lieve to be due to these claimants. Nor do I ubject 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. 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 generals 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 within 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. But why, he asked, did gentlemen resort to this kind of evidence? Did they delight to cast discredit on our own officers? And would they, for such a purpose, have recourse to testimony that would be scouted out of any court of justice? He could conceive of no reason for such a course, unless it might be, that gentlemen were startled at the amount claimed, and caught at straws, to avoid its payment. Here Mr. W. referred to the testimony 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 many cases, even this is not enough. Justice demands 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 sufferershe 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 directions 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 proof being made. I Yet, said Mr. W. I am opposed to the present bill. 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 as they stand. The present bill removes the proviso in the 9th section of the act of 1816, which requires that the occupation shall be proved to have been the cause of the destruction. Why should this proviso be abolished? Was it found, in practice, to work badly? Mr. W. had seen no evidence that such was the case. Why then reject it? We are told, indeed, that, if we retain it, the officer of the Treasury will reject every one of these claims. He was not prepared to entertain such a suspicion. If this proviso was iejected, 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 fea ture 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 Mr. ISACKS, of Tennessee, rose in support of the commanding General himself, that he authorized the amendment of Mr. WRIGHT. He was not so well satis-occupation of those buildings, which were proved by fied with any shape into which the measure proposed other testimony to have been, in some instances, forcibly had been cast. He would not, he said, travel over the taken possession of. With such proof as this before the ground which had already been gone over by those who House, could it be necessary to send these claims to the had preceded him; but he thought, that, in its present Third Auditor? Why not settle the question here? If situation, the Government must do one of three things: the amendment were refused, it would be to say in efit must either, first, grant no relief to the sufferers, or, fect, that persons whose houses were taken from them secondly, adopt a new principle in granting relief, or, by the United States at the point of the bayonet, and thirdly, adhere to the principle of the acts of 1816 and afterwards destroyed, must prove that their property '17. He approved the last of these courses; and he ad- was destroyed because it was so taken from them. How vocated the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, be- could claimants, so situated, prove what was the object cause he conceived it followed precisely that course. of General Drummond, or whatsoever other British offiHe 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 unreasonable to send these claimants to the Third Auin force, the promise was still held out, and still bin ling; ditor to prove any such thing as that. He hoped, thereand the amendment proposed a mode in which it would fore, that his motion would prevail. 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. That 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 frontier a pretence contrary to truth. Of Governor Prevost, 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. He 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 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 amend. ment, to add to the substitute of Mr. WRIGHT the following 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 H. of R. & Sen.] Niagara Sufferers. [JAN. 5, 6, 1825. Mr. TRACY rose merely to state the fact, as established by the testimony, that Sir George Prevost was at Quebec at the time of the devastating excursion of the enemy on the Niagara frontier, and that therefore it was not made under his immediate direction. Mr. COOK, of Illinois, said, whether it was true or not that the destruction of property on our frontier was founded on previous acts of this Government-whether it was a violation of the law of nations or not--whether Sir George had stated the fact or not-could not be urged in bar of the claim of those who present themselves for remuneration for the loss of property destroyed whilst in the possession of the United States. It seemed to be admitted on all hands, that indemnity ought to be provided for all cases of property destroyed under that circumstance. It was wholly immaterial what was the motive for the destruction of it; for, if property actually occupied was to be paid for when destroyed by the enemy, surely other claimants ought not to be debarred indemnity for property destroyed, though their property was not occupied by the United States, if its destruction had been caused by fire communicated from buildings that were destroyed in consequence of being occupied. United States. If the bill were rejected on the ground taken by the gentleman from Vermont, it would be doing violence to a principle which gentlemen on all sides of the House admitted to be a correct one. The motive of the enemy, Mr. C. argued, ought not to be brought forward as an argument against those who have fair claims on the Government independent of his motive. the sole motive to that devastation. Mr. B. here quoted the language of the proclamation, reciting the so wanton and barbarous cruelty committed on the unoffending subjects of his Britannic Majesty, by the United States, as being the ground of the retaliatory measure. This document, Mr. B. said, would be transmitted to posterity, and on the pages of history it would be considered as a document giving character to the transactions of those days. Posterity would not be benefitted by the observations of gentlemen on this floor, who treated the question as one of mere diplomacy. The fact of the destruction of that frontier, as a measure of retaliation for supposed injuries and violations of the rules of civilized war, by the United States, would be established, and well sustained, by the records of the times. Mr B. replied to some other observations which had fallen from gentlemen in the debate; in the course of which he said that there never was a man placed in a more critical situation than Sir George Prevost, during the late war; adding, that the ingenuity and ability of that man had enabled him, during the war, with very limited means, to foil all the exertions of the American Government, with the exception of the closing scene at Plattsburg, which had redounded so much to the honor of the Ame- Admitting the statements of the proclamation to be rican arms. Mr. B. said, however, in conclusion, that true, and that they were to affect any description of the he had only risen to show that the devastation of the claimants, it yet ought not to bear upon any other proNiagara frontier was an act of retaliation, and was in-perty than that which had not been in possession of the flicted on no other principle whatever : and, Mr. B. said, so far as this question was to be affected by the amendment by the House, he was disposed to vote against it. Mr. ROSS, of Ohio, rose to notice an allusion to a remark of his, by Mr. B.-which allusion, upon explanation by Mr. Buck, it appeared Mr. Ross had misunderstood. Mr. R. then went on to observe, that all he had meant to say on the subject of the proclamation of Sir George Prevost, was, that we must believe, either that Captain Swazy had told the truth, or that Sir George had told the truth, and of course that some one of them had not told the truth; for their contradictory declarations could not be reconciled. Those persons were equally officers of the British Government, and, though of unequal rank, were to be considered as equally credible witnesses What motive had Capt. Swazy for lying on the subject? When Sir George Provost justifies the devastation of that frontier, on the principle of retaliation, does he tell the truth or not? Conversing with Captain Swazy, Sir George Provost rejects the advice to retaliate for the burning of Newark, and, eleven days after the ever damnable scenes of cruelty, in the devastation of the Niagara frontier, he issues a proclamation, justifying that atrocity on the plea of re- Mr. STORRS modified his motion so as to withdraw taliation! Innocent women and children were turned the proviso; and, instead of it, to move to strike out from out of doors in a most inclement season by the devour- the substitute which had been agreed to, the words— ing flames which consumed their dwellings-and, when" and that such destruction was in consequence of such these sufferers came here for some indemnity for their occupation." losses, the House was told of the virtues, and honor, and magnanimity of Sir George Prevost. Not far from the blood-stained plains of Raisin, said Mr. R. are to be IN SENATE-THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 1825. found, at this day, wandering, barefoot, and almost On motion of Mr. LLOYD, of Maryland, the Senate naked, some of the persons who were driven from their resumed, as in committee of the whole, the bill, "for homes that fatal night, and whom the ingratitude of the the relief of Gregory Ennis and William R. Maddox." country has since kept houseless; and now, when ten [The bill provides for paying the petitioners for ceror twelve years have elapsed, and a proposition is pre-tain work done on the street contiguous to the Capitol sented for their relief, the cold calculations of statesmen, and ingenious disquisitions on abstract principles, are brought to bear against it. In 1814 or 1815, said Mr. R. you did not act upon this principle. The public sentiment would not have suffered you to do it. We acted then, said he, on just and generous principles. He meant not tø-God forbid that he should--impute to any man who was opposed to the bill any unfair motive. He had but appealed to facts, some of them within his own knowledge, to show the strong claim upon the House of those to whom this bill proposed to render tardy justice. As to the amendment immediately under consideration, he was in favor of releasing the party from the necessity of producing any other evidence of the cause of the destruction of his property, than the facts which existed at the time of its destruction. He would not seek for Sir George Prevost's opinion on the subject. It was sufficient to establish that, in the ordinary vicissitudes of war, the property was destroyed, or might have been destroyed, because of its being in the occupation of the Government. The facts already in possession of this House were sufficient to satisfy all reasonable scruples in a government disposed to be just, and to fulfil its duties to its citizens. We are acting too rigidly-in too cold hearted a feeling to our suffering citizens, said Mr. C. when we adopt the discrimination which is advocated by some gentlemen, &c. When, on motion, the House adjourned. Square.] The memorial and documents accompanying it were read, and Mr. LLOYD, of Maryland, then observed, that, as the Senate were in possession of the facts, it was unneces sary to say any thing more on the subject. The work had been done conformable to the contract entered into between the Commissioner of the Public Buildings and the petitioners, and the contract was authorized by law. It had been said that the funds specifically appropriated for that object were not sufficient-that in consequence of the pressure of the times, the public lots had not been sold, and there was not sufficient to meet the claims to which they were liable. The question was, whether they would suffer these industrious individuals, who had fulfilled their part of the contract made with the Commissioner, to wait till the lots were sold, out of the proceeds of which they were to be paid, or whether they should be paid from another quarter. They were bound in justice to compel the sacrifice of that property, or provide for the settlement of the claims from some other quarter. It might be said that they were taking money from the public Treasury to pay for a specific transaction; but there was now in the Treasury from 10 to 20,000 dollars, which were paid in by a former Superintendent of the city, and he wished that this claim of $3,080 should be settled from that fund. The bill was then ordered to be read a third time. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-SAME DAY. NIAGARA SUFFERERS. [Sen. & H. of R. The amendment was in part objected to by Mr. LIVERMORE, but, having been explained by the mover, was adopted. To remove the objection as to the difficulty of proving that the destruction was the consequence of the occupation of property, Mr ISACKS moved an amendment, which forbade the Auditor to require "direct proof" of that fact where a strong presumption should be established. This amendment was negatived. Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, then proposed to add the following section to the bill: The House then proceeded to the unfinished business of yesterday, which was the consideration of the amend-a ment proposed to the substitute of Mr. WRIGHT, by Mr. STORRS, to the bill for the relief of the Niagara sufferers, viz: to strike out the words [and that such destruction (viz : of the property,) was the consequence of such occupation, (viz: by the United States.)] On this question, Mr. FORSYTH called for the Yeas and Nays, which were ordered accordingly, and were called, resulting as follows: "And be it further enacted, That the amount which shall appear to have been paid to the owners, as rent, for the use or occupation of the property, shall be deducted from the account directed to be paid to them under this act." This amendment was opposed by Mr. DWIGHT, as being precluded by that of Mr. COOK, and by Mr. MARVIN, as being unjust in its principle; but it was carried-ayes 107. Mr. TEST, of Indiana, then moved an amendment, as substitute for that of Mr. LITTLE, which went to require that the premises should have been occupied within two days of the time of its destruction. The amendment was negatived. Mr. FORSYTH again moved the amendment he of fered yesterday in committee of the whole, adding a provision to make compensation for slaves lost while employed by impressment as boatmen, wagoners, &c. but it was negatived by a decided majority, only 48 members rising in its favor. YEAS.-Messrs. Adams, Bailey, Baylies, J. S. Barbour, Bartley, Beecher, Brent, Brown, Cambreleng, Mr. FORSYTH then offered a motion, making a pro. Campbell, of Ohio, Collins, Cook, Crowninshield, Cul-vision (the amount being in blank) to compensate the peper, Day, Dwinell, Dwight, Eaton, Edwards, of Penn. extra services of the Third Auditor, required by the bill, Findlay, Foote, of N. Y. Forward, Frost, Fuller, Garnett, which amendment he advocated at considerable length. Gazlay, Gurley, Harvey, Hayden, Henry, Herrick, Her- The amendment was opposed by Messrs. COCKE and kimer, Hogeboom, Jenkins, J. T. Johnson, Kent, Law- LIVERMORE, and lost. rence, Lincoln, Litchfield, McArthur, McKim, McLean, of Ohio, Mallary, Martindale, Marvin, Morgan, Neale, Patterson, of Ohio, Plumer of Penn., Richards, Rose, Ross, Scott, Sharpe, Sloane, Arthur Smith, Sterling, Storrs, Strong, Taliaferro, Taylor, Test, Tomlinson, Tracy, Vance, of Ohio, Van Rensselaer, Van Wyck, Vinton, Webster, Whittlesey, Williams, of N. Y., James Wilson, Wilson, of Ohio, Wood, Woods-75. Mr. STORRS offered the following amendment, (in blank,) viz : "And be it further enacted, That, in case the whole amount of claims presented and allowed under this act, shall exceed the sum of dollars, then, and in that case, the claimants shall, respectively, receive only their rateable proportion of the sum of dollars, to be liquidated by the said Auditor in the adjustment of the amount to be received by such claimants respectively.' The amendment was carried; and, on filling the blank, a motion for $500,000, and another for $300,000, having been rejected, the blank was filled with 250,000. NAYS.-Messrs. Abbot, Alexander, of Va., Allison, ་་ So the amendment of Mr. STORRS was adopted. Mr. LITTLE moved farther to amend the substitue of Mr. WRIGHT, by inserting the words, or immediately preceding,"- -so as to require proof that the property was occupied by the United States at, or immediately preceding, the time of its destruction. This motion was decided in the negative. Mr. COOK, of Illinois, then moved to amend the bill by adding, at the end of the substitute, the following proviso: "And provided, also, That no payment shall be made under the provisions of this act, where the property destroyed was occupied under a contract with the owner and at the wish of such owner." VOL. I.-10. Mr. LITTLE then moved to strike out that clause of the bill which confines its provisions to such claims as have already been exhibited, previous to the 10th April, 1818, before the Commissioner, and not acted upon, and to extend it to all which may hereafter be exhibited and proved. Mr. TRACY explained the reasons which had induced the committee to insert this feature in the bill. Mr. FORSYTH and Mr. McDUFFIE opposed the amendment at considerable length, and it was lost. The question being then on ordering the bill, as amended, to be engrossed for a third reading, Mr. FORSYTH rose in opposition. He said he had been a member of the House at every session at which the subject of these claims had come before it, and he might claim to be thoroughly acquainted with the history of the cases. He had opposed the original act on the subject, in 1816, nor had he seen reason since to repent his vote on that occasion. On the contrary, experience had but confirmed the views he then entertained, and satisfied him still more with the course he had pursued. It was now proposed not to carry the act of 1816 into effect, but to carry still further the provisions of that act, and embrace a class of cases for which it never intended H. of R.] : was not responsible, and responsible in a manner in which it was not responsible As to the objection to the act of 1816, Mr. S. said it was one which he hardly knew in what way he ought to attempt to answer. The gentleman had been opposed to that act, as he bad himself informed the House, and it could hardly be expected, therefore, that he should be in favor of the present bill. But, said Mr. S. let us see what he himself proposes respecting slaves: he would have the Government pay for all slaves impressed during the last war, and afterwards lost [Mr. F explained that he did not refer to all who were impressed, but to all who were impressed lawfully.*] As to the lawfulness of the acts of the officers of the Government being requisite before the Government will pay or make reparation for them, Mr. S. said there are precedents in abundance on our statute books, which contradict such a doc. trine. Here Mr. S. referred to the case of indemnity to Major Austin, for damages obtained against him for acts done in the discharge of an official duty, and to several to provide. There could be no difficulty as to the abttract principle of the case. The provision of the constitution, which forbids the quartering of troops on the Mr. STORRS acquiesced in the sentiment just excitizens of the United States, against their consent, un-pressed by the gentleman from Georgia, viz: that this less in a manner to be prescribed by law, must be re-bill does not go so far as it ought to go; that, if all these spected. But the law of 1816 was not passed in obedi- claimants who had a just demand upon the Government, ence to the constitution-it was bottomed on a false aswere to be paid, it would require a sum far greater than sumption, and it provided to pay for losses for which the that at which he had himself proposed to limit it He United States are not responsible. That law went on did not believe that the bill would pay more than 50 or the false assumption that the Government is bound by 60 per cent. of the amount of the claims. But, sir, said every act of every one of its officers-an assumption than Mr. S. I have seen these sufferers; I have conversed which none could be more erroneous. It took for grant- with them; and so ruinous has been our delay of justice, ed, that what its officers did, in taking those buildings so long have their hopes and fears been sported with, by force, and quartering troops in them, was constitu- and such is the present situation of many among them, tional, whereas, it was directly in the face of the constitu- that they are willing to take whatever you are at length tion. If the Government is bound by every act of its disposed to allow them. They are glad to get any thing lowest officer, what is to become of the Treasury? If at our hands, rather than have your promise any longer any and every act of a subaltern constitutes, at once, a "Kept to their ear, but broken to their hope." charge upon the funds of the Government, where is any limit to the responsibility which it may be thus forced to The bill before you is far from being as extensive in assume? No Government on earth can long be adminis- its operation as the gentleman from Georgia apprehends. tered if such a principle is once admitted. The acts of Let us meet the bill as it is, not as it is not. these officers were clearly against both the law and the constitution, and the Government was in no wise bound by them. But Congress considered the case as a hard one and it therefore was induced to pass the law of 1816, by which it established rules, according to which, the proof of loss was to be taken-and one of its leading provisions was, that, to entitle to indemnity, it should be proved that the occupation was the cause of the destruction of the property. This provision, Mr. F. said, was now by this bill to be done away. But, supposing, the acts of the officers had been in strict accordance with the constitution, what does the constitution direct, in case of taking private property for the public use? It requires "just compensation"-that is, compensation for the time in which Government had the use of the property, and compensation for any injury it may have sustained in consequence of its occupation by Government. The Government does not ensure the property against all acts of the enemy, lawful and unlawful. He would illustrate this by a familiar example: a city is bombarded by the enemy, and defended by our own troops, who occupy some of the houses as barracks-a bomb falls on a house adjoining one of those thus occupied, and, in consequence, the barrack catches fire, and is consumed. Would the Government be liable in such a case? The house was destroyed accidentally There was no connection between the injury it sustained and its occupancy by the United States; and the Government would be no more obligated to pay for the house which was used as a barrack than for the house adjoining to it on which the bomb fell. All the difficulty in the case of the Niagara depredations was the want of proof that the Mr. F. is represented as interrupting Mr. STORAS, to exdestruction was caused by the occupation; but, without plain the motion to add a section for the payment of slaves imthis, the claim against the Government could never be Mr. F. does not believe that any slave, or other property, was pressed into the public service. No such explanation was made. made out. Now, it was said by some, that the destruc- lawfully impressed, during the late war, into the public service; tion was in retaliation for acts of our own forces. By and, therefore, according to his opinion, there is no obligation others this was denied. It was a question of fact-and on to pay for them out of the public Treasury. Congress, howthat point, the whole question turns. It may not be as-ever, proposing to consider all impressment of property during sumed that the occupancy was the cause. He would the war lawful, cannot make a distinction between different not, however, enter on that question; it was a difficulty species of property without injustice. which the House had shifted from its own shoulders, and imposed on those of the Third Auditor. Respecting this part of the report, the following note, published in the National Intelligencer, more exactly explains Mr. FORSYTH's views. Mr. FORSYTH requests Messrs. Gales & Seaton to corthe House of Representatives. Mr. F. was in favor of Mr. rect an error in their statement of Thursday's proceedings in LITTLE's amendment to give to all persons whose cases might be covered by the bill before the House an opportunity of profiting by its provisions. The bill, as it stands, is limited in its operation to cases which were presented to the Commissioner for adjudication under the act of 1816, differing materially from the bill under discussion. The act of 1816 established a principle, and the Legislative body deliberately refused to make the application of it general. Another reason of my opposition to the bill, said Mr. As the subject was again under consideration, Mr. F. thought F. is the limitation of the amount to be appropriated. it his duty to give the oportunity to those who believe the prinThe claims are either just or unjust. If they are inciple correct, to apply it to a species of property heretofore ex. cluded. The adoption or rejection of the amendment respecttheir principle just, they ought to be paid, let the amounting slaves would have made no difference in Mr. F's judgment be what it may. If they are unjust, they ought not to be paid at all. If you limit the sum you will grant, you are not paying debts, but granting favors. Upon the whole, he considered the bill as, in its principle, tending to subvert the constitution, and in its prac. tical tendency highly dangerous. It was founded on an assumption that Government was responsible, when it or vote on the act of 1816, or on the bill now before the House of Representatives. It must be very obvious, however, that the rejection of it must have excited that feeling always produced by legislation which appears to be partial. Mr FORSYTH, by Mr. STORRS' permission, made an explanation of an argument used by him in the course of the discussion, which had not been clearly comprehended, |