that they depended for shelter upon houses and other buildings which were private property. Now, he would farther ask, if the United States had built barracks and magazines, whether they would not have been lawful subjects of destruction? And if private houses were used instead, where was the difference as to the right? The enemy might infer, from what had happened in 1812, that the same thing would happen again in 1813, especially as no barracks had since been built; and, as he knew that it was impossible for troops, in the month of December, to remain in that climate without shelter, it was his duty as a commander to divest them of the only shelter they could obtain, which was in private houses. Gentlemen had said that it does not appear that the occupation was the motive for destruction; but, Mr. F. said, he would ask, does it appear that such was not the motive? We know that, when Buffalo was destroyed, there were 2500 men quartered there; and the enemy found that, by destroying one village, he could put it out of the power of our Government to maintain a single post-to keep a single soldier on all that line of frontier Was not this a sufficient motive? Some gentlemen seemed to disbelieve that these buildings were occupied for military purposes at all. But surely all the testinony went that way; and if facts so well substantiated were to be overturned by mere supposition, and by a theore tical view of national law, he knew not what use there was in testimony, or how facts were ever to be ascertained. [H. of R. after reaching the American shores, had another thousand to travel ere it reached the scene of action. Ours, on the contrary, was close at home, with a country all powerful hehind it. What could render it necessary for us to destroy the beautiful village of Newark? All our troops were on our own side of the line. Up to that time no effort had been made, on the part of the Canadas, to invade us, but every effort was made by us to invade them. Canada was acting only on the defensive, and there could be no plea of necessity for such an act. On our side there was nothing from the head of Lake Ontario to the outlet of Lake Erie, but the village of Buffalo; nothing to excite either cupidity or malice. But the moment Newark was burnt, the destruction of our whole frontier was insured, the moment it should be in the power of the British to effect it. It was melancholy to contemplate such acts between those who claimed to be the only Christian nations of the world: but they have occurred, and we may now with propriety inquire and reason on the causes which produced them. Mr. MARTINDALE, of New York, then rose, and observed that he was opposed to the amendment, and should assign the reasons of his opposition lest they might be misunderstood. He was opposed to the present modification of the bill because it established an unjust distinction between the claimants, which was not founded in reason and the nature of things, and which, in his judgment, did not comport with the justice and the magnanimity of the American Government. The bill, even Other gentlemen had insisted that the burning of our in its original form, established, if rigidly interpreted, frontier, being on a principle of retaliation, was contra- some distinctions which he thought objectionable; but ry to the law of nations, and, therefore, the Government the amendments which had been proposed to it went to is not bound to pay. But Mr. F. denied the position, and increase them. By the bill it was required to be shown he defied them to show, in any approved writer on in- that, when the buildings were destroyed, they were in ternational law, such a doctrine as that retaliation was the occupation of the United States, by orders of some unlawful. The reverse was true. All writers admit that, officer of the United States. Now the fact was, that when retaliation is just, it may be practised as a means there had been, on that frontier, much occupation with, to prevent the repetition of injury. Though we admit out any such order. The whole country was little else that the burning of Newark was a barbarous act, yet the than a cantonment; the houses were made depots for retaliation of it was lawful on the part of the enemy-it military stores or barracks for troops, and their destrucwas only following the example we had set-and we had tion was as really caused by this, when it happened rendered the act lawful by our own unlawful conduct in without an order, as when it happened by an order. the first place. When our Government commenced a Other buildings had been destroyed in consequence of system of destruction of property, it must have known those immediately adjoining them having been thus octhat it incurred the risk of retaliation. It must have cupied. The occupation of a building by the United known that the burning of Newark rendered Buffalo un- States thus made it a nuisance to those near it, and he safe; and, if Buffalo was afterwards destroyed, the Go-saw no reason which should induce the Government to vernment had itself to blame for it. provide relief for one sufferer and not for all. The facts, But, it had been argued by other gentlemen, that it said Mr M. are before you; they are undisputed; the would be very bad policy to pay for these acts of depre- whole country suffered together: and shall the American dation, lest we should thereby induce the enemy to pur-Government make distinctions between sufferers who had sue such a course in future wars, with a view to weaken the Government by draining the Treasury. What! asked Mr. FARBELLY, are we to be deterred from doing what is in itself just by a principle of fear?-fear of the enemy? Do we dread our enemies as if we had no means of reta-vernment. liation in our power? Sir, if the enemy do pursue such a system we have a remedy at hand. When they burn one town we will burn two-until, by a severe measure of retaliation, we compel them to quit their predatory system. We will meet them on their own ground; if they forsake the course of regular and civilized warfare, we will forsake it too for a time, till we drive them into it again. Sir, if we are afraid of the enemy's depredations, we ought never to go to war. Are we to shrink the moment he goes beyond a certain line, and fold our hands for fear of our finances? No; but meet him in every shape he chooses to assume. I do not now attempt to justify the enemy in acts of wanton outrage. Far from it; but I never yet heard or met with an argument that satisfied me that the burning of those buildings was not an act of legitimate warfare. There was the whole power of the United States concentred, as it were, in a space of about 35 miles; the British force was 3,000 miles from its native country; and, no merit the one over the other, but endured a common calamity? I had rather extend the bill than retrench or restrict it. Mr. M. insisted that there was no instance in history of such losses not being compensated by GoWhat was the case at Newark? No sooner did the British Government hear of its destruction, than they extended the liberal and the helping hand. The claim was just, and the conduct of the Government politic. It would be equally politic in us-nay, tenfold more so. It would strengthen the confidence of the people in their Government. But, do you, on the contrary, seek to alienate the affection and the trust of your citizens? The very way to do so is, first to show yourselves weak, and then show yourselves unjust also. Mr. M. then recapitulated the facts of the case, as before stated, in debate, &c. As soon as the enemy had been irritated by the burning of Newark, the whole American force was withdrawn, and the frontier left defenceless. The Government ought to pay the claims, were it only as an act of penance for such an instance of folly. He protested against any investigation of the motives of the enemy-ridicule the plea of the Treasury's being in danger from the amount of the claims. What, asked Mr. M. is the Treasury of a free people? It is the wealth of the H. of R. & Sen.] Niagara Sufferers.-Cadets at the Military Academy. [JAN. 4, 5, 1825. whole nation, as its strength is the personal services of the whole nation. Does the payment of the people's money back to the people, to satisfy a just demand, weaken the nation? It strengthens it. In answer to the argument of the impolicy of such a measure as this, on the score of its encouraging depredations in future, Mr. M. asked if the fact that the British Government had indemnified the sufferers at Newark, operated to encourage us to repeat such an act as the destruction of that beautiful village? Far from it. Respect for our own character-for the laws of civilized war-for the power of public opinion, were sufficient to restrain us. He thought that the indemnification of the sufferers, instead of rendering them slack in the defence of their property, would rather inspire them with a love for their country and their Government, which would lead them to defend both with increased ardor. As to what had been said against the payment of the claims, on the ground that the destruction was an act of retaliation, he admitted the fact, but could not perceive any force in the argument. Either the retaliation was just or unjust. If just, it surely increased the strength of the claim; because it was induced by an act of our own Government. If unjust, why did not the Government get compensation in the treaty of peace? It had neglected to do this, and, therefore, was liable. It did get compensation for the slaves carried off: why not for these spoliations? The Government is estopped, by its own act, from complaining of them as unlawful, if considered as retaliatory. He put a case, in answer to Mr. BARBOUR's observation, respecting a claim of the Governvernment for lost slaves, which Mr. B. said he should oppose if it had been offered. Suppose our Government had done the same thing, by carrying off the slaves of the enemy, as they did by carrying off our's, and then the losers should ask indemnity from the Government: would the gentleman from Virginia oppose such a claim? He suspected not. Mr. M. concluded with a strong declaration of his conviction of the justice of the claims generally. The question was then taken on Mr. COOK's amendment, (requiring it to be proved that the property had been abandoned in consequence of the approach of the enemy,) and decided in the negative. tions, correcting a misunderstanding respecting the pro- Mr. WRIGHT then, signifying that he had an amendment to propose, moved that the committee rise; it rose accordingly, and had leave to sit again. IN SENATE.-WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1825. Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, from the Committee on Military Affairs, asked leave for the committee to be discharged from the further consideration of the following resolution, offered by Mr. MACON, on the 20th ult. "Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of limiting the number of Cadets at the Military Academy at West Point, to the number of Members in the House of Representatives, and that the number to be admitted from each state and territory, respectively, shall be the same as that of the Representatives to which such state or territory shall be entitled; and that the brother of no person educated at the Academy shall be admitted, so long as there be other applicants, and that provision be made for admitting from the District of Columbia." Mr. MACON regretted that the committee had disapproved of the proposition contained in the resolution. It was an object he had long had in contemplation, and had reserved for the close of the present administration. It had been his intention to offer it at the close of the last administration, but omitted it. It was alleged that the subject ought to be left to the discretion of the War Department; but he was opposed to leaving any thing, in which the whole nation was interested, to discretion, when it could be fixed by law Favoritism would exist, as it had always existed, unless we attained greater perfection than had ever been attained, or could be expected. He would, therefore, in this matter, prevent favoritism, by withholding discretion, and establishing the rule on a fixed principle, by law. The nation contributed equally to the support of this institution, and he would distribute its benefits equally. He would even, if it were practicable, allot one Cadet to each particular Congressional district, so as to make the benefits of the institution as diffusive as possible. As to the rule, how"Unless the whole amount of such claims, so approv-ever, of having not more than one cadet from one family, ed, shall exceed the sum of 350,000 dollars; and in case the whole amount of such claims, so approved, shall exceed the said sum of 350,000 dollars, then it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Department of War, to cause a list of all claims so approved to be transmitted to the Treasury Department, and the said claimants, respectively, shall be paid in such certificates only a rateable proportion, in common with the other claimants, of the said sum of 350,000 dollars." Mr. STORRS' amendment, (requiring it to be proved that the property was in occupation of the United States at, or shortly before, its destruction,) was carried ayes 114. Mr. STORKS then moved a farther amendment, in the following words: The question being put, the amendment of Mr. STORRS was adopted-ayes 75, noes 73. Mr. FORSYTH then offered the following amend ment: And be it further enacted, That the value of every slave impressed into the public service during the late war, either as a boatman, wagoner, sailor, or laborer, and lost to the owner in consequence of his impressment, shall be paid to the owner out of any money in the Trea sury, not otherwise appropriated: the circumstances of the loss and the value of the property to be proved by the owner, under such rules as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of the Department of War." Mr. F. explained the amendment in a few observa he would like to modify that so far as to say, that, where the father had been killed in service, the rule should not apply. Mr. M. said, he knew how difficult it was to resist a committee in this body, but he hoped the Senate would not sustain the committee in their unfavorable decision on the proposition. Mr. JOHNSON observed that the practice of the War Department in the appointment of Cadets was now, and had, for some time, been, substantially the same as that recommended by the resolution-that was, that the number admitted from each state was in proportion to its representation in Congress. So far, therefore, legislation, the Committee, at least a majority of them, thought was unnecessary. On the other feature of the proposition, that which regarded the aggregate number of the Cadets, the committee differed from the mover of the resolution. They did not deem it expedient to reduce the number of Cadets at present allowed by law. However, Mr. J. said, if the Senate agreed with the honorable mover, and disagreed with the committee, and would instruct the committee to bring in a bill conformable to the resolution, he for one would perform his part of the labor of preparing it with pleasure. He would, therefore, move, that, for the present, the subject be laid on the table, that it might be further considered. This motion was agreed to, and the subject was ordered to lie on the table. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—SAME DAY. Mr. MERCER laid on the table the following resolves: Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to lay before this House any information in his Department, which may serve to shew the actual value of such property as was occupied or supposed to have been occupied by the government of the United States and destroyed by the enemy during the late war. Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to lay before this House the amount paid as indemnity to the claimants for property destroyed during the late war in virtue of the act of April 9, 1816, and the subsequent acts amendatory of the same; also, the amount claimed in virtue of the same, and yet unsatisfied. Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to lay before this House so much of the returns of the assessor under the late law imposing a direct tax, as shall embrace the assessment of the value of the lands and buildings situated on the Niagara frontier in the state of New York. [Sen. & H. of R. time of its destruction, occupied by order of any agent or officer of the United States, as a place of deposite for military or naval stores, or as barracks for the military forces of the United States, and that such destruction was the consequence of such occupation, he shall proceed to assess the damages, and certify the amount for payment, in the way pointed out in the act first above referred to, which shall be immediately paid out of any money in the Treasury, not otherwise appropriated: Provided, That, if the Auditor shall be satisfied the evidence before him is insufficient to enable him correctly to decide between the United States and the claimant, he may, on giving notice to the claimant, cause other evidence to be taken." In support of the amendment, Mr. WRIGHT observed, that the question involved in the present bill presented itself to his mind in a point of view different from any which he had heard it stated during the present debate. A reference to the law of nations, as laid down by writers on that subject, would result only in this, that, on the question of a liability of a sovereign to make good the losses of his subjects during a state of warfare, those writers were undetermined-no rule was definitively settled, and the matter was left, in a great measure, discretionary with the sovereign to act as he felt himself able in the case. But the view entertained by Mr. W. These resolutions gave rise to a conversation, in which avoided, he said, this whole inquiry. There was no Messrs. MERCER, LITTLE, DWIGHT, STORRS, need of settling the line of difference between a perfect TRACY, WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, FOOT, and and an imperfect obligation. He thought that the INGHAM, took part; during which the first resolve un- claims which were now the subject of consideration, derwent some modification to make it read as it now might all be adjusted on principles, and rules, settled, stands. There was no objection made to calling for the not by the writers on national law, but by the course of information; but it was doubted by the gentleman from our own legislation, and he held that, when once our own New York, whether any valuable information on the acts had settled a rule, it was as binding on Congress as subject was in the possession of the War Department; any decisions of civilians could be. If he understood whether it could have any bearing on the bill; and, the report of the committee who were appointed to inwhether all the information, bearing on this subject, was vestigate this subject in 1817, there was a great differnot now to be found on the records of the War Depart-ence between it and the ground taken by some of the nent. In reply to which, Mr. MERCER said, that he friends of the present bill; nay, there was an equally had himself seen testimony in the War Department, great difference between the ground they took and the which he considered to have an important bearing, to bill itself. The gentlemen tell us the present bill is show which, he stated that he expected the testimony meant to carry into effect the act of 1816. So far, said asked for by the first of these resolutions, would esta- Mr. W. I am willing to go. I believe, that at least some blish the fact, that the officer who commanded the of these claimants have a right of indemnification; but troops at Buffalo, and signed the capitulation on that oc- when gentlemen depart both from the report and from casion, had received, as an indemnity for his loss of pro- the bill, and argue for principles foreign to both, I ask perty on that occasion, six times the actual value of the the committee to pause before it adopts them. The reproperty. No further objection was made to the re- port rests the claim of these sufferers on two grounds: solves, though Mr. TRACY took occasion to remark, 1st, the testimony taken by the Commissioner under the that he had no idea that the papers called for would dis- act of 1816; and, 2d, the neglect or inability of this House close any facts which could, in any manner, affect the to carry that law into effect. My proposition is, to send general principles of the bill now pending in the House. the claims to an accounting officer of the Treasury. To In the end, the resolutions were severally agreed to, this it is objected, that there are upwards of two hundred distinct claims, and that, after all the delay which has already happened, any further postponement amounts to a denial of justice. I admit that, were my proposal productive of delay, it would be liable to this objection, for a delay of justice may be carried so far as to amount to a denial of it. But the objection goes on an hypothesis far beyond this-it goes on a presumption that the accounting officer of the Treasury will decide against these claims under the law of 1816. Now, this, sir, in my apprehension, is a mere begging of the question. It is said, indeed, that the Third Auditor has already decided in accordance with the views of the Committee of Claims, against the sufferers. Sir, I deny the position. The Third Auditor never has decided, he never had power to decide, on any of these claims. It is true, indeed, that, by the act of 1817, certain duties of the Commissioner of Claims were transferred to him, but no authority was given him to decide on any of these claims; and Mr. W. was not prepared to say, beforehand, that a department of this Government would in all cases violate its duty. nem. dissentiente. NIAGARA CLAIMS, &c. The House then proceeded to the orders of the day, and again went into committee of the whole on the bill for the relief of the Niagara Sufferers, Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio, in the chair. Mr. WRIGHT moved to strike out the whole bill, and substitute therefor the following: "That any person, having a claim for a building destroyed by the enemy during the late war, under the ninth section of the act to which this is an amendment, and of the act to amend the same, passed the third of March, 18 7, which shall have been presented to the Commissioner of Claims, appointed under the act first aforesaid, at any time before the 10th of April, 1818, and which was not paid under said acts, nor finally rejected by said Commissioner, may, within nine months hereafter, present the same, with the evidence to support it, to the Third Auditor of the Treasury, for examination and adjustment; and, if he shall be satisfied the building or buildings for which damages are claimed, was, at the I am far, said Mr. W. from objecting to pay what I be lieve to be due to these claimants. Nor do fubject to the present form of the bill because it may oblige the Government to pay more than was at first expected. All claims that we have decided, by the act of 1817, ought to be allowed, I am still in favor of allowing. Here Mr. WRIGHT went into an examination of that act, and contended that there was the most satisfactory proof that much of the property destroyed at Buffalo, &c. came within its provisions. Most of the cases of destruction had happened to buildings then in the occupation of the United States or its agents. He took a view of the condition of the army on the Niagara frontier, and insisted that, from the very nature of the case, it was evident that the buildings must have been occupied as the claimants state: and he assented to the doctrine which had been well laid down by the gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. BRADLEY,) that the Government, having taken possession of private property, for its own use, were bound to protect the property while they held it, to restore it uninjured when they had done using it, and if it were destroyed while in their hands, to make good the loss. Has it been restored? Mr. W. asked. It has not, said he. Is the Government able to restore it? No. And can we refuse to pay for it? I apprehend not. [JAN. 5, 1825. only payment for the actual loss, but compensation for the use also. It is maintained, however, that the occupation was transient and temporary-a mere quartering of troops. But, sir, asked Mr. W. what right have the people given to Government to quarter soldiers upon the citizens? The constitution expressly prohibits it in time of peace; and, in a time of war, it allows it only on condition that it shall be done in a due course of law. Now, sir, I would thank gentlemen to show me the statute which gives any directions how troops shall be quartered on the citizens of these states. There is no such law, and there is no such right. You did it by an exertion of physical force; and, in so doing, the Government was a trespasser, and it is, beyond question, responsible for the trespass, on the same principle that an individual would be, with this only difference, that it has no superior before whom it can be compelled to answer for its deed. The Government has virtually acknowledged this, and, in consequence, passed the law of 1816. Here Mr. W. went over the history of the several steps which had been taken to liquidate the claims and relieve the sufferers— he pronounced the interference of the President to arrest the course of decisions by the Commissioner, to be the exertion of a very extraordinary power. He would not judge his intentions in so doing, nor would he condemn what Congress seemed to have approved. He then recited the provisions of the act of 1817, and insisted, that as soon as the claimants had complied with the direc tions of that act, in proving their losses, the Government was actually under a contract to pay them. He could not believe that any gentleman, who would undergo the labor of examining the claims, the law, and the proof which had been adduced under it, could possibly remain in doubt that the Government was as much bound to pay as a sovereign power could ever be. It had left itself no discretion, but had expressly stipulated to pay on In answer to the objection, by some gentlemen, that the facts alleged by the claimants are not made out, Mr. W. said, we have American officers of all grades, from generais down to subalterns of the lowest rank, who all testify to the destruction, and to the reason of it. In addition to this, we have the concurrent testimony of the officers of the British forces to the same effect. The gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr WILLIAMS,) had, indeed, instituted a comparison between the credibility of an English officer of artillery drivers, and the admiral who had committed such depredations in the Chesa peake. Were it important to settle that question, Mr. W. said he should not hesitate to prefer the testimony of a soldier, incidentally brought to testify to a fact with-proof being made. in his knowledge, to the letter of a diplomatic marauder, who was about to commit cruel ravages on our ter ritory, and who sought, beforehand, by argument and assertion, to put our Government in the wrong. As to the proclamation of Prevost, it was a paper got up to serve a turn, and carried its own explanation on the face of it. Yet, said Mr. W. I am opposed to the present bill. I am opposed to it as proposing one thing and doing another. It proposes only to carry the act of 1816 and '17 into practical effect; but it does in truth relax the restraint imposed by those laws, and thereby extends their provisions. Now, I am as much opposed to extending those laws as I am in favor of giving effect to them But why, he asked, did gentlemen resort to this kind as they stand. The present bill removes the proviso of evidence? Did they delight to cast discredit on our in the 9th section of the act of 1816, which requires own officers? And would they, for such a purpose, have that the occupation shall be proved to have been the recourse to testimony that would be scouted out of any cause of the destruction. Why should this proviso be court of justice? He could conceive of no reason for abolished? Was it found, in practice, to work badly? such a course, unless it might be, that gentlemen were Mr. W. had seen no evidence that such was the case. startled at the amount claimed, and caught at straws, Why then reject it? We are told, indeed, that, if we to avoid its payment. Here Mr. W. referred to the tes-retain it, the officer of the Treasury will reject every timony to show, that, while Buffalo was in the act of being burnt, a remonstrance was made to Gen. Riall against burning the Court House, as it was a building altogether of a peaceful character; that the British commander immediately ordered the building to be extinguished, and that the order to burn it was not renewed until he found, on inquiry, that the Court House had been occupied by the American forces. In the face of all this evidence, it is denied by some gentlemen, that there is any proof that the burning was a consequence of the occupation; and it is insisted that, if we send the claims to the Auditor on this evidence, they will be rejected. Mr. W. said he could not believe any such thing. He asked by what right Government could, in any circumstances, take possession of private property? The only right was contained in that article of the constitution which expressly provides that the right shall not be abused. It says, that" private property shall not be taken for the public use without just compensation." You have taken the property, said Mr. W.; it is destroyed. Are you not bound to make good the loss? Nay, in maay cases, even this is not enough. Justice demands not one of these claims. He was not prepared to entertain such a suspicion. If this proviso was rejected, then the act of 1816 was not carried into effect by the present bill-but on the contrary a door would be opened for a multitude of claims which that act never intended to allow; and, without that proviso, he, for one, should certainly vote against the bill. Another respect in which the principle of the present bill differed from that of the acts of 1816 and '17, was in the allowance of one half the amount of all personal property destroyed. Why this clause should be added, he could not see. It had no proper connection with the bill. The sufferers might, for aught he knew, be very meritorious persons-and the allowance might, in many cases, be very proper-but the present was an amendatory act, and this was an entirely new provision. On this ground he objected to its introduction as a part of this bill. This clause, surely, could not be pretended to be a fulfilment of the law of 1816. A third objection he had to the bill, as now amended, was, that it proposed to limit the gross amount to be allowed. He was bound, on principle, to oppose this feature of it. As he believed the Government to be solvent, if the debt was a just one, it must be paid. He was not desirous that the American Government should compound with its creditors, and take the benefit of any insolvent law. Either the claims were unjust, and then they should not be paid, or, they were just, and then they ought to be paid to the uttermost farthing. The amendment which he had submitted would, if adopted, simplify the bill-it preserved the whole of the act of 1816-and it removed all the objections to which the bill as first proposed was found liable. He hoped it would be adopted. [H. of R. mittee of Claims had rejected so many cases which came individually before them. That committee constantly allowed the loss to be proved-but as constantly denied that it appeared in evidence that the occupation of the buildings by the United States was the cause of the destruction. Let us see, said Mr. S. what a class of claims we are sending to the Third Auditor. To establish what was the character of this class of claims, Mr. S. turned to the printed copies of the evidence before the House, on this subject, and reviewed the testimony of the several officers of the United States, and of the commanding General himself, that he authorized the occupation of those buildings, which were proved by other testimony to have been, in some instances, forcibly taken possession of. With such proof as this before the House, could it be necessary to send these claims to the Third Auditor? Why not settle the question here? If the amendment were refused, it would be to say in effect, that persons whose houses were taken from them by the United States at the point of the bayonet, and afterwards destroyed, must prove that their property was destroyed because it was so taken from them. How could claimants, so situated, prove what was the object of General Drummond, or whatsoever other British offi unreasonable to send these claimants to the Third Auditor to prove any such thing as that. He hoped, therefore, that his motion would prevail. That Mr. ISACKS, of Tennessee, rose in support of the amendment of Mr. WRIGHT. He was not so well satis fied with any shape into which the measure proposed had been cast. He would not, he said, travel over the ground which had already been gone over by those who had preceded him; but he thought, that, in its present situation, the Government must do one of three things: it must either, first, grant no relief to the sufferers, or, secondly, adopt a new principle in granting relief, or, thirdly, adhere to the principle of the acts of 1816 and '17. He approved the last of these courses; and he advocated the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, because he conceived it followed precisely that course. He insisted on the promise of the Government as pledg-cer ordered the burning of their houses? It would be ed by those acts to the claimants. The acts were still in force, the promise was still held out, and still bin ling; and the amendment proposed a mode in which it would be redeemed. He approved it, because it proposed to Mr. BUCK, of Vermont, said, that, in deciding the relieve the Niagara sufferers precisely on the same question of fact, whether the property on the Niagara ground, and in the same manner with other sufferers. | frontier had been destroyed because of its occupation for He strongly objected to the presumption that the Third military purposes, or on the principles of retaliation, he Auditor of the Treasury would reject the claims. It was had, in a previous stage of the debate, thought proper the part of this House to presume that an officer of the to produce a document which, it struck him, had escaped Government would do his duty, not that he would go in the attention of many gentlemen in the House. contradiction to it, and this general presumption was in document having since been spoken of in debate, as bethe present case greatly strengthened by the well-known ing one of a perfectly diplomatic character, as being character of the officer in question; his character was a destitute of sincerity or truth, &c. it became a matter of sufficient guarantee that he would do his duty. Mr. I. some importance to examine the circumstances under was in favor of affording relief, but entirely opposed to which the proclamation of General Prevost, of which he the introduction of any new principle in doing so. Let spoke, had been issued. Before doing that, however, us, said Mr. I. redeem our pledge: if we do this, there he noticed the argument that the occupancy of private can be no just complaint. But, if we do less than this, property by the Government, authorized the destruction the sufferers will, I think, have just reason to complain of the property, because, by such occupancy, it was of their Government. converted from a private to a public character. Who has ever denied, said Mr. B. that the destruction of property, of a public character, by an enemy is consistent with the rules of war? And, if this was the true reason of the devastation of that frontier, why did not General Prevost assign that motive in his proclamation, seeing that it would have unquestionably justified his conduct in the eyes of the whole world, in the eyes even of gentlemen on this floor, who now so strongly condemn the act? The proclamation in question may have been a piece of diplomacy, but, if it was, it was of a kind which defeats its own object Sir George Prevost would have been a perfect fool, having this justification, to assign for the destruction of the buildings on the Niagara fronvost, Mr. B. said, that incidents which had occurred during the late war, authorized him to speak of him as being a man distinguished, so far as he could control events, by humanity, by a sense of justice, by honor, and by dignity of character. tie did not believe that Sir George Prevost could have resorted to falsehood to cover his own action. It had been said, he knew, that the averments in the proclamation were contradicted by other testimony, among which was that of Capt. Swazy, a captain of artillery drivers, who deposed, that he had suggested to Sir George Prevost the expediency of a retaliation of the burning of Newark, and that Sir George had said, that, so long as he had a control of the operations on that frontier, he should not sanction such a measure. And yet, eleven days after the devastation of that frontier, Sir George Prevost came out and declared to the world, in a solemn public act, that retaliation was The question was then taken on Mr. WRIGHT's amendment, and decided in the affirmative-Ayes 71, Noes 61. Mr. FORSYTH proposed an amendment making provision for remunerating the extra services of the Third Auditor, which would have to be rendered under this bill, should it become a law in its present shape. The motion was opposed by Mr. WICKLIFFE, as be- Mr. STORRS rose, and moved, as a further amendment, to add to the substitute of Mr. WRIGHT the follow-tier a pretence contrary to truth. Of Governor Preing proviso: "And provided further, That the said Auditor shall not require from the claimants on the Niagara frontier, proof that the destruction of their houses or buildings which were so occupied, as aforesaid, by the United States, was caused by such occupancy.' Mr. STORRS observed, that the proceedings in committee of the whole had brought the question back precisely to where it was when they started. The whole difficulty respected the proof of what was the cause of the destruction of the property, and the point the House had to settle was, whether they would determine this question, or would send it to the Third Auditor, that he should determine it. The question respecting the cause of the destruction was all that had prevented these claims from being satisfied long ago-that was ever the sticking place. On that ground it was that the Com |