Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1878-02-13
The Pioneer Mills Property.

was in no sense q rebal claim. There WAS no
question of loyalty involved. 1t was not case
Of damage to property in the prosecution OF tne
war. None Of the objections usually made 10
claims originating during the war apply to this
claim. There were no lshcas on the part OF the
claimants in the prosecution of IN BIZ claim. Inc
United States owe thu money, and there is no
legal or equitable plea to the demand. The
claimants are loyal citizens of New York. and
never resided in disloyal State. In the dark
es! days OF the civil war they aided the Government
with their private means. They had before tne
invested large means in the city of Alexandria,
and were entitled to the protection OF the govern
ment In the enjoyment of their property IN this
city. When loyal man who was cltizen OF
disoyal state presents claim, payment IS refused
upon the ground that he was IN tan an enemy
that the war was waged against states, not lndl-
viduas and as he was part of the State, there can
be no discrimination in his favor. But where the
legal claimant, who was not an enemy because OF
his residence in disloyal State, presents his claim,
can payment be refused because his property was
in disloyal State?
This would DO to wage war against in dividuals,
and not against the State.
It will DO borne in mind that this not case Of
ssizurethe government occupied the property under
an agreement. 1t will hardly be contended that the
government could seize the property of its loyal cti-
zens residing in loyal State. Such citizen was
protected by the constitutional provision that private
property shall not be taken for public use without
compensation. But this was not case of seizure.
mi Sptn thoo of
property under IN agreement to pay for it. Let it
be- that it was not contract, specific performance
of which could have been enforced by the claimants;
but the government having enjoyed tho benefit OF
the contract, which fully executed, the govern
ment cannot now escape the payment of the claim
upon the plea that the officer had no authority to
make that contract. The mill built upon leased
ground, at cost of nearly $4,000. The ground
ront paid the city of Alexandra ST. 72O annu-
ally, and the claimants paid this rent every year
while the government occupied the property.
At the expiration Of the first year Of tenancy the
claimants presented their claim based upon the
amount they had invested in the property. The
secretary of thought the rent charged too high,
and tho officers of the government offered to pay
$4,000 per annum, which the claimants did not think
reasonable compensation, and declined to take it.
Thus the matter stood until the year 1855, when the
claim was placed in an attorneys hands for proseeu
ton, who proceeded to take evidence to prove what
would be reasonable compensation for the use of
tho property, and the proofs show that $4,000 per
annuum is an inadequate compensation, the wharf
alone being worth almost half that sum. Soon after
these proofs were presented to the department,
Congress passed the act of February 81, 1867, and
the Secretary of War decided that the act prohibited
the payment of the claim by the department.
Tho claimants thoa went before the Southern
Claims Commissioners, who held that they had no
jurisdiction of claims for rent and occupation
of real estate.
The claimants then appealed to the Forty-second
Congress, and the Claims Committee of the House
unanimously reported bill for their relief but Con-
gross expired without reaching the claim.
They appealed to the Forty third Congress, which
expired without any action on the claim.
The War Claims Committee of the Forty-fourth
Congress unanimously reported in favor of the claim,
but presidential matters absorbed the attention Of
Congress, and the claim was not reached.
Again the War Claims Committee Of the present
Congress unanimously reported in favor Of the
clam-and the Committee of the Whole passed the
bill and reported it 10 the House-when it was de-
feated by northern republican votes.
The southern members, who had no interest in
the claimants, voted for the bill simply because they
believed the claim to be just-whllc northern repub-
licans voted against 1t for political purposes. Sever
al Notwithstanding them Foster, Conger and
A. H. Smith, who were members Of the committee
which unanimously reported the bill-voted against
it under party dictation. What does it mean?
Surely there was never juster claim. Not only
did the government use the property OF its loyal
citizens of loyal state under an agreement to pay
for it, but the claimants actually paid out of their
pockets SLIGO each year of the occupation for
the use of the government, and in addition to all
this the valuable machinery in the mill was so
damaged during the tenancy Of the government that
1t has never since been of any use, Well might the
committee report that the 'good faith'' of the gov
eminent was pledged to the payment of this claim
the payment of which has been repudated by the
republican party of the House. It is difficult to
discriminate between obligations by parol and those
under seal. An example has been set, which may
be relied upon as precedent when other obligations
of the government are repudiated.
The States of Pennsylvania, Vermont and
Ohio have asked Congress to pay them for
arming and equippiug troops during the war.
They want to be paid for fighting for "thc
fag." Patriotism has its price, in money now
. days, and the claims of the States referred to
will probably be paid, as the North aud West
will vote for them but, as Virginia represen.
tatives vote to pay for nothing outside of the
South, the Representatives from other sections of
the country vote against any appropriation for
Virginia.
The meeting of the National Democratic
Committee to have been held in Washington on
the 22d instant. has boen postponed until the
22d proximo.
Memorial Services.
NEW YORK. Feb. l3.-The grand and i'm.
pressiye ceremonial of the solemn mass of re.