網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

JAN. 3, 1825.]

Niagara Sufferers.

[H. of R.

$50,000, to the inhabitants of Venezuela, whose effects were swallowed by an Earthquake.

feated? He felt convinced that such had been the case in the present instance. It was the connexion of his proposition with other features in the naval bill, which And, sir, within a few days we have paid a debt of had prevented its being taken up by the House. He, $200,000, as due to Republican principles, and the cause therefore, submitted whether, under this view of the of liberty. But, sir, have gentlemen read the proof acsubject, his motion for a separate inquiry into this sub-companying the report of the committee? If they have, ject, was not in order. I fondly hope their doubts, as to the cause of the deThe SPEAKER adhered to his decision, and explain-struction of the buildings, have been removed. The preed the rule of order, but suggested that other modes of attaining the same object might be resorted to. The question was then put, and the resolution was laid upon the table.

Mr. ARCHER, of Va. from the joint committee appointed to communicate to General LAFAYETTE the act passed for his benefit, asked and obtained leave to report-when he submitted copies of a letter from the committee to the General, and his reply, (as will be seen in the account of the Senate proceedings,) which, on motion of Mr. CONDICT, were entered at large on the Journals of the House.

NIAGARA SUFFERERS.

sumption is so strong, sir, as to amount to what is called a violent presumption. I think honorable gentlemen ought not to entertain any doubts on this subject. The destruction of the buildings, however, is said to have been an act of "retaliation," and if so, this Government ought not to pay for them. And to prove this, a Royal Proclamation of a Royal Governor of his most Royal Majesty, has been read. But, sir, I intend to spend no time in examining that wonderful production; my honorable colleague and friend has disposed of that, satisfactorily, I trust, to the minds of this committee. I will only say, that it was a "Salvo," a contemptible ebullition, to satisfy the compunctious visitings of a guilty conscience. Humanity has already passed judg ment upon the act, irrevocable as time, lasting as eter

The House then proceeded to the order of the day, and went again into committee of the whole, Mr. CAMP-nity. BELL, of Ohio, in the chair, on the bill for the relief of the Niagara sufferers.

Mr. CADY, of New York, then rose, and observed, it was but seldom that he obtruded himself upon the attention of this House, but being a citizen of the state of New York, and having had an opportunity of knowing something of the merits of the petitioners in this case, he could not consent to give a silent vote. I once, said Mr. C. entertained an opinion nearly similar to the one expressed by the honorable gentleman from North Carolina. I once believed that exaggeration had magnified the sufferings and multiplied the losses of these petitioners-but, sir, that day of ignorance has gone by. It was once my duty, in the Legislature of New York, to examine this subject, and I do assure the honorable gentleman from North Carolina, and this committee, that, as regards the losses of these petitioners, and the miseries they endured, the truth has never been half told. I am not now disposed to enter into a disquisition whether this claim is to be classed under the head of a perfect or imperfect obligation; the black letter reading of Coke or of Blackstone, will have but little influence in determining my vote. Nor, sir, shall I consult the musty pages of Grotius or Puffendorf, to know for what losses those gentlemen are pleased to say, Governments are bound to pay. But, sir, I have asked my conscience whether I believe this Government ought to do something for these claimants, and whether we are prohibited from doing it. I have also read the Constitution of my country, and in the preamble I am told that it was adopt ed "to promote the general welfare." I believe our right to do something has not been disputed. Why One honorable gentleman seems to suppose that the occupancy by our army of the buildings destroyed, was not the cause of their destruction. What then, supposing it to be true, will you furnish no

not then do it?

relief?

Are our hands tied down and manacled, so that we dare not touch one cent in the Treasury? This has not always been the case. The moneys heretofore given to alleviate great calamities, the grants heretofore made and appearing on your statute books, speak a different language. The select committee, in their report upon this subject, has called our attention to some other grants:

$8,500 to the citizens of Pennsylvania, who suffered losses by the wanton violence of some of her misguided and misinformed inhabitants.

24,000 acres of land to the settlers at Galliopolis, because some speculators had cheated them. $15,00%, to unfortunate enigrants from Hispaniola. VOL. L-3

I have been instructed by the Legislature of New York, of which I am a citizen, to advocate these claims. I do it most cheerfully, regretting only my feeble powers. She asks you to alleviate, in some degree, the losses of a portion of her citizens. She has long since extended her charitable hand-she asks you to do equal and exact justice-she has seen you pay for losses in the West and in the South-she has seen your western dragoons remounted, and the negroes of the southern planter restored. Will you now listen to her application? Are there any more " constitutional objections" in the way? I well remember the time when she applied for your assistance, in the formation and completion of a work which history has already recorded as the proudest monument of the age. But, sir, I do not wish to digress; rest assured, that, in the state of New York, from Erie to Long Island, there is an universal prayer that we shall do something for these Niagara sufferers. If gentlemen suppose the bill to be too broad, let us amend it in the spirit of charity-let us say, 64 come let us reason together," but do not let us any more, with a cold tombstone charity, say to those suffering petitioners, "be ye fed and be clothed." The honorable gentleman from Ohio has, in a warm, vivid, and glowing manner, peculiar to himself, described some of the sufferings of these petitioners. About two hundred inhabited dwellings were entirely consumed; they contained, probably, upon an average, from six to eight souls. From 12 to 1600 human beings, with the aged father, the helpless mother, the infant in the cradle, were involved in one promiscuous labyrinth of woe. At that most inclement season, when the cold northern blasts of winter chill to the very soul, were these claimants bereft of a home, without a shelter but the broad canopy of Heaven, the cold earth their bed. Their sufferings may be imagined—they cannot be described. Many, to be sure, have gone to their long home, but many still remain looking up to us, and fervently imploring us to alleviate, in part, their distresses. Let us do it; we need not fear the consequences. No nation ever suffered by doing great, humane, and generous acts. They tend to engage the affection, and rivet the attachments of the people. Let us, then, sir, do something worthy of this nation, and rest assured that the American people will not only hail you as upright and able statesmen, but also as noble, generous, and charitable.

Mr. SHARPE, of New York, expressed a wish that the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. P. P. BARBOUR,) would withdraw his motion to strike out the enacting clause of the bill, as the time spent in discussing it would prove, in a great measure, time lost, if the House re

H. of R.]

Niagara Sufferers.

fused to agree to the motion, since the bill would then have to undergo amendments, and all the discussion would have to be gone over again. Whereas, if the motion to strike out the enacting clause were suspended, until its friends had had a fair opportunity to render the bill as perfect as they could, it might then be put, and the sense of the House as well, and better, taken upon it, than in the present stage of the bill.

Mr. P. P. BARBOUR observed, in reply, that he had made the motion to strike out the enacting clause on a principle which he had invariably followed, viz. to save the time of the House in discussing the forms of a measure, when he believed that the measure itself, from its principle, would be rejected. He did not agree with the gentleman from New York, that the time which was occupied in discussing such a motion was time lost. The amendments might as well be engrafted after the general principle of the bill had been discussed as before, and that discussion might itself suggest amendments; but, as the gentleman from New York requested him to withdraw the motion, and considerable discussion had Mr. B. already been had upon it, he would not refuse. accordingly withdrew the motion to strike out the enacting clause of the bill.

[JAN. 3, 1825.

Mr. WRIGHT, of Ohio, then said, that, as he was advised that the gentleman from New York, who had just taken his seat, as well as other gentlemen, had prepared amendments to the bill, in order to give them an opportunity of submitting them, he would withdraw that now under consideration, stating, at the same time, that he had himself also prepared another amendment, which he should present at the proper time.

Mr. WRIGHT'S motion for amendment having been withdrawn, and the question being on that offered by Mr. STORES,

Mr. FORSYTH, of Georgia, observed, that he did not think he correctly understood the object of the amend. He went into a recapitulation of what had prement. viously been done on this subject-the act of 1816the powers of the commissioner-his decisions-the interposition of the President, and the subsequent act of 1817. By this act, it was required to be proved that the property was occupied by order of an officer of the United States; and, as he understood, all the claims which had been brought under the provisions of this act had been paid. The object of the claimants now seemed to be to undo the restrictions of the law of 1817, and restore them and their claims to the same state as they were under the act of 1816. Now, the act of 1816 had been extended by the commissioner to all property occupied with or without an order of any United States' officer; and, if such was, in any way, the object of the present bill, or of the amendment, he should be opposed to it in toto, knowing, as he did, the abuses to which the extraordinary decision of the commissioner would have led.

Under

Mr. STORRS then rose, and said that he was opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. WRIGHT,) inasmuch as ail the difficulty which had hitherto occurred to retard the settlement of these claims, has sprung out of a phrase in the bill of 1816, almost word for word the same as that now proposed by the present amendment. And whoever had attended to the reports of committees of this House, on the various individual claims which had been submitted, for Mr. MARVIN, of New York, rose, in reply, and said injuries by the enemy, would perceive that the rejec- that it was not the object of the present bill, or of the tion of those claims had almost invariably turned on amendment, to establish any new principle. He thought this same idea, viz. that it did not appear that the occu- the gentleman from Georgia had not stated the case pation by the United States was the cause of the de- quite fairly. It was true that the commissioner's prostruction: a point which former acts required to be prov-ceedings had been arrested, and that a new law was ed affirmatively, which the present bill did not require passed, establishing a different rule of adjudication, and to be proved; but which it was the effect of the amend- empowering him only to examine and report. ment again to bring in question. Mr. S. maintained this law, a new commission issued to two members of that this was not a proper point to be inquired into; the this House, and another gentleman of great talents, to only point material in the claim, was, whether a citizen, whom was added an agent of the United States. These by surrendering his property to the use and occupation gentlemen repaired to Niagara, and, in their examinaof his Government, had divested it of its private charac- tions and report, were governed by the law of 1817. ter, and whether, under such circumstances, it had been They took ample testimony-they made a detailed redestroyed. If these two facts were shown, the Govern- port-they did both by the authority of this House; but ment was bound to make up the loss; but the moment there their powers stopped, and there this House stopyou go a step beyond this, you meet an artificial difficul- ped also; for, after receiving that report, nothing had ty of your own creating. Where private property, in- been done-not a dollar was granted for settling the deed, retaining its private character, becomes the sub- claims. Last session, a committee, indeed, had been ject of depredation by the enemy, as when the vessel of appointed to inquire what it was proper to do in the a merchant is unlawfully captured, or his goods wasted matter, and the report of that committee is before the and destroyed, the case, though a hard one, gives no House, and they propose the present bill, not to set up claim upon the Government for indemnity; it comes any new principle, but merely to carry the former acts under the general case of losses in war, and must be into effect. Why did the House order them to report, borne as it may. But as soon as he, by his voluntary if it was not intended to follow up their report with act, gives up his property to public use, it becomes as some corresponding measure? Not one of these claims much an instrument of war as a cannon is. It is part of had been paid since 1817, and they were so numerous the materiel of the war, and the enemy may inflict upon that it was utterly impracticable for Congress to delibeit what injuries he will, lawful or unlawful; he may rate upon them singly. Some general act was requisite even destroy it in sport. It does not touch the question to carry the rule the House had laid down into some of indemnification; the fact of the destruction is a plain practicable effect. Such was the simple object of the one, susceptible of ample proof; but the moment you present bill. Its friends, indeed, did wish to get rid of an leave this to inquire into the motives of the enemy, you objectionable phrase in one of the former acts on this enter on a field of speculation and uncertainty. If the subject, which provides that the occupancy of the proHouse shall reject the amendment now proposed, this perty must have been the cause of its destruction. will be avoided. Mr. STORES then moved to amend the Under that law, if a claimant comes and proves both bill by striking out that clause which grants indem- the occupancy of his dwelling by United States' troops nity, provided the property "had been at any time dur- or magazines, and its destruction by the enemy, he is ing the war" in the occupation of the United States, answered "Ay, but you have not shown that the one was and substituting the proviso, that it was in such occu- the cause of the o her." If he attempts to prove this pation "at the time of its destruction, or immediately by inference, it is objected that the destruction was on before." a principle of retaliation for the burning of Newark.

JAN. 3, 1825.]

Niagara Sufferers.

[H. of R.

braced within the principle of existing laws. The effect of the present bill would be to embrace cases which the Commissioner of Claims was about to allow, and would have allowed, but for the interference of Congress, and some of which, indeed, were allowed, without, in his opinion, any color of authority by law. The bill now before the House embraced, in fact, a new principle, recognizing a vast number of the claims, covering he knew not what amount of money.

If he attempts to show that whole villages were burnt, he is again told that neither the occupancy by United States' troops, nor the burning of Newark was the cause, but only the predatory character that marked British warfare in former wars as well as the present. The claimant is sent to examine the mind, and to probe the conscience of the enemy, and tell what his true motives were. It was from such a requirement that the present bill sought to free these unhappy sufferers, many of whom had endured a second desolation in consequence of the legislation of this Hall. The acts of 1816 and 1817 led them to expect indemnification; and the expectation was a just one; it was founded in their confidence in this House, and the execution of its laws. In consequence, they had begun to rebuild their burnt buildings, and had incurred responsibilities by doing so. The execution of those acts was suspended; the time of payment for their repairs came round. The same citizen who had once been stripped by the enemy, had to see his property a second time swept away by judgment and exe-office to which he was appointed, the Commissioner ad

cution.

He did not mean to enter into the discussion of the general principles of the bill; but surely the Government had fully settled it by its own act respecting the destruction of Newark. He knew that act had been disavowed by the Government: he should not express any opinion on the question, whether the act was or was not a justifiable one; but he would call the attention of the House to the letter of the Secretary of War. [Here he quoted the letter.] Now I do not say, observed Mr. MARVIN, that the act of burning was in obedience to this letter. The letter says that it might become necessary. 1 admit that it was not unavoidable; for at the same time we burnt the village, we evacuated Fort George. All I insist on is, that, in that letter, the principle was recognized, that the burning of a village might become necessary in the lawful prosecution of a military enter prize. Did the Secretary apprehend any danger that the buildings and houses of Newark should arrange themselves into battalions, and march against our army? No; but he knew that they protected the British forces. Shortly after our troops evacuated the British territory, they entered ours, and took Fort Niagara. Now, said Mr. MARVIN, suppose that the taking of that fort had been followed by a letter of precisely the same import as that of our Secretary of War, where would be the difference of the cases? (Experience had shown that the villages on both sides were a covering to the troops; and the British order might have expressly referred to the fact that, in 1812, the whole frontier was converted into one great cantonment.) Sir, the act was done and I contend it was done on the self same principle as our own act in burning Newark.

:

Mr. MERCER, of Virginia, said this appeared to be a proper moment for correcting an error which had been fallen into by several of the gentlemen who had spoken, and lastly by the gentleman from Georgia, relative to the course of the Commissioner of Claims under the act of 1816. Mr. M. said he was authorized by the document which he held in his hands to aver, that the Commissioner had put no construction upon that act but what had received the sanction of the President of the United States. As soon as he took possession of the

dressed four queries respecting the construction of that act, to the Attorney General of the United States, who returned for answer that he did not think himself bound, in the discharge of his official duty, to answer those queries. What did the Commissioner then? He addressed a letter to the acting Secretary of War, who did furnish him with an exposition of the views of the Executive on this question. What was the exposition? It was precisely that which the member from New York had now put upon the law. Mr. M. here quoted the documents to sustain this statement of the facts. He read also part of another document, being a letter addressed by the Commissioner to the Secretary of War on the 1st of November, 1816, in which he says he feels it to be his duty to conform his decisions to any construction of the law which the President should think the proper one, and that he would make no other decisions under it, until he should receive further instructions on that head. How could it be said, under these circumstances, that decisions had been made by the Commissioner, under that act, without any color of authority?

Mr. M. here reviewed the history of the decisions, the great number of them, and the considerable amount which they involved, which reduced Congress to the alternative of revoking the law, so as to shut out the cases not yet allowed, or that of laying by the cases for further consideration. The latter course was preferred, and, by causing testimony to be taken in regard to the destruction of property at Buffalo, &c. a hope was held out to the claimants that the same measure would be dealt out to them as to others similarly situated, whose claims had been allowed before the execution of the original law was suspended.

He was happy to find that the gentleman from Geor- Upon the question whether the laws of civilized war gia was disposed to acquiesce in the principles of the justified the destruction of the Niagara frontier, Mr. M. acts of 1816 and 1817; and when that gentleman disco-expressed the decided opinion that the usage of civilized vers that he was mistaken in supposing that the claims under those acts had been paid, he will allow that a law which provides for their payment is every way just and

necessary.

nations did not justify it. He defied any one to put his finger on any passage in any esteemed writer on National Law, or on any page of history, in which such a transaction was reconciled to the principles of lawful Mr. FORSYTH said he did not know whether any of warfare. So far from a belligerant being entitled to the persons, whose case came fairly within the provi- destroy private dwellings because of their being or havsions the acts of 1816 and 1817, had been paid. Heing been occupied by its enemy, Mr. M. maintained was perfectly certain that those who came within them the reverse to be the law. The most fertile and popuwere entitled to be paid, and he considered it to be the lous countries of Europe, he remarked, had been most duty of the House, when the cases were fairly made out, frequently the theatres of war-Flanders and Lomto pay them. But, he asked, what is now the question? bardy, for example, the cock pits of Europe, in which Not to pay those who, under those laws, are fairly enti- France and Germany had so often contended for empire. tled to be paid, but to alter the law, and embrace in Of the ravages which would have been made of these a new enactment cases expressly excluded by those two beautiful countries, if the principle now suggested had acts. After taking a brief review of the history of the been acted upon, he drew a vivid outline, concluding by act of 1816, and the adjudications under it, Mr. F. said saying that, by the conduct of her commanders on the that gentlemen had mistaken their remedy altogether, shores and frontiers of this country during the late war, if, as the gentleman suggested, these cases were em- the arms of Great Britain had been stained with a dis

[blocks in formation]

With regard to the distinction which had been drawn as to the right of the enemy to destroy private property, that the war on the Niagara frontier, was, on our part, an offensive war, Mr. M. remarked, that, whether a war was offensive or defensive, must be determined by its origin, and not by any particular incident of the war.

[JAN. 3, 1825.

grace which it would take a century to wipe off. There curious to ascertain what were the views of Congress existed, he argued, no such right on the part of a belli- on this subject, would find them clearly indicated by the gerant, as the right to destroy private houses, or indivi- various amendments, &c. which were proposed to the dual property, from which an enemy has been driven. bill, which grew out of this Message of the President. If such a right had been admitted and acted upon in Eu- Mr. DWIGHT, of Mass. said he did not rise to enter rope, what would have become of the splendid buildings into the discussion of the general question upon the dedicated to military purposes, or of the private build-merits of the bill, as it originally stood; to that bill, un. ings occasionally employed for them? He expressed his modified, he was himself opposed. But limited, as it surprise to find gentlemen in this discussion transferring now was, by the amendment of his honorable friend from themselves to the Niagara frontier, as if their general New York, (Mr. STORES,) to the destruction of buildprinciples applied there only, instead of sweeping the ings or other property in the actual occupation of our whole continent. He illustrated the principle which own Government, at the time of the destruction, he gave had been laid down on this subject, by applying it to the his most hearty co-operation. He rose merely to point City of New York, if, in any future war, an enemy out an error of the honorable gentleman from Virginia, should obtain possession of it; and demanded if the (Mr. MERCER,) who had just taken his seat, and upon right to ravage that city with fire could be derived from which the argument of the honorable gentleman against the fact that troops called in for its defence were quar- the present bill seemed entirely to be founded. That tered in private buildings. Upon the whole, he conclud- is, that the laws of 1816 and 1817, in behalf of persons ed that it would be neither just nor wise for this go- who had property lost, captured, or destroyed, by the vernment to recognize any such principle as the right of enemy during the last war, were not founded in princian enemy to destroy private property because it may ple, and went further than the Government were bound have been employed, for a time, either for military depo- to go in relief of individual distress. To shew that the sites, or for barracks. error was in the laws of 1816 and 1817, and not in the administration of them, the honorable gentleman from Virginia had attempted to shew that the Commissioner, acting under the authority of those laws, had invariably been guided by the opinion of the Government, as to the extent of the allowances which he was to make.To support this position, the honorable gentleman had read a part of the correspondence between the Commissioner and the Secretary of the Treasury, as to the extent of his ability to make allowances. And thence, the gentleman had induced the belief that, because the Commissioner had consulted the Government, he had, in all instances, been governed by the result of that consultation. So far indeed was this from being true, he was himself prepared to shew, from the documents which the honorable gentleman had just read, that the Secretary of the Treasury had, in his answer to the Commissioner, confined relief to the destruction of buildings actually in the occupation of the Government for military purposes. The committee were not ignorant, that, so far from this salutary principle being the governing one, the Commissioner had allowed some thousands of dollars in one instance to be paid for a building in the City of Washington, in regard to which the proof was by a British deserter, that it was destroyed by the enemy because a single musket was found in one of the apartments. He Mr. M. concluded his observations, by some remarks might add, (he said,) other instances of a wide deparon the general subject of claims of this description- ture from what was now considered the spirit of the He said he should probably vote against the bill, in any laws of 1816 and 1817. They were, he presumed fresh and every shape in which it should be presented to the in the recollection of gentlemen who were, unlike himHouse; being of opinion, that those of the claimants self at that time, conversant with those proceedings.who were entitled to relief ought to present themselves He would ask the honorable gentleman if the policy of by petition to the House. In particular cases, sufficient the laws of 1816 and 1817 were so generally questionareasons might be assigned for the allowance of particu- ble, why they had not been repealed? It was true, he lar claims: but he had always been opposed to the pas-admitted, that the President had long since suspended sage of any general bill on this subject. He was unwilling to establish a principle now, by the passage of this bill, which, on some future occasion, he would be under the necessity of abandoning.

The gentleman from New York, (Mr. STORKS,) had answered the argument of his colleague, (Mr. TRACY,) by contending that the war on the Niagara frontier was calculated to call the attention of the enemy from the frontier of the state of Ohio, which he was in the act of invading. Whether a particular expedition was offensive or defensive, he repeated, must depend entirely upon the plan of the campaign. An invasion of the territory of the enemy might be necessary to call his attention from our own seaboard.

A member from New York, (Mr. CAMBRELENG,) had told the committee, indeed, that this country would never again be invaded. He was very glad to hear it, he said; and yet nations as strong as this had been invaded. And, in reference to the possibility of such an event, as well as upon general principles, he objected to the establishment of a new law of nations, which would subject the public treasury to all the losses of property it might occasion.

Mr. FORSYTH said he had not any intention to call in question, at this late day, the conduct of the Commissioner of Claims. At a proper season he had done so, and, he believed, with some effect. He had not spoken of misconduct on the part of the Commissioner, but of an extraordinary construction of the law by him; and, so far from its being previously sanctioned by the President, the language of his message on the subject to Congress, was, that the law had received "such a construction by the Commissioner," that he had thought proper to interfere and suspend the further execution of the law. Mr. F. quoted that part of the Message of the President to Congress in December, 1816, which relates to this subject, and said that any gentleman who was

the powers of the Commissioner. But that had not repealed the law. The President, indeed, had no more power over that repeal than the humblest individual of the nation. He appealed to the committee for the correctness of the assertion, that the universal public feeling at that time, was, that the decisions of the commissioner (though he had no doubt they were honest,) would involve the government in payments which it was not in contemplation of the laws of 1816 and 1817 to make them responsible for. The fact that the laws now remained unqualified and unrepealed upon the statute book, was unequivocal evidence of the correctness of their policy; while the suspension of the powers of the commissioner at that early period, by the President, went as clearly to show that he had not, in the opinion of the government, been guided by a sufficiently cautious policy in the administration of those laws. He would submit, then, he said, to the committee, the ques

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

[H. of R.

lawful war, and, as such, they were bound to grant indemnity to the sufferers. This is the principle upon which he bill has been rested by its friends, and the only principle upon which it can rest.

Let us then, said Mr. B. inquire into the justice of this proposition. Had the enemy a right to burn and destroy the whole Niagara frontier, because most of the private houses were occupied as barracks and places of military deposite? On this subject he concurred generally with the views of his friend from Virginia, (Mr. MERCER.) If this were established as a correct princiand in many cases, the general devastation of the private property of unoffending individuals must inevitably ensue. War would no longer be a civil game between independent sovereigns; but each individual of the hostile nations would be liable to ruin by the destruction of his property. I will illustrate my views, said Mr. B. by an example. Let an enemy land upon our shores and drive our army beyond the line of our fortifications, what would then be the consequence? Private houses must of necessity be used as places of military deposite and as a shelter for the soldiers. Once, then, establish the principle embraced by this bill, and you justify an enemy in destroying and laying waste the whole country over which he advances. Nay, you do more; you offer him the strongest temptation to commit such outrages. Such, said Mr. B. has never been the practice of civiliznations; and he trusted this government would never sanction the propriety of such outrageous acts on the part of an enemy.

tion, whether the honorable gentleman was authorized to found an argument against the present bill, upon a supposed resemblance to the laws of 1816 and 1817, The coincidence, if any, was in favor of the present bill, and not against it. True it was, the law of 1816 contained a qualification not embraced in the present bill, and that was, that it should appear "that the occupation by our government was the cause of the destruction of the building for which payment was 'demanded." He would ask gentlemen if it were worthy of our government, who had violently seized upon the house of an individual, and turned his family out to cover their house-ple of national law, the consequence would be dreadful, less troops, to demand of him, when he asked remunera ion for a burning by the enemy, when so occupied, to prove that such occupancy was the cause of its destruction? He thought not. Every principle which binds a government to its citizens, or one citizen to another, was at war with such a requisition. He would say, in the language of the gentleman from Vermont, the other day, (Mr. BRADLEY,) who then was, but now he presumed would not be, against the bill before the committee"The Government have taken the property of an individual, and while in their hands it was destroyed; they are bound to restore it or make compensation Equally clear, he contended was the principle laid down by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. BARBOUR,) who had the other day gone so fully and ably into the discussion of the merits of the original question. This was a case, in the language of that gentleman, of destruc-ed tion in pursuance of the usages of civilized warfare; and, if so, there can be no doubt the government are bound to compensate to the full extent of their ability. Mr. B. said there was another view which this subject The sum asked for was but small, under the amendment, presents, which adds the guilt of perfidy to that of the and he hoped it would prevail. He would, before he sat violation of the laws of war. Whilst the village of Bufdown, ask the committee to look at the situation of the falo still presented a hostile front to the enemy, a capitupetitioners, who, upon every principle on which we had lation was entered into by Col. Chapin of our army, with founded our opinion upon private claims, were entitled Gen. Rial, who commanded the British forces. By that to relief. Their misfortune hitherto seems to have been instrument, it was solemnly agreed "that private prothat their claims were involved with a mass of less ques-perty and private persons should not be molested or intionable cases, and, year after year, to have been re-jured." Upon the faith of this capitulation the British fused relief, because a bill intended for them embraced forces entered the town. The testimony proves, that, others not so clearly within the settled principle which had governed this House. In this case, the maxim of charity was equally applicable as a maxim of justice. Bis dat, qui cito dat," he gives twice who gives quickly. Let this be applied to them, and your deserving citizens who have given up their houses for barracks, shall not be compelled to add to the ten years in which they have been in vain asking for remuneration. He would not occupy further time, as he had only risen in reply to the observations which had just fallen from the gentleman from Virginia.

before its date, they were well acquainted with the fact, that a large body of the United States' troops had been quartered there, and that many of the houses were places of military deposite. With a full knowledge of those circumstances, they entered into the capitulation: What was then their subsequent conduct? Instead of separating the military stores from the houses in which they were deposited; instead of destroving public and saving private property, they involved the whole village in one common conflagration. At the most inclement season of the year, in a northern climate, regardless of their faith, they set fire to the town, and drove its inha

strangers. And this under pretence of what they well knew before the capitulation, that there were military stores deposited in many of the private houses. And yet this destruction is attempted to be justified by the laws of war established among civilized nations.

Mr. BUCHANAN, of Pennsylvania, said, he rose to make a few observations on the bill before the commit-bitants to seek shelter and bread from the compassion of tee, which he would not have done, had his views of the subject been exhibited by any other gentleman. He said, he would state, as a clear proposition, which had not been much disputed in the course of the discussion, that this government was bound, as a matter of right, to indemnify individuals for the destruction of their property by the enemy, provided such destruction were in pursuance of the rules of civilized warfare. If that were not the case, then we were not compelled by any principles of public law to make such an indemnity.worse than their fellow country men. This bill is chiefly Every motive of policy would forbid it.

Then, said Mr. B. the question is, was the devastation of the whole Niagara frontier and the burning of Buffalo, acts justified by the laws of war? Can this be a subject of serious doubt at the present day? If we pass this bill, we proclaim that our denunciations of the conduct of the British army on that frontier, which has met the reprobation of the people of the United States, and, he trusted, of the whole civilized world, were unjust and unfounded The Congress of the United States will declare, that the acts of that army were measures of

Again, said Mr. B. pass this bill, and no member of the committee can form any just estimate of the number and amount of the claims to which it will give birth. The inhabitants of the Niagara frontier are neither better nor

intended for their benefit. It is to embrace a tract of country of considerable extent, within which the whole mass of people feel a common interest in obtaining from the Government as much as possible. Self love, and the prejudices which necessarily result from it, will induce them to bring every case in their power within the language of the law, and to place the highest value possible upon the property which was destoyed. This bill is without limit, and without bound; and what will be the extent of the appropriation necessary to carry it into effect, the committee cannot even conjecture.

« 上一頁繼續 »