Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

tion can agree with them in its support. If they will so modify the bill as to put the construction of this road under the superintendency of the Legislature of Ohio, I will agree in its support. Great waste must always occur where this is not done-I have authority in saying, that fully one third of the money expended on the Cumberland road-(in support of this assertion, Mr. W. referred to a book lately published by Major Long, which makes in effect, if not in terms, the same declaration.) If the gentleman will strike out the twenty per cent. in the amendment yesterday offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. BRECK,) and insert seventy-five per cent., I will agree to vote for it. It will then remove the constitutional scruples, by giving the local superintendence to the local authority. The want of such superintendence was the great error in respect to the Cumberland road. There was no preservative authority-no tolls-no repairs-but the road was suffered gradually to go to ruin, and Congress will soon have to make appropriations to repair that road. The plan now proposed avoids these evils; and, if it is adopted, I (said Mr. Woon,) will vote for this bill; in its present form I must vote against it.

[JAN. 18, 1825.

this refusal, their state, aided by its own resources alone, had commenced and executed the most magnificent work of this kind in our country, and one probably equal to any this Government will ever execute. He took the occasion thus to speak of this great work, because he had been one of those who thought it premature. He would frankly confess, (as he should always do when he found himself wrong,) that he had calculated erroneously. He was gratified to find that the result had realized even more than the most sanguine anticipations of its friends, and that it had given an impulse to almost every work of the kind in the Union. The people of New York now rejoice that the Federal Government rejected their petitions, and deprived itself of a share in this great work, and they are too sensible of the advantages they enjoy, to deny, on that account, to the General Government, the exercise of all its constitutional powers in the execution of similar works connected with national purposes.

Mr. C. said he had hitherto uniformly, but silently, opposed measures of this character, only from a doubt of the constitutional power of the Federal Government. He had, however, devoted much attention to the quesMr. CAMBRELENG, of New York, differed from the tion, and, after mature deliberation, he had been led to gentleman who had preceded him, as to the operation the conclusion, that, if a Government, enjoying the enand influence of national expenditures. It was in his tire post-road and military powers of this Union, could view immaterial whether they were upon the ocean or not constitutionally construct a road or a canal, then it the land, their beneficial influence was felt throughout had no incidental power whatsoever. He had, accordthe Union. It was an error to suppose that our expen-ingly, for the first time, given his vote in favor of a subditures for our commerce, navy, &c. were for the exclu- scription to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. He sive benefit of the Atlantic states. The beneficial in- considered that canal as one of the links in the great fluence of every expenditure of this kind would reach chain of inland communication from the centre of Caroeven the confines of Mexico, and the remotest hamlet lina to our Northern Lakes, of which the Erie canal on the Missouri or Mississippi, by enlarging the market formed another link, connected, as they would soon be, for all our productions. On the other hand, it was by the waters of the Hudson and the Jersey canal-and equally an error to believe that the Atlantic states de- again, from Carolina, along the Atlantic, to Massachurived no benefit from our national expenditures beyond setts. He was, however, not to be understood as favorthe mountains; every such expenditure would spread able to any particular or great scheme of internal imits influence to our Atlantic borders, and though not provement to be executed by the Federal Government; every where in an equal degree, through every part of he preferred confiding this branch of legislation generalthe Union. He had therefore heard, and not without ly to State Governments-but he was prepared to lend surprise, the question argued, as if the benefits of a incidental aid in some cases, and to execute directly road or canal were limited to the particular country or others, which he considered as of a character more nastate through which they might pass. The advantages tional, and which, from the nature or state of the coun enjoyed by the state where the work may have been try, never could be executed by the authority or reexecuted, were unquestionably great, but greater still sources of any state. He considered the work now under were the ultimate advantages of the interior whose pro- consideration, more peculiarly national than any which ductions were destined to pass through this channel to had been projected, and it was immaterial to him whether market. Take, for example, the Erie canal-a work the expenditure was made out of the Treasury, or out of which would do honor to any country-however impor- any particular proportion of the proceeds of our public tant were the benefits which that great work had be- lands. Besides the great national object of connecting stowed upon the state which he had the honor in part the West with the Atlantic, by a direct route, we had a to represent here, still more important were the advan- a direct national interest in opening avenues to our pubtages to the interior. The people of New York, it is lic lands. There can be very few works of this charactrue, enjoy a market for their own productions; but ter to which the funds of the nation will be applied. For they are besides, the agents of the North and the West, himself, he should judge of each work as it might be whose productions are increasing in value, and are presented to their attention. He preferred this coursetransmitted through this channel. It is impossible to it was moderate. In this way, something may be effectmeasure the benefit which this canal must hereafter be- ed. He preferred this practical course to any theoretical stow on our interior country, when we look at its vast opinions or the anticipations of a magnificent system of extent, and reflect that its productions are annually in- internal improvement which might never be realized. creasing. He, therefore, considered the location of a He should wish the attention of the Federal Government great work of this character not as the principal theatre limited to a few great works, and that they might be deof its benefits. So with the Cumberland road; its ad- cided on as required. vantages were chiefly and permanently to be felt in As it regarded the time and the means, he could not that country beyond it, whose productions reach a think any moment better than the present, if it was our market from which they had been previously excluded. intention ever to do any thing. At the last session a seGentlemen seemed to think that New York had great rious attack was threatened on our revenue systemcomplaints to make against this Government for reject- but happily it was not successful. We can now, with ing its applications for assistance Mr. C. thought they greater certainty, estimate the revenue of the country. greatly misunderstood the sentiment of his constituents, Should there be no war-and there is at present no parand of the people of the state of New York. Whatever ticular reason why we should anticipate one, the public regret they might have felt when the Federal Govern-debt will unquestionably be entirely extinguished in ten ment refused its incidental aid in executing their canal, years. Besides this, there must be, in the aggregate, an it was to them now, a matter of congratulation, that, by 'increase of revenue beyond the amount required for the

JAN. 18, 19, 1825.]

Yazoo Land Claims.-Niagara Sufferers.

[Sen. & H. of R.

redemption of the debt within ten years, growing out of indemnity for 957,600 acres, amounting to $130,425, was an annual and natural augmentation of population, resisted in behalf of the Georgia Mississippi Company on wealth and trade. Some portion of this surplus might, the ground that the consideration money for said lands without inconvenience, be devoted to these objects. had not been paid, and that, therefore, they were, in Should we, however, postpone these measures, as gen-equity, entitled to the indemnity provided by the act of tlemen desire, and should a war intervene, we shall then Congress. The Commissioners decided in favor of the have occasion to lament that we had permitted this op- Georgia Mississippi Company, and the 130.425 dollars portunity to escape. He believed our surplus means were deducted from the amount awarded to the New were fully adequate to an annual expenditure as great, England Mississippi Land Company, and distributed as at least, as he was willing to vote for, and he should sin- follows: $50,608 48 to individual members of the Georcerely regret any delay. With regard to this particular gia Mississippi Company, who had released to the Unitroad, he felt persuaded there was no constitutional im- ed States, under the act of 1814, to whom the same has pediment to our constructing it-the road was national accordingly been paid; $79,816 52 was reserved to the in its character, and national in its beneficial influence- United States, as being the shares of those claimants, it would benefit every part of the Union. It would be who, not having been paid the consideration money by difficult to ascertain, with mathematical precision, which the persons who had purchased of them, claimed to be portion of our country would be benefitted more than still the legal and bona fide owners of said lands, and, as another; but it would be still more difficult to find a such, had availed themselves of the provision of the re spot within our boundaries which would not feel the ad- pealing act of the state of Georgia, and obtained the revantages of the Cumberland Road, payment of the consideration money by surrendering their titles to the state. The petitioners object to this decision as erroneous, and they ask to have the $132,425 paid to them by the United States, or their release to the extent of the $957,600 acres cancelled, so that they may assert their title to the lands in a court of law.]

Finally, the question was then taken, by Yeas and Nays, and decided as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Alexander, of Tenn., Allen, of Tenn., Allison, Baylies, J. S. Barbour, Bartley, Beecher, Blair, Bradley, Breck, Brent, Burleigh, Call, Cambreleng, Campbell, of Ohio, Clark, Cook, Crowninshield, Cushman, Durfee, Dwight, Ellis, Farrelly, Forward, Fuller, Gazley, Gurley, Hayden, Hemphill, Henry, Holcombe, Houston, Ingham, Isaacs, Jennings, Johnson, of Va., J. T. Johnson, F. Johnson, Kent, Kremer, Lawrence, Lee, Letcher, Little, Livingston, Locke, M'Arthur, M'Kee, M’Kim, M’Lane, of Del. M’Lean, Ohio, Mallary, Martindale, Mercer, Metcalfe, Miller, Mitchell, Md. Moore, Ky. Moore, of Alab., Neale, Newton, Owen, Patterson, Penn. Patterson, of Ohio, Plumer, of N. H. Poinsett, Reed, Reynolds, Ross, Sandford, Sloane, Wm. Smith, Standefer, J. Stephenson, Stewart, Storrs, Test, Thompson, of Ky, Tomlinson, Trimble, Udree, Vance, of Ohio, Vinton, Wayne, Webster, Whittlesey, White, Wickliffe, James Wilson, Henry Wilson, Wilson, of Ohio, Wolf, Woods, Wright-93.,

NAYS.-Messrs. Alexander, of Va., Allen, of Mass. Bailey, Barber, of Conn. P. P. Barbour, Bassett, Buchanan, Buck, Campbell, of S. C., Carter, Carey, Cocke, Collins, Conner, Crafts, Craig, Culpeper, Day, Dwinell, Eddy, Edwards, of N. C. Findlay, Foot, of Con., Foote, of N. Y. Frost, Garrison, Gatlin, Gist, Govan, Hamilton, Harris, Harvey, Herkimer, Hogeboom, Hooks, Jenkins, Lathrop, Leftwich, Lincoln, Litchfield, Livermore, Long, Longfellow, M'Coy, M'Duffie, Mangum, Matlack, Mitchell, Penn., Morgan, O'Brien, Olin, Plumer, Penn., Randolph, Rankin, Richards, Saunders, Sharpe, Sibley, Arthur Smith, Alexander Smyth, Spaight, Sterling, A. Stevenson, Stoddard, Swan, Taliaferro, Tattnall, Taylor, Ten Eyck, Thompson, of Penn., Thompson, of Geo. Tucker, of Va., Tucker, of S. C., Tyson, Vance, N. C. Whipple, Whitman, Williams, of N. Y., Williams, of Va. Williams, of N. C. Wilson, of S. C. Wood-82.

So the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

IN SENATE.-WEDNESDAY, JAN. 19, 1825.
YAZOO LAND CLAIMS.

The Senate took up the report of the Judiciary Committee, unfavorable to the petition of Ebenezer Oliver and others, Directors of the New England Mississippi Land Company.

[The petitioners appeal from a decision of the Commissioners appointed to carry into effect the compromise between the United States and the holders of Yazoo lands, under the act of 1814. The report sets forth; That, before the Commissioners, the petitioners, as trustees of the New England Mississippi Land Company, claimed, as the persons entitled to the one million five hundred and fifty thousand dollars, directed to be issued to the Georgia Mississippi Land Company; their claim to

The committee, for the reasons which they set forth, declare the prayer of the petition unreasonable, and that it ought not to be granted.

Mr. MILLS moved to reverse the decision of the committee, so as to declare the petition reasonable; and followed his motion with a speech of considerable length, and much earnestness, in support of it.

Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, (a member of the Judiciary Committee,) replied to Mr. MILLS at equal length and earnestness, in support of the report of the committee, and against the petition.

Mr. LLOYD, of Mass. followed, in support of the petition, and against the report.

Mr. TALBOT, (a member of the Judiciary Committee,) followed Mr. L. on the same side, and addressed the Senate more than half an hour, in support of the jus tice of the petition, and against the report.

The debate had continued between two and three hours, when Mr. TALBOT had concluded; and Mr. VAN BUREN, (chairman of the committee who made the report,) expressing a desire to submit his views in its support, asked to be indulged until to-morrow, as the hour was now late, and moved to lay the report on the table; which was agreed to.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.-SAME DAY.
NIAGARA SUFFERERS.

The House passed to the order of the day, which was the third reading of the bill "further to amend the act authorizing the payment for property lost, captured, or destroyed, by the enemy whilst in the service of the United States, and for other purposes."

The bill was accordingly read a third time, and the question being "Shall this bill pass?"

Mr. VANCE, of Ohio, rose, and said, that before the question was taken, he wished for the reading of one of the documents which had been received from the Departments, showing the amount of moneys which had been already paid for losses on the Niagara frontier. He was persuaded that, on this subject, a mistaken idea was still entertained by many gentlemen who supposed that the $500,000 and upwards, awarded under the act of 1816, had all been paid for the buildings destroyed on that frontier. The several parts which made up that sum, had now been separated, and it would appear that, instead of $500,000, there had been paid to these unfor tunate claimants on that frontier, who had suffered more in the last war than the whole of the rest of the Union, but $64,000.

The documents were read accordingly.

Mr. TRACY, of New York, then rose, and observe:

H. of R.]

Niagara Sufferers.

[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 inbabitants 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-

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 hav-vaded; and the long and melancholy list of victims who ing their claims postponed year after year, and now de. layed 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 lusses 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

fell in the contest, on that occasion, shows that the people 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, partly 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 that 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'

JAN. 19, 1825.]

Niagara Sufferers.

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 100%. 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'ARTHUR,) 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.

[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 icquaintance 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 governThe present bill proposes to grant for the relief of ment have been attempted to be committed, if not on the Niagara sufferers, and all who have suffered in the that frontier, on the St. Lawrence frontier, and reasons same manner, $250,000, restricting the relief, however, have been presented which have induced the committees to those whose claims have been presented before the of this House to scrutinize with great vigilance all claims Commissioner. The limitation of the gross amount will of this description. No doubt most of the houses on operate as an effectual safeguard against fraud. Every the frontier were occupied by the troops of the United fair claimant will be led by his interest to detect and States; but the question is, was it such a permanent ocexpose it. The moment a new claim is presented, those cupation as to give to those houses the character of barwho have already presented claims will be immediately racks? In my opinion, said Mr. W. it was not. For, alarmed; they will inquire into the circumstances, and, from the 4th of July, 1813, to the burning of Buffalo, if the amount has been overrated, they will combine to there were very few troops on that frontier, or the comprevent the fraud for their own sakes. This was a secu-mittee, in its examination of the subject, in 1818, had rity never provided by any former bill, and it was a most been very much misinformed. On this frontier of 36 complete and effectual security. It must necessarily miles, until a short time previous to the burning there exclude all false and fraudulent claims, so that all fears had been in service forty militia, who surely could not of gentlemen on that subject, and all arguments from have given the character of military occupation to the such fears, must be at an end. whole of that frontier. Is the House prepared, under those circumstances, to vote a compensation for the losses by individuals on that frontier? Mr. W. concluded his remarks by saying, it had always appeared to him that the principle of this bill was such a one as no government could sustain; and he was, therefore, decidedly opposed to it.

Mr. M'COY, of Virginia, observed, that he was sorry to be obliged to say any thing on the present subject. It was not the sum to which he objected. He was willing to give this amount to relieve those persons who, he did not doubt, had suffered most severely. It was the principle of the bill to which he objected, He had risen too, for the purpose of defending the character of Capt. Willis, from some allegations respecting him, which had fallen from the friends of the bill, and which he did not

Mr. M'ARTHUR, of Ohio, rose, not to speak to the merits of the bill, but to state facts within his knowledge respecting the village of Buffalo. He happened to land there in 1813, with the troops under his command, in a snow storm, and, being unprovided with tents, the army was under the necessity of using almost every house in the village for barracks. There was scarcely a building in the village, some part of which was not occupied by troops. He continued there during the storm, which lasted three or four days, and he had an opportunity of seeing the buildings, &c. The village was flourishing: the buildings were very good for a new town: there were many brick buildings, and a few frame ones: There were but very few log houses, and those only on the borders of the town. He had been there 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 Department was incorrect, and not worthy of the consideration of this House, or he was very much mistaken. Mr. M'A. said, he also knew, that the whole frontier was continually occupied by troops of the United States. It was unavoidable that it should be so, there being no tents or barracks provided. The officers were compelled to occupy private buildings, either by consent of the owners, or otherwise. The private buildings were essential to the maintenance of the army on that frontier. Mr. M'A. concluded by saying, that he only rose to state that the information furnished by this Major Willis 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

ter. He had long served the United States with credit. He presumed that that gentleman had received some incorrect statements; but he did not conceive that his language went as far as some gentlemen seemed to understand it to go. The log houses of which he spoke, were not in Buffalo exclusively, but along the frontier generally. And what he stated with respect to fraudulent attempts and combinations, had reference, probably, to personal property lost, as much, if not more, than to the houses which had been destroyed. We all do know, said Mr. M'C. that there existed, at that time, at least a 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

H. of R.]

Niagara Sufferers.

Jones, who had preferred false claims, supported by fraudulent papers, and that to an immense amount. The money which was paid for houses destroyed, was little in comparison to what had been paid for horses, for oxen, for wagons, for muskets, for military accoutrements, &c. The great bulk of what had been paid, was for personal property The sufferers, however, had already received $64,000 for houses, and probably twice as much for personal property. Still, Mr. McC. said, he was willing to vote the sum proposed, but could not consent to support the present bill.

Mr. FOOT, of Connecticut, said that he did not rise for the purpose of resisting any equitable claim preferred by the inhabitants of the Niagara frontier; yet he must oppose the present bill, on account both of its form and its principle. The principle was one which never had been recognized by any country, that a building which had been destroyed by the enemy, must be paid for by the Government, because it had, at any previous period of the war, been occupied as a barrack-it was what he never could consent to. He could not even consent to the doctrine of the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. WEBSTER,) that its having been made a place of military deposite obligated the Government to pay for it, unless it appeared that that occupation was the cause of its destruction. Another objection to the bill was, that it was partial in its operation. It does not meet all the cases which ought to be provided for. It confines its benefit to those claimants only who have applied to the commissioner under the acts of 1816, '17. Now, those acts 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 be 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 provid ed, that, where property was destroyed by the enemy, whether justly or not justly, in consequence of its occu

[JAN. 19, 1825.

pation by the United States-if it was shewn that the occupation of the property drew the enemy to it, the loser should be remunerated for his loss. This bill, however, went far beyond that principle, and went to provide compensation in cases where there was no consequential destruction, but the destruction was an act of gratutious vengeance,not justified by the usages of civilized warfare. I should have no objection to this bill, if it were not for the principle which it will go far to establish. What is it that gentlemen contend? They tell you that all the houses on the frontier of the United States were occupied as barracks. Very well. They go further, and tell you, that that occupation gave to the enemy the right to destroy them. Is that a principle of the law of nations? No, sir: it is a principle which I never will admit-a sanguinary and vindictive principle, not recognized by the usages of civilized nations. Gentlemen say, the enemy destroyed the houses because he knew that our armies could obtain barracks no where else than in the private houses; that he destroyed them to prevent the concentration of a military force on that frontier. But, sir, our armies depended on the product of that frontier for subsistence, as well as for shelter: and surely gentlemen would not contend that this fact would authorize the destruction of crops, or laying waste the country: and yet to that point, their principles would carry them. An enemy has a right to destroy fortifications, and public property of a military character, but he can have no right to destroy inoffensive private buildings or property.

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 incurred; 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 male 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

« ForrigeFortsett »