Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress Page: 269
iv, (742 columns), 123, vii p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
^69
OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS.
278
Jan. 19, 1825.]
Niagara Sufferers.
[H.ofR.
been decided at least twenty or thirty times by this
House, in the rejection of particular claims presented
here by individuals. My ground is this: that, in decid-
ing1 on claims, we act in a judicial character. I never
•will consent that Congress shall be teased into the al-
lowance of such claims. X will not yield to importunity
and perseverance what I would not grant to justice.
We have repeatedly decided, that, unless the destruc-
tion of property by the enemy was in consequence of
its occupation by the United States, compensation shall
not be granted to the claimants. Where a decision has
once been made on this floor against a claim, unless
some new testimony is adduced in support, 1 will make
that decision a reason for voting against the claim as of-
ten as it shall be afterwards preferred.
Mr. GAZLAY, of Ohio, said it was with feelings of re-
gret, that he felt himself compelled, on any occasion, to
say any thing in this House. He should not now do so,
were it not for the avowal of some principles by the op-
position to the bill, which principles he thought not war-
ranted by, but dangerous to the best interests of our Go-
vernment. The proposition is to remunerate these
American citizens whose houses or buildings have been
destroyed by the enemy during the late war. Not all
which have been so destroyed, but those only used by,
or in possession of. our Government for some purpose
connected with our military operations at the time they
were destroyed. The principal objections are, that,
according to the rules or laws of monarchical nations,
we are not bound to make this remuneration ; that we
are not bound to make it, except the property were a
subject of lawful destruction according to the rules of
civilized warfare ; and that, to make it on the principles
of this bill, is calculated to invite destruction by the ene-
my, and to take away every object which the citizen
himself might have to defend his property against that
enemy ; also, that it will impoverish and perhaps bank-
rupt tlie nation.
Mr. G. said he thought we had gained something by
the great exertions which had consummated our present
form of Government, and that this something was not a
bare name; that he recognized not a partial, a limited,
a personal philanthropy, as emanating from it—but one
commensurate in every civil relation with the extremest
verge of our vast territory; he could not look upon our
boasted freedom as having secured nothing but a recog-
nition of those rules which it was established to destroy.
If he understood our principles, they were better than
others only as they caused the weight of Government to
fall more lightly, inasmuch as it falls more equally.
Their true meaning, he conceived to be, the rights, the
justice of all, instead of the rights and justice of the
few. If, practically, the Government could not be thus
administered, he had no hesitation in saying it could not
and ought not to continue. If war came in its fearful
calamity.it must be the war of all; all are bound, equal-
ly bound, to defend, even at life's peril. If it bring its
ravages, its losses, and devastations, they are like our
common dangers, our common toils, the loss of all ; nor
could lie see that this principle was to unnerve the arm,
or dampen the ardor of the American citizen or soldier.
It was with a view to the directly opposite effect that
he supposed it to belone to our system. Certainly
when the injuries inflicted by the enemy, are at the ex-
pense of a general contribution, the inducements to de-
fend must be general and strong' in proportion to the
threatened extent of such injury. If the loss is to be
that only of the actual sufferer, then he who avoids most,
and is most recreant, is like to be the least sufferer.
The promulgation of this principle before the last war,
lie had no doubt, would have removed many constitu-,
tional scruples, and saved much property. The heavi-
est portion of sufferers to be provided for by this bill,
are those of the Niagara frontier. If the greatest possi- |
ble distress, the greatest possible fortitude and bravery,
and, he might say, the greatest neglect from their Go-
vernment, could entitle men to consideration, then were
these sufferers entitled to the last farthing of their loss-
es. But it is said the principle will impoverish us—it
will drain and exhaust the Treasury. He conceived it
was now too late to urge this objection ; it might have
answered as an argument against the adoption of our
free constitution equally well with the impoverishing ef-
fects generally of war: but now the question is, shall we,
like true men, maintain the spirit and meaning of the
confederation, or shall we lay the foundation for disaf-
fection and dissolution, by a partial regard to and exe-
cution of them ? The bill is, however, limited to such
property only as has been occupied by the Government
for military purposes, and destroyed while so occupied.
Against the imperious justice of such a bill, he could
not even anticipate a solid objection, much less could
he anticipate danger in the passage of it. It was
deficient, because it was too narrow : he wished he had
the power, by his vote, to remunerate all the brave men
who had lost by one common calamity, the last war. He
would not make them rich because they suffered, but he
felt bound—he felt that the principles of his Govern-
ment, as well as those of his heart, bound him to vote a
fair payment of losses.
Mr. M'DUFFIE rose in reply, and said, that so far
as he understood the remarks of the gentleman from
Ohio, they amounted to this : that a Republican Gov-
ernment is bound to pay every claim presented to it,
whether just or unjust. If so, he desired to bp under-
stood that he was not a Republican of that class.
Mr. GAZLAY answered, that he had not thought,
much less said, any thing to warrant the remark which
had just fallen from the gentleman from S. Carolina.
Mr. MERCER then rose, and said that, as the docu-
ments on the table had been turnished at his own sug-
gestion, he felt himself called upon to make some re-
marks on the evidence they contained. He should not
persevere in the general argument, but for himself he
was not prepared to pass the bill, even if' he was sa-
tisfied that its principle was just, because he had not
the information on which alone he conceived it proper
to proceed. The evidence which he wished for had re-
spect to the value of the property lost in the village of
Buffalo. This he could get only by calling on the De-
partments. He knew that the facts could be proved
there only. This was his reason for delaying the bill in
order to make that call. He was disappointed in the
result, inasmuch as it appeared that the documentary
evidence he had desired to obtain, was in the hands of
an agent in the State of New York, and had not been re-
turned to the Department.
It would have shown what losses were proved before
the Commissioner, under the act of 1816. He was also
disappointed at finding that there was no evidence in
the Department of what had been the total amount of
all the claims presented before the Commissioner, from
1816 to 1818. Many of these had been returned to the
claimants for the purpose of being further confirmed,
and others because they had been finally rejected. Un-
der the bill now pending, should it become a law, these
claims would all come back again before the Miird Audi-
tor. There was a second class which had been presented,
but not acted on, and there was also a third class on
which reports have been made. As it was, the House
could hope only to get the amount of value ot one class ;
and he asked, if gentlemen were prepared to pass the
present bill, without knowing what is the amount of the
claims which it would cover? The bill says that, it the
claims exceed a certain amount, the payment is to be
made pro rata. On what} On the amount lost ? No,
but on the sum granted by us to pay those losses. Does
not the House thus dishonor itself and the nation .—
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales, Joseph, 1761-1841. Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress, book, 1825; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30752/m1/139/: accessed April 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.