網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

H. of R.]

Niagara Sufferers.

your own and if the gentleman refuses to march to defend the frontier, when it is attacked by an enemy, he will soon find the frontier at his own door. The war which he refused to combat at a distance, will come home to his own threshold.

[DEC. 30, 1824.

damage good? Sir, there cannot be a question of it. [Mr. V. then quoted the opinion of Vattel, on the power of a military commander.] Here, sir, you find it held, that even for the act of a subaltern, an act which, as such, might be denied as being without sufficient authority, reparation must be made if demanded.

On the gentleman's principles, how could we, (in Ohio and Michigan,) have ever discharged the debt which In further evidence of what was the extent of sufferthey incurred to Kentucky? No, sir, we did not thinking on the frontier, Mr. V. said, that it was seriously rein this manner when the war was in Michigan; our doc- commended to Government by some of their ablest comtrine was, that the people of that territory were fighting manders, to remove the whole population from part of our battles, and we went cheerfully to help them. Nor the frontier to the interior, and the support of them did the thought of their paying us for it, so much as en there at the public expense. Sir, this looks very little ter our minds. Sir, the doctrine is fallacious, as much like that pleasant and prosperous condition in which so as any that ever was advanced. Another position, the gentleman has represented these people to have assumed by the gentleman, is that which requires per- been. manent occupancy of the property of an individual by the Government, in order to constitute a claim for indemnification. Sir, on that principle, not one sufferer in this Union, either by acts of the enemy, or of our own troops, would ever be indemnified. Yes, said Mr. V. there would still be one claim, (but he believed, even against that the Committee of Claims had reported, as occasioned by an unlawful act of the enemy)-he meant the case of that house on the River Raisin, which our unhappy fellow citizens did occupy until they were consumed by the flames by which it was destroyed.

The next argument of the gentleman was, that the people on the frontier were not so much to be pitied as they would have it believed; that they have not suffered so very much-nay, have rather been benefited by the war. Sir, I will say, that if that gentleman knew what was the true state of facts on the N. W. frontier generally, he would never have uttered such language. But, sir, he does not know it-the country does not know it--the country never will fully know it-the truth was withheld at the time from motives of policyand, except to eye witnesses, it can never be known. I might appeal to the first men of this nation for my truth when I say, that, while the American army was lying at the French Mills, three men out of five who had slept in one tent, were more than once drawn out in the morning dead, being literally frozen to death for want of covering. The gentleman from North Carolina lives, himself, in a mild climate; but if he had seen that army encamped in the midst of snow more than three feet deep, and not half clothed, he would talk and feel differently. Sir, it was as necessary to give that whole district a military character, (so far as admitting the troops into the private houses could do this) as it was to provide clothing or subsistence for your army; and the enemy had as much interest in the destruction of the houses, as in that of your magazines. And, if losses sustained under such circumstances, do not call upon us for relief, I do not know what does, or can.

We have heard, said Mr. V. in continuation, much from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Barbour,) about perfect and imperfect obligation. But I appeal to that gentleman, himself, to say, whether there may not be some cases where an imperfect obligation is stronger and more perfect than perfection itself. Yes, sir, I repeat it-more perfect than perfection itself. I think, after the vote that gentleman gave in the case of Lafayette, he cannot deny this. Let me say to that gentleman, that, in the village of Buffalo, he might, on one day, have found a family well housed, well clothed, surrounded with every comfort of life, who, from its hospitality in throwing open its doors to the American soldier, was the next day houseless and homeless, destitute of all things: if he had chanced, eight months afterwards, to be wandering on the flats of the Ohio, he might there see a family scarcely covered by a wretched hovel, in squalid poverty, one day shivering with ague, and the next consumed with raging fever: if his compassion should lead him to enter and inquire into their situation, he would hear them say, our father lived in plenty and comfort, on the Niagara frontier-he saw the American soldiery ready to perish-he opened his door to take them in-and for that we are here, ruined, and in wretchedness. Sir, the sufferings of the French, on their retreat from Moscow, present not too strong a pic. ture to convey a just idea of what was endured while the whole country on the Lakes was converted into one wide cantonment. Other districts suffered as well as Niagara, but none, by any means, in so great a degree. Had the gentleman seen an American regiment on that frontier drawn up on a frosty morning, and supporting arms while their limbs were chilled to the bone, standing, in their thin cotton dress, in snow two and three feet deep; had he seen these claimants opening their houses to receive men in immediate danger of perishing, (many of them did perish,) and afterwards turned out of house and home for doing it, he would not, he could not, deny that something ought to be done for their reI will now say a few words on the subject of military lief. I will not undertake to say how much, or in what occupation; and I contend in the outset, that the depo-way, but I do say that this House ought to do something. sition of General M'Clure is conclusive. Nor did the gentleman enforce the legal obligation which arises from it, in the way I think he ought to have done. What does General M'Clure say? [Here Mr. V. quoted his deposition, in which the remonstrance of the people of Buffalo against occupying their houses is mentioned, together with his reply.] Now, sir, I admit, that it may be doubtful how far a commanding General can compromit the government under which he serves by any promise or pledge that it will pay for acts of injury he may think it necessary to do; but it seems to be agreed by writers on that subject, that he has very extensive powers in this respect. I put this case: Suppose the American army had been formed in the rear of Buffaloe; that, in the mean while, the British should attempt a landing there, having nothing between to shelter them from the American fire but the town; and suppose that, under such circumstances, the American commander had ordered every house in that town to be blown up, would not the Government be held liable to make the

Sir, if we can get nothing from perfect obligation, we will accept it from imperfect, from charity if you please, but I do hope you will give it in some way.

The gentleman has insinuated, that the inhabitants of the frontier are actuated wholly by a principle of selfishness; that, unless stimulated by a sense of interest, they will do nothing in their own defence, and will surrender up their property an easy prey to the enemy. But, sir, that gentleman surely did not consider the feelings of the American people when he advanced such a sentiment. If nothing had operated on their minds but selfishness, the army of the frontier could not have been kept together a single day. No, sir, not a single day. There were our soldiers, lying naked and perishing on one bank of the Niagara river, while, directly opposite, they could see the British sentry parading backward and for. ward in a good comfortable watchcoat, and hear him cry out, cheerfully, "all's well." They had only to cross en masse to the British side, to exchange a lodging on the ground, in thin cotton that admitted the rain, and, when

[blocks in formation]

the rain was over, froze upon their bodies, for warm clothing and good quarters. Had selfishness been the ruling principle, where would have been your militia? Where would have been your regulars?—At their own homes, or over the British lines!

Mr. V. observed, in conclusion, that he was sensible he had delayed the committee too long, and he should only add that, if gentlemen were displeased with the present bill, he hoped that they would not, on that account, abandon the measure entirely, but draw a new bill, that should be less objectionable, and if they felt alarmed lest establishing any general rule might endanger the ruin of the Treasury, let them guard against the danger by granting a limited and definite sum of compensation to the claimants.

Mr. REYNOLDS, of Tennessee, next rose, and observed, on rising, that it had not been his fortune to witness the scenes which had been so handsomely depicted by the gentleman from Ohio; yet he had feelings and principles, and though he did not attempt to urge his own opinions as arguments upon the House, he thought it proper to assign his reasons for voting in favor of the bill. Much complaint, said he, was made of the law of 1816, and we were told that, in that act, the House had gone beyond all principles of the law of nations; and on similar grounds, we are warned against the present bill because a similar one is not to be found in the codes of foreign nations. But, admitting such to be the fact, our own statute books furnish a sufficient precedent. Look said Mr. R. at the horses, the bridles, the saddles, for which we have paid in the West; look at the negroes for which we have provided indemnity in the South. Are we to stop here? Shall we not provide something for the case of these suffer. ing claimants in the North? We are told that the act of 1816 has impoverished the Treasury-but where, asked Mr. R. has the money gone? It was the People's money, and it has gone back to the People-it circulates at home. What injury has it done? Is not the country as flourishing at this moment as any country on the globe? Look at the condition of the Treasury. Can we not, through the able management of that Department, boast of a balance of three millions? It was the object of the law of 1816, not to reward the services of the citizen it did not attempt that-but only to repair the losses he had endured in the service of his country. By carrying that law into effect, we shall hold out to the world that our country is grateful to those who serve her, and pities their distress. We shall enable the old warrior to say to his son: I have fought for a grateful country-go and do likewise.

Those who suffered from the military occupation of their premises, during the war, were surely as much entitled to relief as those who lost a horse or negro.

Here Mr. R. adverted to the evidence of the sufferings on the frontier as already placed before the committee to whole villages occupied by our own troops, and by the burning of New Ark, exposed to the vengeance of an irritated and powerful enemy. Adverting to the letter of Secretary Armstrong authorizing that act, he said, let us not stand on names-he was the organ of the Government-the head of the War Department, and, as such, his letter authorized the burning of that village. Mr. R. said he had had the honor of participating in the passage of the act of 1816-for he had witnessed all the steps of this claim since its first introduction-he had heard his friend from Kentucky say, and with too much truth, that the privilege of those sufferers to present their claims to this House, would be a privilege to have their claims rejected. Sir, the event shewed that he had spoken like a prophet. We have lately done one act of justice to a foreigner-(an act in which I am proud to say I had the honor and happiness of participating by my vote)-let us now do another to our own citizens.

[H. of R.

Mr. NEALE, of Mil. then rose, and said, that as he had been one who assented to the present bill, it might not be deemed an intrusion upon the time of the committee, to state some of the reasons that had governed him in doing so and, as the law of nations had been frequently referred to by the gentlemen who were opposed to the bill, he asked to be permitted to read from an approved writer, what was the language of that law. [Mr. N. here quoted Vattel, to show, that where property was destroyed by a nation's own Government, or its order, " deliberately and with precaution," as when houses are removed to erect a fortification, it must be paid for by the Government-as also what that writer says respecting injuries by an enemy, and debts of imperfect obligation.] This, Mr. N. observed, was national law, as recognized by European nations and here a distinction was made between injuries inflicted deliberately, and those by accident-the one created a perfect obligation on the Government for remuneration, the other appealed to the charity of the nation. By refer ring to the acts of 1816 and 17, it would clearly be perceived that the principle was established, viz: that if the Government occupied property, and made use of it for military purposes, and it was then destroyed, the United States must pay for it. Those acts created a perfect obligation. And was not this a just principle? And if it were not enacted then, ought it not to be now? Whether the United States destroyed the property itself, or by its act caused the enemy to destroy it, was immaterial. Such a case does not come under that clause of Vattel, which refers to accident. The occupancy is a deliberate voluntary act, and the law of 1816 and 17 says, that the Government must pay for the loss in such case. The reason of the law is, as has been stated, that property, while possessing a private and pacific character, is not liable to injury by the enemy, according to the rules of civilized warfare, but, as soon as the Government gives it a public and belligerant character, it is. Now it is necessary that the motive of the enemy in the destruction of any particular portion of property should, in some way, be established. But the acts of 1816 and '17 do not allow that the fact of its public occupation by Government shall be presumed to be of sufficient proof of this intention or motive of the enemy; the present bill does allow this: it remedies, in this respect, the great defect of the former laws. If the occupancy and the destruction are proved, it is enough-the one is presumed to be the reason of the other. In many cases it would be impossible to prove the motive of an enemy in any other manner.

Before he sat down, Mr. N. said, he would endeavor to point out what was the error of those who were opposed to the bill. They hold, that continued occupation by the Government is necessary to give a belligerant character to private property; that the occupation must continue up to the moment of destruction. But his construction of the law of nations, on this point, was, that the belligerant character superinduced on private property, by its occupation for public and military purposes, may continue after its actual occupation ceases, and this for a greater or a shorter space of time, according to circumstances. He would illustrate this by one case-he might easily adduce a thousand. Suppose the forces of the enemy to be advancing-with a view to stop him, Government seizes upon a private building, which lies in his line of march, fills it with troops, and uses it as a point of annoyance, with such success as to interrupt his progress: the enemy, perceiving this, makes a feint of marching in a quite different direction-succeeds in inducing our army to follow; and our army leaves the building: shortly after, the enemy suddenly counter marches returns to the building which had proved such an obstacle in his way, and, reaching it before our troops, seizes and destroys it. He asked whether the occupancy here continued up to the time of

H. of R.]

Niagara Sufferers.

[DEC. 50, 1824.

destruction? Certainly not. Yet was not the building frontier. Our advances on the Niagara country were in destroyed solely on account of the warlike character oc- some instances intended to create a diversion-to distract casioned by the occupancy? Assuredly. And was not the attention of the enemy, and turn him from the invathe Government as much bound to pay for the building sion of the frontier of Ohio, to the protection of his own as if the occupation had continued? It would be easy territory. One great object of the invasion by us of the to multiply examples. The true principle, then, was Niagara frontier, he had always understood, was to prothis: that, if the occupation by Government gave a pub-tect the frontiers of Ohio, and of the states west of it; lic character, and at any time during the continuance of and he had himself no doubt that one great object of the that character, the property was destroyed, the Govern- devastation of the Niagara frontier by the enemy, was to ment is bound to indemnify the owner. The quo animo prevent its occupation as a military station, from which with which the enemy destroys, must be presumed from Canada might be invaded. When Newark was burnt, the change of character in the thing destroyed. If you the British commander, who sought for a pretext for the will not admit this, your law is illusive: it promises to destruction, thought he had found it in the burning of pay if the quo animo is proved, but it refuses to receive Newark; by availing himself of which, he could throw the only proof the case admits of. the odium of his conduct on the United States, whilst his real motive was very different from his avowed one. That, said Mr. S. was the real history of the proclamation, which was relied upon as an argument against the claimants now before the House. Their object was to secure themselves from our incursions. They accomplished it: they did, by the devastation of the Niagara frontier, secure themselves, until a larger and better appointed force penetrated their frontier, &c.

Mr. BUCK, of Vermont, said, that he did not rise to debate the general principle of the bill, but to correct a material error in point of fact. The error was so important, that, when it was shewn, it would appear that the advocates of the bill had been going wholly on an assumed state of the facts, which in reality had no existence. The gentleman who introduced the bill went so far as to say, that he rested the cause of the claimants on this one point, viz: that the reason of the destruction of I did not rise to discuss the question now before the property had been its occupation by the Government; House, said Mr. S. but, since I am up, I may as well say and, having established the fact of such occupation, he a few words upon it. I think that the principle of the seemed to conceive that the claim was made out. But, bill is carried too far; and had I been one of the commitMr. B. said, he had in his hand a document to show con- tee who reported it, I would not have given my assent clusively that the ravages of our frontier were not caus- to it. But, if we vote to strike out the first section of ed by the occupancy by our army, but were inflicted the bill, being willing to legislate at all on the subject, entirely on a principle of retaliation, in consequence of we shall lose the opportunity of shaping it to our wishes. the burning of Newark. This document was the pro- The question involved in this bill, Mr. S. remarked, had clamation of Gen Prevost, the officer who commanded been called a question of perfect or mperfect obliga the British forces at the time, and who, he believed, di- tion. That, he said, was not the question. The prorected, and in person superintended, the work of des-perty of a citizen appears, by the usages of nations, to be truction. [Here Mr. Buck quoted the proclamation, in exempted from destruction by an enemy, unless, by givstrong terms denouncing the conduct of this Governing up his property to public use, he has converted it ment, and justifying the devastation of the Niagara fron- from a private to a public character. Now, when a cititier.] Thus it appears that we are not driven to pre-zen has given up his house for the public use, and it is sume the motive of the enemy; we have it in express destroyed by reason of such conversion, an obligation is terms, declared by himself. He should not attempt to created upon the Government to indemnify him for the discuss the subject at large-he thought such a repre- loss-Mr. S. spoke not of the obligation of a bond, but sentation of facts as was contained in the testimony, of the moral obligation, arising from natural justice, coming almost wholly from parties interested, was not which constitutes an obligation in the meaning of the to be put in competition with a public document such law of nations. What is the obligation of the Govern as that he had just quoted. This changed the state of ment to the citizen who has given up his property for the question. It was not now to be settled, whether its use? It is this: you have converted his dwellingthis Government was bound, because its acts had chang-house into a public building-you have changed its chared the character of the property-but whether it was acter-to accommodate the public, you have destroyed bound to remunerate the sufferers for injuries inflicted its sanctity as a private building you have rendered it by the enemy on a principle of retaliation. On this dis- liable to destruction-you have divested it of the charcussion, Mr. B. said, he should not enter, but only ob- acter which, by the law of nations, would have protectserve, that, if we admit that payment is to be made on ed it. What then is the Government bound to do? To the principle of retaliation, we, having been the begin- say to the individual so circumstanced, As you have renners, by burning Newark, are of course bound to pay. dered up your property for our use, we are your insurers: After you have placed yourself out of the protec tion of the law of nations, you shall not suffer by having done so. This, said Mr. S. is what I call a perfect obligation--a perfect moral obligation. The question for indemnity for losses sustained under such circumstances, is a question, not of charity, but of absolute right: the whole of it turning on the principle that the party has, for your use, exposed his property to destruction lawfully by the enemy. It is unjust, morally, that one who has thus surrendered up, and exposed to destruction, his property, on account of the public, should himself suffer that loss thereby which the public ought to bear. When you take the property of a citizen for public use, during war, you become the insurer of it against every act of the enemy, lawful or unlawful, and for this reason: that, when he has once surrendered his house into your possession, it is no longer his dwelling house; the property then belongs to the public, and not to him. Now, said Mr. S. if there be any definition of perfect obligation, which does not include this, it is beyond my conception.

Mr. STORRS, of New York, rose to call the attention of the House to what were really the facts of the case now before it, however perverted by the document which had just been quoted. It was true, he said, that, in that proclamation, the pretext for the devastation of the Niagara frontier was the destruction of Newark, but, in his judgment, it never was the real cause of it. Whoever looks to the situation of that frontier, and the history of the War with Great Britain to that period, must be satisfied that that document deserves no other character than that of mere hyperbole. It was not issued until after the burning of the Niagara frontier, when it had become necessary to give to the civilized world some plausible pretext for such an act as burning that frontier. Mr. S. reviewed the facts which attended the destruction of Newark, &c. We had considered the Niagara frontier generally as a point from which the Canadian frontier could be most easily invaded. We had made the experiment, not without the loss of blood. The enemy had similar objects on the North Western

DEC. 30, 1824-Jan. 3 825.] Inland Trade between Missouri and Mexico.

Congress had, indeed, he said, frequently legislated under a sense of this obligation. We have in existence a law, by which, if a citizen loses arms in the service— arms which, by law, he is obliged to supply himself with -you consider yourself under an obligation to pay him for his property so lost. So, too, we pay for the loss of horses in service. of accoutrements, and of boats in public employ. These, Mr. S. said, were plain principles, to his mind; and, if there be such a class of cases among the claims for losses on the Niagara frontier, Congress was morally bound to provide remuneration for them. He asked of any gentleman to tell him where were the public barracks, during the late war, on the Niagara frontier; or whether he has ever heard of a single public building on that frontier, excepting fort Niagara, during that period. Yet the troops of the United States were comfortably lodged. Where was the arsenal of the United States on that frontier? Where were the stores deposited? Where, except in dwelling houses? The hospitals, too, were in the dwelling houses at Buffalo, and the inhabitants of that village were the nurses of the sick soldiers. Are we to be told, said he, that this was not a military occupation? Is this what is called a casual or temporary occupation? Either the property of individuals was occupied, or we must come to the conclusion that the troops were not lodged, and that all the ammunition, the hospitals, and military stores, were in the open air. There must, he said, be some class of cases on that frontier, for the loss of which the Government is, by the most perfect obligation bound to provide.

If the first section of the bill were stricken out, it would be declared that there was no claim to indemnity on the part of any of the sufferers by destruction of property on the Niagara frontier. Although, therefore, he was opposed to the bill as it now stood, thinking the principle too broad, and that the House ought not to pass a bill to indemnify all losses without discrimination, still he thought the bill might be modified so as to make it just and reasonable; and he was, therefore, opposed to striking out the first section of the bill.

The committee then rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again; and

The House adjourned to Monday.

IN SENATE, MONDAY, JANUARY 3, 1825. INLAND TRADE BETWEEN MISSOURI & MEXICO. Mr. BENTON rose, and stated to the Senate that he had received a paper which he took the liberty of presenting. It was a statement of facts in relation to the origin, present state, and future prospects, of trade and intercourse between the Valley of the Mississippi and the Internal Provinces of Mexico. Intending, for a year past, to bring this subject before the Senate, and to claim for it a share of the national protection, Mr. B. said, that he had felt the necessity of resting his demand upon a solid foundation of facts. With this view, he had addressed himself, during the last summer, to many in habitants of Missouri, who had been personally engaged in the trade; among others, to Mr. Augustus Storrs, late of New Hampshire, a gentleman of character and intelligence, every way capable of relating things as he saw them, and incapable of relating them otherwise. This gentleman had been one of a caravan of eighty persons, one hundred and fifty-six horses, and twentythree wagons and carriages, which had made the expedition from Missouri to Santa Fe, (of New Mexico,) in the months of May and June last. His account was full of interest and novelty. It sounded like romance to hear of caravans of men, horses, and wagons, traversing with their merchandise the vast plain which lies between the Mississippi and the Rio del Norte The story seemed better adapted to Asia than to North America, But, romantic as it might seem, the reality had already

[H. of R. & S.

exceeded the visions of the wildest imagination. The journey to New Mexico, but lately deemed a chimerical project, had become an affair of ordinary occurrence. Santa Fe, but lately the Ultima Thule of American enterprise, was now considered as a stage only in the progress, or rather, a new point of departure to our invincible citizens. Instead of turning back from that point, the caravans broke up there, and the subdivisions branched off in different directions in search of new theatres for their enterprise. Some proceeded down the river to the Passo del Norte; some to the mines of Chihuahua and Durango, in the province of New Biscay; some to Sonora and Sinatoa, on the Gulf of California; and some, seeking new lines of communication with the Pacific, had undertaken to descend the Western slope of our continent, through the unexplored regions of the Multnomah and Buenaventura. The fruit of these enterprises, for the present year, amounted to $190,000 in gold and silver bullion and coin, and precious furs; a sum considerable, in itself, in the commerce of an infant State, but chiefly deserving a statesman's notice as an earnest of what might be expected from a regulated and protected trade. The principal article given in exchange, is that of which we have the greatest abundance, and which has the peculiar advantage of making the circuit of the Union before it departs from the territories of the republic-cotton-which grows in the South, is manufactured in the North, and exported from the West. Mr. B. said, that the attention of the Senate had already been drawn to this subject, and the Committee on Indian Affairs stood charged with an inquiry into the expediency of treating with the Indian tribes between Missouri and Mexico, for the right of a safe passage through their countries. The paper presented contained information essential to that committee. It contained precise information upon the route to be pursued, and the tribes to be conciliated. It contained, besides, authentic details upon the extent and value of the trade, and suggestions for its protection. It had been drawn up at his particular request, and in answer to queries proposed by him. He deemed it the fairest, safest, and most satisfactory manner of conveying to the Senate the body of facts on which he should rely when the question of extending protection to this trade shall be called up for decision." He therefore moved, that the statement of Mr. Storrs might be printed for the use of the Senate, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. The motion was agreed to.

LAFAYETTE

Mr. SMITH, from the Joint Committee appointed to announce to General Lafayette the passage of the act in his favor, and to request his acceptance of the provision made for him, reported to the Senate the following copy of an address of the committee to to the General, and his reply.

From the Joint Committee to General Lafayette. GENERAL: We are a Committee of the Senate and House of Representatives, charged with the office of informing you of the passage of an act, a copy of which we now present. You will perceive from this act, sir, that the two Houses of Congress, aware of the large pecuniary as well as other sacrifices which your long and arduous devotion to the cause of freedom has cost you, have deemed it their privilege to reimburse a portion of them, as having been incurred in part on account of the United States. The principles that have marked your character will not permit you to oppose any objection to the discharge of so much of the national obligation to you as admits of it. We are directed to express to you the confidence, as well as the request, of the two Houses, that you will, by an acquiescence with their wishes in this respect, add another to the many and signal proofs you have afforded of your esteem for a people, whose esteem for you can never cease until they have ceased to prize the liberty they enjoy, and emulate the virtues by

H. of R. & Sen.]

Gratitude to Lafayette.-Imprisonment for Debt.

[blocks in formation]

GENERAL LAFAYETTE'S REPLY. Gentlemen of the Committee of both Houses of Congress : The immense and unexpected gift, which, in addition to former and considerable bounties, it has pleased Congress to confer upon me, calls for the warmest acknowledgments of an old American soldier and adopted son of the United States-two titles dearer to my heart than all the treasures of the world.

However proud I am of every sort of obligation received from the people of the United States and their Representatives in Congress, the large extent of this enefaction might have created in my mind feelings of he sitation, not inconsistent, I hope, with those of the most grateful reverence. But the so very kind resolution of both Houses, delivered by you, gentlemen, in terms of equal kindness, precludes all other sentiments but those of the lively and profound gratitude of which, in respect fully accepting the munificent favor, I have the honor to beg you will be the organ.

Permit me, also, gentlemen, to join a tender of my affectionate personal thanks to the expression of the highest respect, with which I have the honor to be, Your obedient servant,

Washington, Jan. 1, 1825.

LAFAYETTE.

The Senate took up for consideration the bill "for the relief of Thomas L. Ogden and others," [appropriating 3,710 dollars to indemnify the petitioners for wood taken from their lands contiguous to the village of Sackett's Harbor, and consumed by the army of the United States, during the late war.]

Mr. CHANDLER opposed the bill, on the ground that the public naval and military establishments, formed at Sackett's Harbor, by the Government, had imparted a value to that place, and to the lands in its vicinity, much greater than the alleged damage done to the petitioners; further, that, so far from the use of the timber by the army, now proposed to be paid for, being an injury, it was a real benefit to the claimants-as every one knew who was acquainted with the labor of clearing new land; and that, in fact, the consumption of the wood in question, was worth at least ten dollars an acre to the land from which it was removed.

Mr. RUGGLES and Mr. VAN BUREN advocated the justice and equity of the claim. It had twice passed the House, but had not got through both Houses for want of time. The claim was originally for 7,000 dollars, but had been reduced to the sum now proposed, of $3,110, to which the petitioners were fairly entitled, in the opinion of the committee that reported the bill, &c. The debate continued some time; when,

On motion of Mr. KING, of Alabama, the bill was laid on the table, to give opportunity for a further examination of the facts of the case.

The Senate, according to the order of the day, proceeded again to the consideration of the bill abolishing imprisonment for debt-the motion of Mr.COBB to strike out the following clauses from the first section, viz. "But, after the return thereof, the defendant or defendants may contest the allegation of the said oaths or affirmations, before the court in which the said suit or action is instituted, in such form as the court shall prescribe. And if the court shall be of opinion that the

[JAN. S, 1825.

[blocks in formation]

On this motion the debate was resumed and continued some time. Messrs. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, and BARBOUR opposing the amendment, and Messrs. Cobb, BRANCH, and BROWN, of Ohio, supporting it.

The question on striking out the clauses was finally decided by yeas and nays, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bell, Brown, Chandler, Clayton, Cobb, D'Wolf, Dickerson, Edwards, Elliott, Gaillard, King, of New York, Lloyd, of Md. Lloyd, of Mass. M'Ilvaine, Mills, Noble, Palmer, Parrott, Ruggles, Seymour, Thomas-21.

NAYS-Messrs. Barbour, Barton, Benton, Bouligny, Branch, Eaton, Findlay, Holmes, of Me. Jackson, Johnson, of Ky. Johnston, of Lou. King, of Alab. Lanman, Lowrie, M'Lean, Macon, Smith, Talbot, Tazewell, Van Buren, Williams-21.

The Senate being equally divided on the question, the motion was, of course, lost."

Various other amendments, of inferior importance, were offered to the details of the bill, some of which succeeded, and others were lost-in the proposition or discussion of which Messrs. COBB, MILIS, VAN BUREN, BROWN of Ohio, and JOHNSON of Ky. took part. Before the bill was gone through, the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-SAME DAY. Mr. LIVINGSTON, of Lou. offered the following: "Resolved, That a committee be appointed to consider and report on the expediency of establishing an Academy for instruction in those sciences necessary for the service of the military marine; with power to report by bill or otherwise."

Mr. WILLIAMS, of N. C. suggested that it would be more proper that this resolution should go to the Committee on Naval Affairs, than to a select committee.

Mr. MERCER, of Va. said, that he had had the honor

of submitting a resolution, similar to that now presented by the gentleman from Louisiana, at the last session of Congress; it had been referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, but, owing, as he presumed, to the pressure of business before that committee, nothing had been done respecting it till the middle of the session, and it proved too late to be acted on. He considered no subject as more important and more worthy of the consideration of the House, than a provision for the instruction of those who are to uphold the naval glory of the

country.

Mr. FULLER thanked the gentleman from Virginia for his suggestion to save the time of the Committee on Naval Affairs, but he could answer him, that he was mistaken if he supposed that the resolution he offered at the last session had been neglected by that committee. It had received mature consideration-and the measure it proposed had been engrafted in a general bill for the reorganization of the Navy Department; but that bill had been pressed out by other business, and now lay over; he hoped it would receive an early attention during the present session. Believing that this would be the case, he moved to lay the resolution on the table.

The SPEAKER decided, that, inasmuch as the subject-matter of the resolution was before the House in another form, the resolution was out of order.

Mr. LIVINGSTON inquired, whether the bill, in which the gentleman from the Committee on Naval Affairs (Mr. Fuller) had stated this subject as being included, did not contain sundry other matters, and wheth. er, by being thus entangled with matters foreign to itself, and possibly of doubtful practicability or expediency, any measure might not be easily, and forever, de

« 上一頁繼續 »