The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1874-05-21
Vattel, in his Law oil

| thlS suUJtC1 dtlcij III hio A@" VI
Nations, says:
Such damages are OF two kinds, those
done by the State itself, or the sover-
eigp, aud those done by the enemy. OF
the first kind come are done deliberate
ly, and by way Of precaution, as when
field, a house, a garden, belonging to
pr yate person, is taken fer the pur-
pose OF erecting on the spot a town
rampant, or any other piece of iortifica-
uon, or when his standing corn or his
sEore-houses are destroyed to preveEt
their being OF use to the enemy. Such
damages are 10 be made good to the
individual, who should bear only his
quota Of the loss.
Vattel, it will be seep, divides the
damages into two kinds, accidental and
designed. 1t is not the purpose OF this
bill or our people to demand compen-
sation for accidental damages, because
in state Of war the party clothed with
the right to make war has to march
his troops through the country by the
best route possible TO accomplish his
purpose, and the accidental damages
resulting from such march are the
necessary consequences OF war, and
must be born by the people without
com pensation therefor. But when we
come to consider the second division, it
is an entirely different matter. While
it is acknowledged that if il is necesss-
ry to march through a growing crop oil
grain in order to secure q legitimate
end and thereby impair its value, no
compensation can be justly or legally
claimed therefor; yet If, on the other
hand, the troops are in camp, and un-
der orders confscate the corn for prov
! ender or else cult it down in order to
keep an enemy from approaching un-
der cover, it must be admitted that
damages lie. So it may be set down
as one OF the acknowledged legal max
inns of war, that whatever the Govern
ment takes from loyal subject for the
more efficient prosecution OF war,
whether it be forage, timber for iorti-
fications, houses removed or destroyed
or anything else, should be compen-
stated for.
Says Grotius, (page 34S, volume ;,
Campbell's Grotius:)
THE property OF subjects is so far
under the eminent control OF the state,
that the state, or the sovereign who
represents it, not only in cases OF ex-
treme necessity, which sometimes allow
individuals the liberty OF infringing
upon the property OF others, but on all
occasions where the public good is con-
cerned, to which the original trainers
OF society intended that private interest
should give way. But when that Ia the
case. il is 10 be observed the stale Is
bound to repair the Losses OF individuals
at the public expense, in aid OF which
the sufferers have contributed their
due proportion. Nor will the state,
thou Oh unable to repair the Losses for
the present, be finally release from the
debt, but whenever she possesses the
means of repairing the damages the
dormant claim and obligation will be
revived.
And again he says:
THE king may in two watts deprive
his subjects of their right, either by
way OF punishment or by virtue OF his
eminent power. But if he does so in
the last wav, it must be for public adj
vantage, and then the subject ought to
receive, il possible, just Satisfaction
for the loss he suffers ont OF the COM
mon stock.
Mr.. William Whiting has also dis~
cussed this subject with direct reference
to the liabilities OF the United States
growing out OF the late war. He ASSERTS
the same doctrine, namely:
"Il the private property Of: loyal citl'
zens, inhabitants of loyal St::tes, is APP
propriated by our military forces tor
the purpose OF supplying cur armies
and 10 aid in prosecuting hostilltle'
against a public enemy, th@ Govern
ment ia bound to give *easonaoI
compensation therefor to the owner.
Again he says:
when individuals are called upor
to give up what is their own for the
advantage OF the community, justice
REQUIRES that they should be fairly
compensated for it; otherwise public
burdens would be shared unrqually."
Again he says:
Public use does not require that the
property taken shall be actually used
Ii NAV be disused, removed or destroy
ed, and destruction OF private property
may be the best public use it can bC
put to. Suppose q bridge owned by
private corporation to be 80 located as
TO endauger our forts apOn the banks o
a river. To demolsh that bridge fOI
military purposes would be 10 appropri
ate it to public use.
This view OF the case is fully sus-
tanned by the opinion Of the Supreme
Court OF the United States in the cas-
of Mitchell Us Harmony, (l3 Howard
!, page 1919 This case orieinated on
of a transaction during the war Will
; Mexico. Mitchell was en- officer OF th'
United States army in that war, an
destroyed the property OF Harmony, l!
! prevent it from falling into the POSSES
sion Of the enemy, and suit wa
= brought by Harmony to recover tn
, value Of the property. Chief Justlc
,, fancy, in delivering the opinion OF thu
: court, Gays
And where the owner has don
! nothing to forfeit his rights, every put
= lie officer is bound TO respect then
! whether he finds the property in for
- eign or hostile country, or 10 his own.
There are, without doubt, occasion
in which private property may occs
o sionally be taken possession OF or d.
e stroyed to prevent it from falling iu'
l. the hands of the public enemy, an
= also where a military officer charge
with a particular duty NAV impre'
e private property into the public servit
- 49,