H. of R.]

Niagara Sufferers.

demnity, he will fight not only from patriotism, but from self interest. The gentleman cannot be so unacquainted with the nature of the human mind, as not to perceive the effect of bringing in such a principle to aid the arm of the citizen soldier.

[DEC. 27, 1824.

Government would be bound to no such thing. It was not the occupation of the house as a barrack that caused it to be destroyed-the enemy was not to know of such occupation; the house was destroyed with others not so occupied; it was a casualty, and the sufferer must bear his loss.

But the gentleman insists that if the Government is not bound to pay for such losses, we cannot claim to be independent. Sir, I have read to you, from the page of impar tial history, some of the acts of pillage and cruelty perpetrated by the enemy in our Revolutionary war; were these losses ever paid? No, sir, the old Congress denied the right of the sufferers to indemnity, and invariably refused to grant any compensation whatever. Was our country, therefore, not independent? Yet the gentleman says we must either pay such losses ourselves, or compel the enemy to pay them, or we are not independent. Sir, we suffered much under the British Orders in Council. Was compensation allowed in the treaty of Ghent? We suffered sorely under the Berlin and Milan decrees. Has compensation ever, to this day, been allowed for those losses? No, sir; and it is very questionable if the nation will go to war to obtain it. Will the gentleman, there. fore, maintain that these States are not, at this day, independent? Sir, the thing is not done by any government, nor can the argument be sustained by an appeal to facts. The true rule is, that Government is bound to obain such allowance, and to make such compensation, if it can be done conveniently. But would the gentleman say that, in order to get the allowance of one million, die whole nation must be plunged into war, at an expense of one hundred millions? In such cases, the demand becomes a question of policy. It was a maxim (attributed, I believe, to Mr. Adams) at one time, in the mouth of every American. "millions for defence, but not a cent for tribute." There is something of honor in such questions. What was the language of President Madison to Cockburn, when he commenced his ravages? Did the President say to him, "Admiral Cockburn, pray forbear; forbear, if you please; if not, we must pay our citizens for the injuries you may inflict." No, sir; he said, "Forbear; if not, we will retaliate." This, sir, is the only note for such an ear as Cockburn's-the dread of retali ation is the only consideration which can hold such an enemy in check.

I must now say a few words on the doctrine of retaliation. The gentleman seems to think that the burning of Newark, by the American troops under McClure, was a wanton and improper act; and, in his report at a former session, he charges it on our Government, and maintains that the enemy had a right to retaliate. Sir, I deny his position in toto; I say, and hope to prove, first, that the destruction of Newark was not a wanton act; and, secondly, that the enemy had not the least right to retaliate it. If the gentleman had directed his views a little farther on this subject, he would have been able to perceive and to trace the same predatory spirit which led to the devastation of the Niagara frontier, prevailing through both our wars with England. In the war of the Revolution, as well as through all the stages of our late contest, they were actuated by the same temper towards us. [In support of this position, Mr. W. went into a series of quotations from the history of both wars, referred to the conduct of the British army under Cornwallis, and when led by the traitor Arnold -to the burning of Falmouth, the ravaging of New Jersey, and the cruelties on board the Jersey prison ship, in which eleven thousand men were said to have perished. He then proceeded to the conduct of Admiral Cockburn at Frenchtown, Havre de Grace, Georgetown, Fredericktown, and Hampton, interposing comments as he proceeded, and arguing, from the whole, the prevalence of a mean, dastardly, malignant spirit of revenge and personal cruelty ] Now (said Mr. W.) put it to the gentleman from New York to say, after all this series of conduct, from February to May, 1813, whether the destruction of one village, eight months afterwards, could be considered as a wanton act of aggression? No, sir-no; if the American army, instead of burning the village of Newark, had laid waste with fire and sword the whole Canadian frontier, they would have inflicted an act of retaliation well merited by the barbarities perpetrated at Hampton alone. But was this an act of our government? The Government disavowed the act the moment they heard of it. Was this an act of wanton destruction done for its own sake, and a parallel to the British murders The gentleman relies much on the merits and suffer and ravishings in the Chesapeake? It was a purely mili-ings of the inhabitants of the Niagara frontier. Sir, I have tary movement, necessary to the destruction of Fort much regard for those inhabitants, and, though they are George: deliberate notice was sent to the inhabitants, personally unknown to me, I am inclined to believe and time allowed them to remove their persons and ef- much of the representations in their favor which have fects. As a pretended retaliation for such an act, the been given by the gentleman from New York; but still, enemy landed on the 19th, burnt Lewistown, Youngs- I feel great doubt whether they were sufferers to any town, Manchester, and even the little village of the Tus- thing like the extent they would have us to suppose. I carora Indians. No notice was given-no time for re- do know that many, who send us the most heart-rending ́moval of goods, or even for personal escape; and so far accounts of their calamities, placed themselves voluntawas the injury from being confined even to all these vil-rily on the frontier for certain commercial purposes, and lages, that the whole country was fired and laid waste; I have been very credibly informed that that frontier, they burned, they ravaged every object they could reach; generally, received more benefit than injury from being but I cannot preserve a due command of my feelings to the extent it was the seat of war. Sir, those people, when I reflect on those scenes. Sir, we find the same many of them, could well afford to have their houses thing from '76 to 1815, the same conduct, the same spi- burnt, if they received, at such a rate, the public money rit; and, with facts like these within their knowledge, which was then concentrated, and expended with the the Committee of Claims did right in denying, as I now most lavish profusion on that frontier. deny, all right on the part of the enemy, to waste that frontier on the principle of lawful retaliation, and the consequent right of the claimants on that ground. The law says that, in order to indemnity, it must be shown that the occupation of the property for military purposes was the cause of its destruction. Now, sir, let me put a case. Suppose the enemy in the Potomac, within cannon shot of this city; and suppose one of the houses here was occupied as a barrack for troops, and in a bombardment of the city with red hot balls, that house should with others be destroyed, would the owners have a just claim, under the law, to be repaid its value? No, sir, the

But on the subject of retaliation, the gentlemen would have us rely on the testimony of a certain British captain of artillery drivers. This gentleman affirms that, in his hearing, General Drummond declared that it was "beneath the British government" to waste the border on a principle of retaliation. Very delicate, indeed!— But let us hear another of these delicate gentlemen. What does Admiral Cockburn tell us? That it was on this very principle that he was ordered to waste and burn and ravage on the Chesapeake. Which shall we believe? Sir, I'll believe neither. What is this but to call a culprit into court to swear off his own accusa

DEC. 27, 28, 1824.]

Niagara Sufferers.-Internal Improvement.

tion? Sir, any British officer will tell us that his government is not to blame-is never in the wrong. appreciate, very highly, the delicacy of these gentle We can men, especially after the scenes at Hampton, in which they made so chaste and honorable a figure; and, no doubt, if charged with those very transactions, they would not only say they were clear of the perpetration of these enormities, but, as I believe, would swear to it. I will believe none of them. I have long been in the habit of supposing that actions spoke louder than words. I ask not, I care not, how a man preaches, unless I know how he acts also; and I do know that the actions of these men were cruel, dastardly, vindictive, and every way abominable.

On these grounds, Mr. Speaker, I am decidedly of opinion that this bill ought not to pass. If it does, it will not only make a destruction of your Treasury, but it will be an act without a parallel in the history of legislation. I will venture to assert that such a law is not to be found within the lids of any code among civilized nations. The gentleman, indeed, says the Emperor of Russia has made a similar allowance to his citizenssubjects I would say he has no citizens; but the case is widely different from that before us. for which Alexander made allowance was made by his The damage own authority-the burning was his own act. for which we are called to empty the Treasury is the But that act of an enemy. If, indeed, these losses had been occasioned by the act of an American force, acting under legitimate authority, I should say, under my present impressions, pay the demand. But the case is widely different. I was always opposed to the act of 1816-but when it had passed and became a law, the Committee of Claims, so far from impeding its operation, honestly endeavored to carry it into effect, not viewing the claim of the sufferers as a right which the government had been forced to allow, but as a claim of suffering fellow men to whom relief had been extended as an act of compassion and charity.

I am sensible, sir, that I have detained the House too long; but I thought it was due to the House, to the committee over which I preside, to the gentleman who advocates the bill, and to myself, to state with frankness my reasons for opposing it.

War.

[H. of R.

66

ue of all the towns and villages falling within the track of an invading army, nor for all the losses incidental to the nation extends, it ought to indemnify its citizens for war; but he should contend that, as far as the ability of losses occasioned by military occupation; and he did not doubt the ability of this nation to pay all such losses. with the gentleman from North Carolina. He had never With regard to the question of retaliation, he differed before heard that the burning of Newark was on our part a measure of retaliation. that, as the villages on each side of the frontier were occupied by the troops of both nations and as they He had always thought could not remain on this frontier during the winter out the war at all times liable to destruction on both without the use of these villages-they were throughsides, as they were absolutely necessary, both to us and to the enemy. It was, he presumed, for that reason these villages were destroyed. The enemy had no such justification for other atrocities. It was doing injustice to our country to attribute the burning of Newark to a motive of retaliation.

Whatever might be the usages of European nations, as to making indemnity for losses, he could not think ter designed for nations surrounded by warlike and powthese rules applicable to our condition-they were betindemnity almost out of the question, if not impracticaerful neighbors, liable to continual invasions, rendering ble. Our condition was different. In looking forward to future wars, he had no apprehensions of invasion, if the Government persisted in th policy it was now pursuing. Indeed, if the same policy had been pursued at an earlier period, our country never would have been invaded. He could not think that any alarming principle would be established by the bill. Our future wars-the theatre of our future wars, would be carried far beyond our boundaries-they must be upon the ocean. country will never be again invaded. The spirit of invasion, and the record of our disgrace, perished together in the flame of Orleans.

Our

sufferers by the late war, that relief which had been so Mr. C. hoped the House would now accord to the long deferred. For seven years hese claimants had ap. plied in vain for retribution. In 1817, when a question was debated whether a commission should be establ sh

Mr. CAMBRELENG, of New York, said, that, how-ed to liquidate these claims, or whether the claimants ever widely the gentleman from North Carolina differed should be compelled to come by petition before this from him, as to the justice of these claims, he was glad House, a distinguished member remarked, that the right to find there was no difference of opinion as to the atro- of petition (in relation to those claims at least.) had becious character of the enemy's conduct during the late come a privilege of having the petition rejected. This It was impossible to forget the horrors of Hamp- opinion was very much objected to by many members, ton and Havre de Grace-the Vandalism here; or the but seven years of vain application to this House must massacre of our countrymen on the Raisin. These were satisfy every one of the justice of his remark. The acknowledged to be contrary to the usages of civilized House had been told there were advantages enjoyed by war; and retribution for these losses was due from the those residing in the neighborhood of war. enemy, and not from our own government. But the said he had yet to learn what advantages could countercase now before the committee was of another charac- balance the oppressions and pollutions incident to war? Mr. C. ter-one, as he thought, strictly within the rule laid down | What advantage could indemnify the inhabitants of the by the gentleman from North Carolina; that wherever, Niagara frontier, for suffering throughout the war the by military occupation, the property had acquired a mi-apprehensions of invasion by Christian and Savage--who litary character, it was rendered liable to destruction by were at last abandoned to their fate, and subjected, in the enemy; such he considered to be peculiarly the mid-winter, to all the horrors of war? I hope, said Mr. case on the Niagara frontier. But, on this subject he C. we shall now administer relief. would quote an authority which could not be objected to do so-and the claims are unquestionably just. If to-[Mr. C. then read the evidence of General Porter to the details of the bill go beyond the rule of justice, let. We have the ability establish the military character of the frontier generally it be amended. throughout the war; the houses upon it being almost rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Mr. C. then moved that the committee without exception occupied for public stores, arsenals, barracks, quarters, &c.] There were other depositions, and obtained leave to sit again. The Committee accordingly rose, reported progress, Mr. C. said, all in accordance with this, which it was unnecessary to detain the House by referring to. there was a case of military occupation, this appeared to If ever be completely so. bound to If a government was, in any case, indemnify its citizens for losses, this certainly was one. Mr. C said he should not contend that government was bound to Indemnity its citizens for the va

VOL. I.-5

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-DEC. 28, 1824.

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT.

last session, he had submitted a proposition, which had
Mr. STEWART, of Pennsylvania, said, that, at the
for its object the creation of a permanent fund for the
purposes of internal Improvement; but, owing to the

H. of R.]

Internal Improvement-Credit on Duties.

[DEC. 28, 1824.

press of other important business, it was not then dis-signment, for foreign account, which has hitherto been posed of. He now rose to renew that proposition. found to interfere with the interests of our own regular merchants."

When we advert, said Mr. S. to the flourishing condition of our national finances, as exhibited by the Presi This opinion, from the head of the Treasury Departdent, in his late message to the House: When we look ment, would require nothing to enforce it; and whatever to the rapid increase of our wealth and resources-the objections might exist against the total abolition of the growth of our population-the increase of our internal credit system, there ought to be no opposition to the trade and commerce, and the vast extention of our ter- abolition of so much of it as applies to aliens. It would ritory-it must be admitted, he thought, that the period appear, he said, from the two reports alluded to, that had arrived when it would be proper to appropriate, at the duties on credit, as bonded in 1823, amounted to least, a part of the ample revenues of the country to its twenty-three and one half millions, in round numbers, internal improvement-connecting the distant parts of and that the interest thereon, at six per centum per anthis widely extended republic: uniting and binding them num, if allowed, would amount, in round numbers, to together by the strong ties of interest and intercourse. $1,150,000. The total amount of imposts bonded for Such a system, whether regarded in a commercial, poli- payments on credit, from 1789 up to 1823, was stated tical, or military point of view, was equally important, at 527 millions; which, upon the ratio of interest for the and he believed its adoption was alike demanded by na- year 1823, (as before stated,) would give a grand total tional feeling and national interest. He could not better of $26,000,000. But, as the merchants pay no interest illustrate the importance of this subject, than by adopt. on these bonds, it might be considered as a donation of ing the language of the great Father of his country, that amount. He had been told by intelligent merchants, WASHINGTON, Who, more than forty years ago, when re- one of whom was a member, that it would be safe to commending the adoption of measures to facilitate an rate the importations made by aliens, and on foreign acintercourse between the eastern and western states, count, at one fourth part of the total amount, and, of used this emphatic language: “In my judgment, this course, that the Treasury had, in effect, been making is the best, if not the only cement that can bind us to advances, year after year, to alien importers, which, in gether for a great length of time, and we shall be defi- the aggregate, amounted to six millions of dollars; a cient in foresight and wisdom if we neglect it. Our in- sum nearly equal to the whole amount disbursed in the terest is so much in unison with this measure, that noth-payment of Revolutionary pensions. And thus it aping but that short-sighted and ill-timed parsimony, and pears, that a corps of foreigners have been quartered upcontracted way of thinking, which intermingle so much on the Treasury as pensioners, under the name and chain our public councils, can counteract it." To these wise racter of alien importers, while our own people are idle and patriotic sentiments, he thought every liberal and for want of business. We can easily find two of our enlightened statesman would cheerfully and cordially own men ready to do the work of one; and we must respond. needs pension foreigners to help us, and aid them in superseding our own native merchants in our commercial operations, and then allow them to pocket their pensions, and carry off the profits of the trade. He hoped the House would see this matter in its proper light, and that the resolution which he was about to send to the Clerk's table, would be read and passed.

Mr. S. then offered the following resolution: Resolved, That the Committee on Roads and Canals be instructed to report a bill pledging the proceeds of the sales of the Public Lands and the dividends of the United States' Bank Stock, as a permanent fund for the purposes of internal improvement, to be distributed among the several States according to the ratio of representation, and expended on objects to be designated by Congress within or bordering on the States respectively. The said fund, with the interest thereon accruing, to be vested, annually, in United States' or other productive Stocks, until the same shall be required to carry into effect the objects of its appropriation.

On motion, this resolution was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

DISCRIMINATING CREDITS ON DUTIES. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Kentucky, rose to offer a resolution, couched in the usual form of an inquiry. It was predicated upon two reports made by the Secretary of the Treasury to the House. He had two objects in view--first, to discriminate between importations made by citizens of the United States, and all others; and, second, to procure a repeal of such laws as allow credits for duties bonded upon merchandise imported by aliens, or on foreign account. The discrimination was desirable for the sake of the statistical fact, as well as for other purposes; and he saw no reason why we should allow alien importers to bond their duties, on long credits, without interest, when it was well known our native merchants were seriously injured by this extension of the credit system in favor of foreigners. In the printed document, No. 13, the Secretary says:

Whatever motives there may be for allowing a credit for duties to our own citizens, no sufficient reason is perceived for continuing it to foreigners, who are not domiciliated in the republic. A discrimination, in this respect, between citizens of the United States and others, would tend to confine the commerce of the nation to its own citizens, and would aid in restraining the practice of shipping merchandise to this country, upon con

Mr. BRECK, of Penn. moved to take up the resolution offered by him some days since, on the subject of the claims of the Marquis de Maison Rouge, with a view to its modification. The motion was carried-ayes 74, noes 37.

Mr. BRECK modified the resolution by striking out the last clause, which inquires respecting orders given by the Executive for the defence of certain suits by the Attorney General of the United States.

The question recurring on the resolution thus modified, calling simply for copies of any letters which may have been addressed by the claimants to the ExecutiveMr. BRENT, of Lou. objected to it, as calling on the President for a private letter.

Mr. BRECK explained, and contended that the letter was strictly of a public nature. All he wished was to have an authenticated copy of it laid before the committee. A private copy lay in his own desk, but this could not be received as evidence by a committee of this House.

Mr. COCKE objected to the resolution as unrecessary, as the paper might be authenticated in another way, without calling on the President on the occasion.

Mr. HEMPHILL suggested, as an amendment, to add the clause, "if, in his opinion, it shall not be improper to communicate the same;" and in this form the resolu tion was adopted,

DEC. 28, 1824.]

Taxation of Military Lands-Niagara Sufferers.

TAXATION OF MILITARY LANDS. Mr. WICKLIFFE, of Ken. moved the following: Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of exempting, for a limited time, from taxation, by the Territorial Governments, the military bounty lands which have been patented to, and not sold by, the original claimants, or

their heirs.

Mr. WICKLIFFE said, that his attention had recently been called to the fact, that, in one territory of this country, four hundred tracts of land had been brought into market and sold for taxes; and, in reflecting upon such a state of things, he was convinced, that the power claimed by the territorial governments to tax the military lands within their limits, was one great cause of the facility with which speculators obtain possession of rights to land which were originally intended to reward the war-worn soldier for his toil. The original grantee, hearing of tax upon tax, was unwilling and unable to pay so much on his land, and was thus compelled to sell his right to it. The object of the resolution he now proposed to the notice of the House, was to exempt these lands from taxation for a limited time.

Mr. BRENT, of Louisiana, thought that the remedy proposed by the gentleman from Kentucky ought to be applied to the case referred to, but that the Committee on the Public Lands, and not that on the Judiciary, was the proper one to which the resolution should be sent, and he moved such reference as an amendment. The motion was lost.

though he had but a faint hope that, at this time, much could be effected in a way of remedy, he had no objec. tions to the inquiry proposed.

Mr. COOK coincided in opinion with the member from New York. It had been his lot to reside, for a large part of his life, under a territorial government, and he could with truth declare, that that form of government was more expensive than a state government. The territory of Arkansas had been organized only three years, and it had officers to support, and public expenses to endure, which fell with a heavy weight upon its sparse and scanty population. But little of the public lands in that territory had yet been sold, and the most of it was held by speculators. If the measure proposed by the resolu tion went into effect, it ought to be restricted to those lands, the patents for which had not been issued, and which were not yet subject to taxation, and should not extend to those which had passed into other hands than the grantees. He considered it as unfair to exempt the lands of non-residents, more than of those who resided within the territory. To a bill as broad as the resolution he should object, and, if introduced, he should certainly oppose it: and, with a view to having the terms of the resolution narrowed, he moved to lay it on the table.

Mr. WICKLIFFE observed, in reply, that he did not mean by the measure he proposed, to do any thing to destroy the rights of the territorial government, or prevent their support-his sole object was to furnish, to the soldiers who still held their lands, an inducement which might operate to prevent their parting with them to speMr. COOK, of Illinois, thought the resolution was im-culators. He was not able to state how many warrants reportant, and required some reflection before it was act-mained unsold, or how many were not yet issued. But one thing he did know, that the soldiers whom it had ed upon. He therefore moved to lay it on the table. been the intention of Congress to reward, were in genThis motion also was lost.

be made.

The question was then put on agreeing to the resolution, and decided in the affirmative. So the resolution was adopted.

NIAGARA SUFFERERS.

or destroyed, by the enemy, while in the military service of the United States, and for other purposes."

Mr. TAYLOR, of New York, then rose, and observed,eral ignorant of the condition of the land they held; and that the value of such a measure as that proposed in the if the territorial government were suffered at will to lay resolution, was considerably diminished by the lateness taxes on the lands, the poor soldiers would be compellof the period at which it was brought forward. Could ed by necessity to sell them, as so many others had alit have gone into effect when the soldiers' warrants were them. As to the direction the resolution might take, he ready done, for any thing speculators chose to allow first issued, it would have been of great utility-but at this time, only a small proportion of the military lands felt indifferent-he cared not to which of the commitwas in the hands of the original grantees. Neverthe- tees it went-his sole object was, that an inquiry should less, if the discrimination which it was the object of this resolution to make, could be accomplished, in relation to the small portion that yet remained, it should by all means be done. As to that portion of the military lands which had passed into the hands of other parties than the soldiers or their heirs, he saw no reason why they should be exempted from taxation more than other lands. On motion of Mr. TRACY, the House went into comNor did he perceive why the lands of non-residents mittee of the whole on the bill "further to amend the should in this respect be distinguished from those of re-act authorizing the payment for property lost, captured, sident owners. The Territorial Governments must be supported in some way, and real estate was the chief resource to which resort must be had for that purpose. The patents, he believed, were now, for the most part, old; but when they were first issued, the lands were for five years omitted to be taxed. At the time the State Constitution was granted to Illinois, the Legislature was restrained from taxing the bounty lands for three years, after the organization of her Government. Mr. T. observed, that his own wish had been to extend the restriction to five years, and he had introduced a motion to that effect in committee of the whole; but when the bill for framing that constitution came into the House, the proposition was rejected, and it was on his motion that it had been fixed at three years, and passed in that form. A similar restriction was imposed when Missouri was admitted, and, from all he had learned, he believed the prohibition had had a beneficial effect. Arkansas was now, he believed, the only territory in which bounty lands were to be found, and he presumed it was to that territory that the remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Wickliffe) had reference. He knew that in many cases large and valuable tracts of land had been sold to pay a comparatively small amount of tax; and

Mr. P. P. BARBOUR said that his design in rising was not to oppose the details of the bill now before the committee, but to offer a proposition superseding them altogether. He wished to test the sense of this House on the principle of the bill, and with this view he moved to strike out the enacting clause. It was not his intention to detain the committee by any prolonged discussion; he wished to direct them at once to the principle of the measure, and, in doing so, he should submit to their consideration some general principles of national law, and a few facts which he thought had a bearing on the question before them.

It had been his fortune to be a member of this House when the subject of these claims was first brought be fore Congress, and he had at that time borne some small share in discussing it. He now begged leave to recall some of the considerations he had at that time urged, and in doing so he should be very brief. The great question to be settled is this-What is the nature and character, and what is the extent, of the obligation which a whole community owes to its individual members for losses sustained during a state of warfare from

H. of R.]

Niagara Sfferers.

[DEC. 28, 1824.

eludes our scrutiny—it is a thing of feeling merely. Now, what one individual may justly force another individual to do, he might, with the same justice, force a Government to do-but, as its sovereignty interposes to render this impossible, the Government ought, and is bound, to do it of its own act. In the case of a perfect obligation, there is no choice, no limit, or restriction; the thing must be done, aml to the whole extent of such obligation; but, in case of an imperfect obligation, we may pause, we may inquire into circumstances, we may consider our means, we may listen to the dictates of policy, and act as we make up our free choice upon the whole case when considered. But this bill proceeds on the principle that the Government is bound to make compensation, and it is on that principle that I wish to try the s nse of the committee by a motion to strike out the enacting clause of the bill. I may illustrate my idea by an example taken from the municipal law. Suppose a case of larceny; is the Government bound to pay the loser? Certainly not. But it is bound to punish the thief, if it can catch him So, if a foreign nation has infiicted lawless injury on a citizen, his Government is bound to punish that nation, if it can, but not to indemnify the citizen out of the public chest. [Here Mr. Barbour quoted the bill, and urged and enforced the objection which had yesterday been made to it by the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Williams,) viz: that it would provide for payment, should a house have been occupied but a night upon a march, in the first week of the war and not destroyed by the enemy till the last week of it.] The principle I advocate would repudiate such an allowance. The occupancy alone removed the house from its ordinary condition, and, by giving it a military use, rendered it liable to attack and destruction, on the principles of civilized warfare. But that occupancy has ceased-the house returns to its ordinary character-it is now not lawful to destroy it, and if it is destroyed, the Government is not bound to pay for it.

acts of the enemy? (for in this case a broad distinction was to be preserved between acts of an enemy and the acts done by the authority of our own Government.) Now, said Mr. B. it seems to me that, as to the obligations of the Government in such a case, there can be but one sound general principle assumed. Whenever a war is declared, the immediate consequence of such declaration is to place every indivividual of each Government, together with the property of every individual of each, in a relation reciprocally hostile to each other; and, according to the original principles of international law, each nation had a right to do the other all the harm it could, indiscriminately, without respect to any distinction of persons or property. But such a principle has long been abandoned by all civilized nations-and the rule which has by general usage been substituted in its place, seems to be that, as to persons, non-combatants shall be as exempt from danger or injury as if the two nations were in a state of perfect amity-and with respect to property, unless in certain extraordinary circumstances, that it shall not be subject to destruction or injury unless it be immediately connected with and used for the purposes of war. From these doctrines of international law, as held by all civilized nations, it results, as a general principle, that, for all the losses which the people under either Government sustain in consequence of the declaration of war, they have no demand upon their Government for indemnification, because all share in one common fate. The law presumes a tacit stipulation among the members of a community, that they shall share its fortunes whether of good or evil; but if, by any act of the Government, property which otherwise would have remained in a state of safety, is withdrawn from its pacific character, under which it was not liable to injury by an enemy, and invested with a warlike character, a character which exposes it as an object of hostility, the Government shall be bound to indemnify the owner for any damage it may sustain in consequence of such change of character. This rule will apply to pro- On the question of retaliation, I shall offer no argu perty of every description. If a house, for example, be ment, because I consider it as a question wholly beside taken by the Government, and made a place of depo- the bill-it is a question not now to be discussed. The site for troops or for military stores, and while thus oc- bill does not propose to indemnify because the property cupied is destroyed legitimately by the enemy, so that was, or was not, destroyed on the ground of retaliation that occupancy was the cause of its destruction, the Go--but because it was destroyed because occupied in the vernment is bound-the individual who owned the service of the United States. house has suffered from a new character induced upon his property by the act of the Government.

On this principle, the act of 1816 directed that when such a state of facts should be proved, the amount of their loss should be paid to those who suffered under such circumstances. But are we to go farther? Are we to allow claims for all the ravages which an enemy may perpetrate contrary to the law of nations? Surely not. I can, indeed, suppose a case where a whole extensive district of country is laid waste by an incursion of the enemy, and all its inhabitants reduced to ruin. How far such a case might address itself to the sympathy of the Government-what appeals it might make to compassion and humanity-how far it might melt our feel ings or call for our charity, is a question wholly different from the question we are now arguing. We are now speaking of what has for distinction's sake been called a perfect obligation. Such as might arise from the case I have supposed, can only amount to what is called an imperfect obligation. A man is under such imperfect obligation to give to any miserable fellow creature whom he can without impropriety relieve. But he cannot be forced to do so. There exists nothing like that sort of obligation by which a man is bound to pay his debts. The appeal, in one case, is to liberality, to pity, to compassion; in the other case it is to strict and naked justice. The difference is immense. The one obligation is tangible-it can be measured-it can be - reduced to a fixed and definite limit. The other is of a nature which can neither be limited nor measured-it

Let us now see what has been done in this matter. In 1816, Congress appointed a Commissioner who was authorized to examine testimony on the claims, and if it was proved that the buildings destroyed were used as a place of military deposite, he was authorized to repay their value. The Commissioner held, that buildings, occupied as barracks, were included within the act. The acts of this Commissioner were submitted to Congress in 1817-and, by a subsequent law in 1818, they were referred to the Third Auditor of the Treasury, who was to decide upon the claims under the same law as the Commissioner had done These laws, one would think, went far enough. [Here Mr. B. again recapitulated them.] How much farther are we to go? Sir, if I distinctly perceive the distinguishing features of the present bill, they are these two, first, we are to pay for the buildings if occupied at any time during the war for public services; and, secondly, we are to pay for one half of all personal property lost or destroyed. The latter is certainly a matter too loose and fluctuating for this kind of summary legislation; and, as to the former, I have already shewn that the laws already passed have gone, in all reason, far enough.

No, sir; the only ground on which these claimants can stand before us is that of claimants upon our liberality-a subject difficult to argue, because, in considering it, we quit the field of perfect obligation, and go into that which is imperfect and uncertain: it is, in truth, illimitable. Consider to what extent such an appeal runs. Here is a whole region of country which has suf