網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

H. of R.]

Niagara Sufferers.

that, after the debate which had already occurred on this bill, he felt very reluctant again to intrude himself upon the House, especially in a state of health, which, in a great measure, unfitted him to address them, yet such were the peculiar circumstances of the bill, since the papers called for by the gentleman from Va. (Mr. MERCER,) had been produced, that it was his unavoidaable duty to say a few words respecting the character of those who are the claimants in this case. Those unfortunate men had been presented before this House as a band of traitors and swindlers. A letter had been produced from a certain Mr. Willis, which contained statements calculated to show that there had existed among them a traitorous and swindling combination to defraud this Government; and, as that letter had not yet been explained, Mr. T. said he felt it incumbent upon him to make some remarks upon it. He would say in general, that that letter contained, from the beginning to the end, little else than a tissue of falsehoods. Nor should he consider them as requiring any refutation, did he not fear that some members had not given their time and attention to the examination of the documents on the table. We have been told, said Mr. T. that, by this combination, a sum of $500,000 has actually been obtained -obtained by fraud and falsehood. But, in the first place, of all the sum which had indeed been paid out of the Treasury, the claimants in this bill had received less than one-sixth for all their immense and unparalleled sufferings. There had been more money paid to three single claimants in Washington, than the whole amount that went to all the sufferers on that entire frontier. What had been the result? Instead of having been enriched by fraud, these sufferers, after having been subjected to what he must denominate, the greatest instance of partiality in the history of this Government-after having their claims postponed year after year, and now delayed from week to week, they had been abused on this floor, as villains and swindlers; yet there existed the most incontrovertible proof that the estimate of losses which they had submitted to the Government, was not only not grossly overrated, but that it was scrupulously accurate. Even the report of the Committee of Claims, which was adverse to the petitioners, admitted that the estimate was as fair as the circumstances permitted it to be. But he relied on the report of no Committees. The House had before it the report of a Board of Commissioners, two of whom were of its own number-men of the most unimpeachable integrity and honor, and the third, a gentleman of known probity and talents, who had gone upon the spot, accompanied by an agent of the United States, and who had subjected those statements to the most rigid examination. They had made a report of the result-a report not general but particular in its statements; in which they expressed themselves entirely satisfied that the losses stated had actually been sustained. That report, with all the estimates, are contained in two volumes, which have been in the possession of this House for years. But they have not been read; they are not examined; and without so much as opening the book, a letter is brought from this Mr. Willis-a letter written professedly from hearsay, and containing on the face of it manifest falsehoods, to set aside the whole mass of documentary evidence, and prove these claimants to be a collection of cheats and liars. He might call on twenty gentlemen, now on this floor, who were witnesses to the falsehoods of some of the statements contained in this letter. The House might judge what sort of credit this traveller is entitled to, when he tells us that Buffalo, when it was destroyed, was nothing but a collection of log buildings: Buffalo, a collection of log-houses! Sir, need I appeal to your gazetteers-to the statistical documents of the state of New York? May I not appeal to any and to all who ever visited it, to testify that it was a beautiful village-the pride of the West part of the state of New

[JAN. 19, 1825.

York. Some of the buildings it contained were highly
elegant; all of them were comfortable and respectable
dwellings. The letter says, that such was the combination
among all parties to falsify the truth, that he could get no
correct information. Sir, I believe him—at least he has
stated none: and, after such aspersions, I feel it my duty,
in vindicating the character of these claimants, to refer to
their services as well as their sufferings. Sir, there is no
part of the population of this country which either serv-
ed or suffered, in the last war, to the extent that they
did. They are called fraudulent villains, who wish to
prey upon the country, and cheat the Government; but
look at their public services in defence of both.
Sir, the Niagara frontier was the common fighting
ground through campaign after campaign of that war.
That narrow space of thirty-six miles was the common
goal for both armies. It never was, for ten days in succes-
sion, in the possession of either, nor was it in their quiet
possession for a single day. At the glorious, yet unfortu-
nate battle of Queenstown, these men turned out and
volunteered their service. When the invasion of Canada
was projected, they volunteered in the capture of Fort
George; and afterwards, when 5 or 6,000 of the Ameri.
can troops were hemmed in within that fort, these same
men turned out and drove back the enemy. In July,
while the American army was invested in Fort George,
and every regular American soldier was within that fort,
these aspersed inhabitants again turned out, from the
oldest to the youngest-repulsed the British, and left
their commander dead on the field. This was done
exclusively by the inhabitants of Buffalo. When they
were afterwards called to Fort George, for a third time,
and a third time disappointed, they had to embody for
their own defence. It was then that the frontier was in-
vaded; and the long and melancholy list of victims who
fell in the contest, on that occasion, shows that the peo-
ple of that frontier did not shrink from the performance
of their duty. In the summer of 1814, when British
barbarity had left them houseless and homeless, utterly
ruined, and in want of all things, induced, perhaps, part-
ly by despair, they voluntarily joined the regular army:
took part in the capture of Fort Erie, and shared in all
the honors and sufferings of that bloody campaign.

Mr. T. concluded by observing, hat he should not attempt to recapitulate the course of proceedings on their claims. He only wished to satisfy the minds of any who doubted, that all had been done which the nature of the case admitted, to satisfy the Government that their claims were righteous, and had been pursued by rightful means.

Mr. STORRS, of New York, then rose and said, that when the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. MERCER,) bad called for the documents which had been laid upon the table, he had voted to sustain the call; and he had done so, because he was persuaded that no document which might be produced, could do away the evidence of his own senses, or destroy that knowledge of facts which he had obtained from personal observation as an eye witness. He regretted the delay, but he rejoiced that those documents had been called for and produced. And he would now ask the attention of the House to a short examination of them. Part of these documents had been called for under a supposition that more had been paid for than had ever been lost. The House had now before it an estimate of the value of the houses on that frontier, in the year 1815, two years after the destruction by the British-a document which certainly does not show what the village of Buffalo was in 1813, before it was destroyed. Of the formidable amount of $533,000 which had occasioned so much alarm in the minds of some gentlemen, it now appeared that $350,000 had been paid for the loss of personal property, and of the balance paid for buildings destroyed, the sufferers on the Niagara frontier got only one half. A letter was produced from a Mr. Willis, who appears to have travelled in that

[blocks in formation]

country-but when? In 1817, while Buffalo was yet in ruins, and just beginning to be rebuilt. He says he was told, (and from this it may be judged what credit is due to the other information detailed by him) that, before its destruction, it had consisted almost entirely of log houses. Here Mr. S. quoted an article from Spafford's Gazetteer, of New York, which he had found in the Library, from which it appeared, that in 1813, the village of Buffalo contained 100 houses, 15 stores, a court house, and other public buildings; and that among its inhabitants there were 151 Senatorial voters, each of whom must, by the laws of New York, have owned a freehold worth 1007. The village was the seat of justice for two counties. In confirmation of the truth of these statements, as to the village, Mr. S. appealed to an honorable gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. M'ARTHUB,) who, in that year, had led a detachment of the United States' army along the southern banks of Lake Erie, and could testify, from personal observation. It was manifest, that this Mr. Willis, though he might not himself intend to deceive, had certainly been imposed upon by others, having probably fallen in company with some person maliciously hostile to one or more of the claimants.

The present bill proposes to grant for the relief of the Niagara sufferers, and all who have suffered in the same manner, $250,000, restricting the relief, however, to those whose claims have been presented before the Commissioner. The limitation of the gross amount will operate as an effectual safeguard against fraud. Every fair claimant will be led by his interest to detect and expose it. The moment a new claim is presented, those who have already presented claims will be immediately alarmed; they will inquire into the circumstances, and, if the amount has been overrated, they will combine to prevent the fraud for their own sakes. This was a security never provided by any former bill, and it was a most complete and effectual security. It must necessarily exclude all false and fraudulent claims, so that all fears of gentlemen on that subject, and all arguments from such fears, must be at an end.

[H. of R.

stone. He had no distinct recollection of more than two log buildings in the whole village, and they were in the outskirts. There might, however, be some others, which had escaped his recollection. About two miles from the village, the British destroyed a brick building of great elegance, and in size and extent scarcely surpassed by any in this city. It had been rebuilt, of the same size, and near it stood a very large frame building, with extensive premises occupied as a public house.— The entire establishment was on a large and liberal scale. Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, rose to say a few words as to the testimony of Mr. Willis, which had been made the subject of remark. He had had a slight acquaintance with that gentleman, during the time of his residence in this city. He understood him to be, and he was received by all as a man of honor, and entitled to credit. This, said Mr. W. is the estimation in which he was held by me. If any different estimate of him existed, I am not apprized of it. His statements may, or may not, be correct. If they are not correct, I believe that he was imposed upon, and that he would not have knowingly made any statement which was not true. But, sir, I do know one fact. Many frauds upon the government have been attempted to be committed, if not on that frontier, on the St. Lawrence frontier, and reasons have been presented which have induced the committees of this House to scrutinize with great vigilance all claims of this description. No doubt most of the houses on the frontier were occupied by the troops of the United States; but the question is, was it such a permanent occupation as to give to those houses the character of barracks? In my opinion, said Mr. W. it was not. For, from the 4th of July, 1813, to the burning of Buffalo, there were very few troops on that frontier, or the committee, in its examination of the subject, in 1818, had been very much misinformed. On this frontier, of 36 miles, until a short time previous to the burning there had been in service forty militia, who surely could not have given the character of military occupation to the whole of that frontier. Is the House prepared, under Mr. M'ARTHUR, of Ohio, rose, not to speak to the those circumstances, to vote a compensation for the merits of the bill, but to state facts within his know-losses by individuals on that frontier? Mr. W. concludledge respecting the village of Buffalo. He happened ed his remarks by saying, it had always appeared to him to land there in 1813, with the troops under his com- that the principle of this bill was such a one as no gomand, in a snow storm, and, being unprovided with vernment could sustain; and he was, therefore, decidedtents, the army was under the necessity of using almostly opposed to it. every house in the village for barracks. There was Mr. M'COY, of Virginia, observed, that he was sorry scarcely a building in the village, some part of which to be obliged to say any thing on the present subject. was not occupied by troops. He continued there during It was not the sum to which he objected. He was willing the storm, which lasted three or four days, and he had to give this amount to relieve those persons who, he did an opportunity of seeing the buildings, &c. The village not doubt, had suffered most severely. It was the prinwas flourishing: the buildings were very good for a new ciple of the bill to which he objected. He had risen town: there were many brick buildings, and a few frame too, for the purpose of defending the character of Capt. ones: There were but very few log houses, and those Willis, from some allegations respecting him, which had only on the borders of the town. He had been there fallen from the friends of the bill, and which he did not afterwards, also: and he was bound to say, that the in- conceive to have been justified by that gentleman's letformation which Major Willis had given to the Depart- ter. He had long served the United States with credit. ment was incorrect, and not worthy of the consideration He presumed that that gentleman had received some of this House, or he was very much mistaken. Mr. incorrect statements; but he did not conceive that his M'A. said, he also knew, that the whole frontier was language went as far as some gentlemen seemed to uncontinually occupied by troops of the United States. derstand it to go. The log-houses of which he spoke, It was unavoidable that it should be so, there being no were not in Buffalo exclusively, but along the frontier tents or barracks provided. The officers were compell- generally. And what he stated with respect to fraudued to occupy private buildings, either by consent of the lent attempts and combinations, had reference, probably, owners, or otherwise. The private buildings were es- to personal property lost, as much, if not more, than to sential to the maintenance of the army on that frontier. the houses which had been destroyed. We all do know, Mr. M'A. concluded by saying, that he only rose to said Mr. M'C. that there existed, at that time, at least a state that the information furnished by this Major Willis very general rumor, that great frauds had been attempted on the government--he did not say by the sufferers in Buffalo more than by those elsewhere. He was inclined to believe, that the estimates of property lost on that frontier, were quite as fair as those which had been exhibited from other parts of the country. Yet, every body knew that there did exist, at one time, a gang of swindlers, headed by a notorious fellow by the name of

was incorrect.

Mr. MARVIN, of New York, then rose, and said, that he had visited the village of Buffalo, once at least in every year, from 1807 to 1812. He knew the village as well nearly as if he had lived in it, and could assure the House, that the houses in it were in general frame houses; many of them were of brick, and one large one was of

H. of R.]

Niagara Sufferers.

[JAN. 19, 1825.

Jones, who had preferred false claims, supported by pation by the United States-if it was shewn that the ocfraudulent papers, and that to an immense amount. The cupation of the property drew the enemy to it, the loser money which was paid for houses destroyed, was little should be remunerated for his loss. This bill, however, in comparison to what had been paid for horses, for went far beyond that principle, and went to provide oxen, for wagons, for muskets, for military accoutre-compensation in cases where there was no consequential ments, &c. The great bulk of what had been paid, was destruction, but the destruction was an act of gratutious for personal property The sufferers, however, had al- vengeance,not justified by the usages of civilized warfare. ready received $64,000 for houses, and probably twice I should have no objection to this bill, if it were not as much for personal property. Still, Mr. McC. said, for the principle which it will go far to establish. What he was willing to vote the sum proposed, but could not is it that gentlemen contend? They tell you that all the consent to support the present bill. houses on the frontier of the United States were occuMr. FOOT, of Connecticut, said that he did not rise pied as barracks. Very well. They go further, and for the purpose of resisting any equitable claim preferred tell you, that that occupation gave to the enemy the by the inhabitants of the Niagara frontier; yet he must right to destroy them. Is that a principle of the law of oppose the present bill, on account both of its form and nations? No, sir: it is a principle which I never will adits principle. The principle was one which never had mit-a sanguinary and vindictive principle, not recognizbeen recognized by any country, that a building which ed by the usages of civilized nations. Gentlemen say, had been destroyed by the enemy, must be paid for by the enemy destroyed the houses because he knew that the Government, because it had, at any previous period our armies could obtain barracks no where else than in of the war, been occupied as a barrack-it was what he the private houses; that he destroyed them to prevent never could consent to. He could not even consent to the concentration of a military force on that frontier. the doctrine of the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. But, sir, our armies depended on the product of that WEBSTER,) that its having been made a place of military frontier for subsistence, as well as for shelter: and suredeposite obligated the Government to pay for it, unlessly gentlemen would not contend that this fact would auit appeared that that occupation was the cause of its de. thorize the destruction of crops, or laying waste the struction. Another objection to the bill was, that it was country: and yet to that point, their principles would partial in its operation. It does not meet all the cases carry them. An enemy has a right to destroy fortificawhich ought to be provided for. It confines its benefit tions, and public property of a military character, but he to those claimants only who have applied to the com- can have no right to destroy inoffensive private buildmissioner under the acts of 1816, '17. Now, those acts ings or property. were variously construed in various parts of the country; and, while persons in one place may have supposed themselves included in its provisions, and so exhibited their claims to the commissioner, persons in another place may have understood the law differently, and, in consequence, made no such application: and yet both might be alike entitled to relief by the present bill. The bill, besides, contains manifest inconsistencies. It says, in one place, that, as soon as the evidence is exhibited to the Auditor, the money shall be immediately paid out of the Treasury. It says in another place, that if the Auditor is not satisfied, he shall suspend his decision, and of course suspend payment: and as it says in another place, that the payment is to be made pro rata, the whole must be suspended until he is satisfied with the evidence on each particular case.

Mr. M'DUFFIE rose, to state the grounds on which he felt himself bound to vote against this bill. To shew the reason for his present vote, it would be proper to show the practical difference between the acts of 1816 and '17 and this bill. The act of 1816 was passed imme diately after the war, when the calamities upon the Niagara frontier made the strongest impression upon Congress. The Congress of that day were more sensible, from events then of recent occurrence, to the claims of those people, than, after the lapse of ten years, this Congress could be. The law passed by that Congress provided that all buildings occupied by the United States, and destroyed in consequence of such occupation, should be paid for by the United States. Now, this bill omits the restriction, contained in the act of 1816, which fixed the character of the claims to be allowed. For, what is the amount of this bill? That the circumstance of property being occupied by the United States, though not destroyed in consequence of such occupation, should furnish just ground for a claim for remuneration for its destruction for other cause that that. Is this right? The property on the Niagara frontier was occupied by the United States: it was destroyed by the enemy. Why was it destroyed? Because it was so occupied. There is no such fact required to be established, it being admitted by this bill that the fact is not necessary to constitute a claim for indemnity. The act of 1816 provided, that, where property was destroyed by the enemy, whether justly or not justly, in consequence of its occu

This bill, Mr. M'D. said, went still further than the extent he had already mentioned. It proposes, said he, to give compensation for property destroyed, even in cases where property was in possession of the United States by virtue of contracts between the individuals and the United States. Let us apply to such a case the common law regarding contracts between individuals— he did not mean the technical principles of law, but the broad principle of justice. If a man is in occupation of the property of another, and that property is destroyed whilst in his occupation, is he bound, unless the destruction is caused by his own act, to pay the value of that property to the owner of it? Certainly not. These people on the Niagara frontier, who rented their houses to the Government, were aware of the danger they incur red; are they to be compensated for the destruction of their property, when it is apparent that it was not destroyed in consequence of its occupation? If the subject were here to be taken up de novo, I should maintain, that persons who had rented their houses to the Government, were not entitled to remuneration if their houses were destroyed in consequence of their occupation by the United States-for they knew the danger they ran, and the consequences they had to encounter, when they made the contracts. Much less should such persons be reimbursed when there was no evidence that the destruction of their property was the consequence of its occupation.

There was another reason, Mr. M'D. said, why he was opposed to the bill. We are sending to an officer of the Government, said he, to determine a question of the utmost difficulty, which we had much better determine for ourselves. He referred to the testimony of the gentleman from Ohio, as to the nature of the occupation which had been called a military occupation. A few soldiers had been quartered in the House with each family. Was this a military occupation? Are we to give compensation in all cases in which property, which has been thus occupied, is destroyed by an enemy? If this bill passes, every house destroyed on the frontier will become the subject of a claim. He was opposed to opening so wide a door to frauds.

Mr. MD. said he should vote against the bill on another principle, and on the same ground he would vote upon all bills. The principle involved in this bill had

JAN. 19, 1825.]

Niagara Sufferers.

[H. of R.

ble distress, the greatest possible fortitude and bravery, and, he might say, the greatest neglect from their Government, could entitle men to consideration, then were these sufferers entitled to the last farthing of their losses. But it is said the principle will impoverish us-it will drain and exhaust the Treasury. He conceived it was now too late to urge this objection; it might have answered as an argument against the adoption of our free constitution equally well with the impoverishing effects generally of war: but now the question is, shall we, like true men, maintain the spirit and meaning of the confederation, or shall we lay the foundation for disaffection and dissolution, by a partial regard to and exe

been decided at least twenty or thirty times by this House, in the rejection of particular claims presented here by individuals. My ground is this: that, in deciding on claims. we act in a judicial character. I never will consent that Congress shall be teased into the allowance of such claims. I will not yield to importunity and perseverance what I would not grant to justice. We have repeatedly decided, that, unless the destruction of property by the enemy was in consequence of its occupation by the United States, compensation shall not be granted to the claimants. Where a decision has once been made on this floor against a claim, unless some new testimony is adduced in support, I will make that decision a reason for voting against the claim as of-cution of them? The bill is, however, limited to such ten as it shall be afterwards preferred.

property only as has been occupied by the Government for military purposes, and destroyed while so occupied. Against the imperious justice of such a bill, he could not even anticipate a solid objection, much less could he anticipate danger in the passage of it. It was deficient, because it was too narrow: he wished he had the power, by his vote, to remunerate all the brave men who had lost by one common calamity, the last war. He would not make them rich because they suffered, but he felt bound-he felt that the principles of his Government, as well as those of his heart, bound him to vote a fair payment of losses.

Mr. GAZLAY, of Ohio, said it was with feelings of regret, that he felt himself compelled, on any occasion, to say any thing in this House. He should not now do so, were it not for the avowal of some principles by the opposition to the bill, which principles he thought not warranted by, but dangerous to the best interests of our Government. The proposition is to remunerate these American citizens whose houses or buildings have been destroyed by the enemy during the late war. Not all which have been so destroyed, but those only used by, or in possession of, our Government for some purpose connected with our military operations at the time they were destroyed. The principal objections are, that, according to the rules or laws of monarchical nations, we are not bound to make this remuneration; that we are not bound to make it, except the property were a subject of lawful destruction according to the rules of civilized warfare; and that, to make it on the principles of this bill, is calculated to invite destruction by the enemy, and to take away every object which the citizen himself might have to defend his property against that enemy; also, that it will impoverish and perhaps bankments on the table had been furnished at his own sug rupt the nation.

Mr. M'DUFFIE rose in reply, and said, that so far as he understood the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio, they amounted to this: that a Republican Government is bound to pay every claim presented to it, whether just or unjust. If so, he desired to be understood that he was not a Republican of that class.

Mr. GAZLAY answered, that he had not thought, much less said, any thing to warrant the remark which had just fallen from the gentleman from S. Carolina. Mr. MERCER then rose, and said that, as the docugestion, he felt himself called upon to make some remarks on the evidence they contained. He should not persevere in the general argument, but for himself he was not prepared to pass the bill, even it he was satisfied that its principle was just, because he had not the information on which alone he conceived it proper to proceed. The evidence which he wished for had respect to the value of the property lost in the village of Buffalo. This he could get only by calling on the Departments. He knew that the facts could be proved there only. This was his reason for delaying the bill in order to make that call. He was disappointed in the result, inasmuch as it appeared that the documentary evidence he had desired to obtain, was in the hands of an agent in the State of New York, and had not been,returned to the Department.

Mr. G. said he thought we had gained something by the great exertions which had consummated our present form of Government, and that this something was not a bare name; that he recognized not a partial, a limited, a personal philanthropy, as emanating from it--but one commensurate in every civil relation with the extremest verge of our vast territory; he could not look upon our boasted freedom as having secured nothing but a recognition of those rules which it was established to destroy. If he understood our principles, they were better than others only as they caused the weight of Government to fall more lightly, inasmuch as it falls more equally. Their true meaning, he conceived to be, the rights, the justice of all, instead of the rights and justice of the few. If, practically, the Government could not be thus administered, he had no hesitation in saying it could not It would have shown what losses were proved before and ought not to continue. If war came in its fearful the Commissioner, under the act of 1816. He was also calamity, it must be the war of all; all are bound, equal- disappointed at finding that there was no evidence in ly bound, to defend, even at life's peril. If it bring its the Department of what had been the total amount of ravages, its losses, and devastations, they are like our all the claims presented before the Commissioner, from common dangers, our common toils, the loss of all; nor 1816 to 1818. Many of these had been returned to the could he see that this principle was to unnerve the arm, claimants for the purpose of being further confirmed, or dampen the ardor of the American citizen or soldier.d others because they had been finally rejected. UnIt was with a view to the directly opposite effect that der the bill now pending, should it become a law, these he supposed it to belong to our system. Certainly claims would all come back again before the Third Audiwhen the injuries inflicted by the enemy, are at the ex-tor. There was a second class which had been presented, pense of a general contribution, the inducements to defend must be general and strong in proportion to the threatened extent of such injury. If the loss is to be that only of the actual sufferer, then he who avoids most, and is most recreant, is like to be the least sufferer. The promulgation of this principle before the last war, he had no doubt, would have removed many constitutional scruples, and saved much property. The heaviest portion of sufferers to be provided for by this bill, are those of the Niagara frontier. If the greatest possi

but not acted on, and there was also a third class on which reports have been made. As it was, the House could hope only to get the amount of value of one class; and he asked, if gentlemen were prepared to pass the present bill, without knowing what is the amount of the claims which it would cover? The bill says that, if the claims exceed a certain amount, the payment is to be made pro rata. On what? On the amount lost? No, but on the sum granted by us to pay those losses. Does not the House thus dishonor itself and the nation ?--

H. of R.]

Niagara Sufferers.

[JAN. 19, 1825.

Wherein did this differ from taking out a commission of principle that you will pay for all losses resulting from bankruptcy, except that there was no person to act as acts of an enemy, whether lawful or not, in all future Commissioner (unless, indeed, we consider the Third Au-wars, you may calculate on having your whole coast laid ditor in that character?)

If the sum to be granted is limited, it must be considered as a grant made on principles of humanity; but even on the principle of humanity, the House ought to know what all the claims were. Suppose the rate of payment turns out to be 50 per cent. and a rich man presents a claim for 100,000 dollars, and a poor man for 100 dollars. The one is still rich--the other has lost his all. Would humanity lead you to pay the rich man $50,000, while you paid the poor man only fifty? It would not bear the test of examination. He held it impossible to distribute compensation under this bill with out being exposed to gross frauds, &c.

With reference to the nature of some of these claims, Mr. M. referred to a case in which a parcel of swords had been found in a house at Buffalo, which had been considered sufficient ground for a claim for indemnity for its destruction. It appeared also, from the documents, that the commander of the American forces there, who had lost a house not worth $1,500 had obtained from the Government upwards of $17,000, his claim having been put in for a larger amount. He was a doctor, it seemed, and the United States had paid for all the Glauber salts, jalap, &c. which had been destroyed.

Large sums of money were also claimed in some cases, for the destruction of furniture-mahogany furniture. But did any man ever hear of furnished barracks, of soldiers' barracks being furnished with mahogany! Mr. M. considered, upon the whole, that the inevitable effect of the bill would be to place the Third Auditor in a most embarrassing situation."

waste, because the enemy will know that, whatever losses
he occasions must eventually be paid out of your Trea-
sury. Such is the principle now to be sanctioned. If
gentlemen think this is either just or expedient, let them
vote for the bill. I, said Mr. M. certainly shall not. Yet
I am willing to vote for ample indemnity in all cases
where the destruction can be shown to have been caus-
ed by the military occupation of the property.
Mr. JOHN S. BARBOUR, of Virginia, then rose
and said that he was warned by the impatience of the
House for the question, that, in assigning the reasons for
his vote on the present occasion, he must be very brief.
If he could conceive that this bill would be attended by
such consequences as the gentleman last up, and other
opponents of the bill, seemed to apprehend, he should
certainly be the last to vote in its favor. If he thought
it would infuse into the code of belligerent law any new
or mischievous principle, he certainly could never ad-
vocate it. But, if gentlemen would examine the Con-
stitution, in its fifth amendment, they would find, that,
while it recognized the right on the part of Government
to take private property for the public use, it also im-
posed on Government the correlative duty of making
just compensation for it. In the case presented by the
claimants in the present instance, private property had
been taken for the public use, and whilst in possession of
the public, it had been destroyed. Between private
individuals, the law would, in a parallel case, compel
indemnification. And the Government, not being liable
to be sued, is therefore only under the stronger obliga-
tion to grant the same. Gentlemen had said that this bill
went further than the act of 1816, because it does not re-
quire the claimant to prove that his building was de-
stroyed in consequence of its occupation by the United
States. But, said Mr. B is not such a requisition the
holding out of a promise only to disappoint him who
confides in it? Sir, it is impracticable to dive into the
breast of the enemy, to take the guage and measure of
wickedness, and ascertain the precise dimensions of
what has well been called his gratuitous cruelty. The
case is a very plain one. Ifas not this property been
taken by the strong arm of Government for public use,
and has it not been destroyed? If so, there is no more
to be said-we must pay for it.

There existed no danger from fraud, under this bill. The amount being limited, each claimant is a guard upon his neighbor. You have planted all around your appropriation, said Mr. B. the sentinels of self-interest. The whole body of claimants are all interested, not in magnifying and multiplying the claims of each other, but in sifting and reducing them. I believe that the evils which have been presented to us in such lively colors have their place and their existence only in the im agination of the opponents of the bill, and I shall therefore vote for it with the utmost cordiality.

The general subject of the bill, he said, had already been very fully considered. A protracted discussion was had upon it, in this House, seven years ago, and the bill, at that time, failed, not because it was a Buffalo bill, but because it included the losses on the Chesapeake also. Much as the people of Niagara might have suf fered, the people on the waters of the Chesapeake had suffered too. Night after night were its waters illumined by the fires which were consuming the dwellings of the inhabitants on its shores. Gentlemen had bad their estates wasted, their houses pillaged, their papers, notes, and deeds, thrown into the streets, or torn to atoms, &c. &c. These things must be fresh in the recolleetion of very many gentlemen who heard him. Could the friends of the bill, Mr. M. asked, conceive it possible that the members of this House were led to oppose it from any want of sympathy for the sufferers; from any apathy or insensibility to the sacrifices and distresses to which they had been exposed! Sir, said he, let these sufferers present their claims to us, individually, in our private capacities, and see who will be most disposed to grant them relief. Sir, put the question into any form of an appeal to feeling, and to the principles of humanity, apart from considerations of policy or rules of law, Mr. LINCOLN, of Maine, then rose and said, that onand we are prepared to enter into competition with ly one gentleman who had engaged in debate, had prethe warmest friends of the bill. But the principle sented his (Mr. L's) views in respect to the present of the bill was such, and the consequences to which it bill, and he should beg leave to add a few words in exwould lead were so extensive, that no Government tension and confirmation of what that gentleman had obcould afford to act upon its principle. Once adopt it, served. Mr. L. admitted the force of some of the exand you must indemnify for all the losses occasioned by ceptions taken to this bill, and if the arguments drawn a war, not only such as are immediate, but such as are from those exceptions stood alone, he did not know how consequential. You must pay not only for houses, but he could get rid of them. But there was another and a for harvests; not only for grain burnt, but for that higher principle bearing on the present case, which, in which was prevented from being sown. If you thus his opinion, superseded those which had been urged make an insurance office of the Treasury, you will not be with so much ability by the gentleman from Virginia, long in discovering that you cannot pay the amount of (Mr. MERCER,) and on which he seemed so confidently the policy. There was no parallel to this act to be found to rely. It is this: that, if the Government take the proin the laws of any country. Neither is there any coun-perty of the citizen unlawfully, and that property is lost try which has so much interest in opposing the princi- or injured, the Government is bound to pay for it. Prople of this bill as this country. If you once set out on the ceeding to exhibit his view of this case, Mr. L. said it

« 上一頁繼續 »