-
lated upon their supply of salt to come
from these works, and that, in his opin-
ion, their destruction was military ne
cessity. | understand him to say, in eff
feet, that the salt works were captured
from the rebels; that it was lmpracti-
cable to hold them, aud that they were
demolished so as to be of no further use
to the enemy. | cannot agree that the
owners of property destroyed under such
circumstances are entitled to compensa-
ton therefor from the United States.
Whatever other view may be taken of
the subject it is incontroVertible that
these salt works were destroyed by the
Union army while engaged in regular
military operations, and that the sole OBJ
iect of their destruction was to weaken,
cripple, or defeat the armies of the so
called Southern Copfederacy. | am
greatly apprehensive that the allowance
of this claim could and would be con-
strued into the recognition of prin-
ciple binding the United States to pay
for all property which their military
forces destroyed in the late war for the
Union. No liability by the Government
to pay for property destroyed by the
Union forces in conducting battle or
siege has yet been claimed, but the pre-
cedent proposed by this bill leads di-
rectly and strongly in that direction, for
it is difficult upon any ground of reason
or Justice to distinguish between case
of that kind and the one under consider
alton. Had General Craft and his COM
mand destroyed the salt works by she'll
ing out the enemy found in their actual
occupation the case would have not been
different in principle from the one pre-
sented in this bill. What possible diff
ference can it make in the rights of own
ers or the obligations of the Government
whether the destruction was in driving
the enemy out or in keeping them out
of the salt works This bill does not
present case where private property is
taken for public use In any sense of the
Constitution. 1t was not taken from
the owners, but from the enemy, and
was not then used by the Government,
but destroyed. Its destruction was one
of the casualties of war, and though not
happening in actual conflict was perhaps
as disastrous to the rebels as would have
been victory In battle. Owners of prop