New-York tribune., 1873-02-13
ANOTHER VETO FROM THE PRESIDENT.
HE DIsAPPROYEs OF THE KENTUCKY SALT
WORKS ELL FOR THE SAME REASONS AS IN
THE CASES OF REST AND WALLACE.


THE CASES OF BEST AND WALLACE.
GENERAL PRESS DIsPATcHl
WAsHINGroN, Feb 12.-The President to-day sent
the following message to the Senate:
To the Senate or the United States: return herewith,
without my approval Senate Bill No l6l, entitled An
act for the relief OF those suffering from the destruction
OF salt works near Manchester. Ky pursuant to the
order Of MaiorGen Carlos Buell." All the objections
made by me to the bill for the relief OF ]. Milton Best
and also OF the East Tennessee University, apply with
equal force 10 this bill.
According 10 the official report Of BrigGen. Craft by
whose immediate command the property IN question
was destroyed, there large Rebel force In the
neighborhood who using tile salt works. ana had
carried away considerable quantity OF salt, and were
prepanc TO take more as the necessary trans
portaton could be procured and he further states that
the leaders OF the Rebellion calculated upon ther sup
ply OF salt 10 come from these works, and that IN ms
opinion their destruction was military necessity
understand him say in effect that the SAT- works
were captured from the Rebels that 1t was impract'
cable to hold them, and that they were demoHheu ~
AS 10 be of no further TO the enemy.
cannot agree that the owners OF property destroyed
under such circumstances entitled 20 compensation
therefor from the United States whatever other view
may be taken Of the subject 1t is ncontroverbe that
these salt work destroyed by the Union army
while engaged in regular military operations ana that
the sole object OF their destruction was to weaken
Confedemey.
lam greatly apprehensiye that the allowance Of THE
claim could and would be construed into the recognition
OF principle binding the United States TO pay for an
property which their military forces destroyed m the
late war for the Union. No liability by the Government
10 nav for property destroyed by the Union forces III
conducting battle or siege has yet been claimed, but
the precedent proposed by this bill leads directly and
strongly in that direction, for IL s difficult upon any
ground OF reason or justice distinguish between ease
Of that kind and the under consideration.
Had Gen Craft and his command destroyed the salt
works by sheng out the enemy found IN thelr ae'nA'
occunaney the case wound not have been different 10
princple from the presented In this Dill "nat pos
ble difference can make in the rights OF owners or
the obligations OF Government whether the desiruo
tlon was In driving the enemy out or 10 keeping them
out Of the salt-works
This bill does present case where private prop
erty s taken for public In sense OF the Consuu
ton IL was not taken from the owners but from the
enemy and t was then used by the Government but
destroyed IT'S destruction one Of the casualties Of
vor and though not happening in actual conflict was.
nahans as disastrous the rebels would have been
a victory in battle.
Owners OF property destroyed TO prevent the spread OF
n connsgration, as general rule, are not entitled 20
compensation therefor and for reasons equally strong
tho necessary destruction Of property found In the
hands OF the public enemy and constituting part OF
their military supplies, does not entite the 10 In
demnity from the Government for damages TO hra In
that way.
fully appreciate the hardship OF the case and would
be glad II any convictions OF duty allowed to ION IN
the proposed relief but cannot TO the doctrine
that ia found in this bll It TO by which the
National Treasury exposed 20 all claims for property
injured destroyed by the armies Of the United States
the lsie protrsced and destructive In this
try. U = GRAM
Fxeeut,re Hansion. Feb. II. 1878.