Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress Page: 131
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:
431
GALES £2? SEATON'S EEGISTER
482
H.ofR.]
Niagara Sufferers.
QJan. 4, 1825.
they did in 1816 and 1817. That law had been in part
acted on by officers of the Government, and a part of the
claims had been paid under it. Grant that experience
had proven that the act had been poorly worded, and
badly executed—was that a reason why Congress should
now,from mere sordid and pecuniary "motives, withhold
payment from the residue of the claimants equally in-
cluded within its provisions ? Gentlemen in their pri-
vate capacity would not act in this manner; and shall
we, asked Mr. Boss, because this Hall contains upward
of two hundred men, shelter ourselves from responsibili-
ty, and do what we should be ashamed of, each 'saying
by way of apology, "It is not me, it is the Congress of
the United States that has done it ?" No: let us rather
act with boldness, under a due sense of what is our im-
perative duty.
But the bill has been objected to as though it were
for the benefit of the Niagara frontier alone. Sir, said
Mr. R. when I heard this objection, I was astonished. I
had supposed, from hearing and reading the bill, that
it referred to all, without distinction, whose property had
suffered in the same way. If it happened that there
were more sufferers on this particular frontier than 011
any other, be it so: it is a thing Congress could not help :
it is their misfortune, said Mr. B.—let it not be our gain.
As to the extent of the occupation, it would be in the
recollection of all who were conversant with the history
of the late war, that the entire frontier, so early as 1812,
was little else than a great cantonment. Both the regular
army and militia made it their place of rendezvous. Buf-
falo, especially, was the rallying point for our whole
force. Now, it was notorious that the Government had
provided no camp equipage. There were the troops
exposed and sick, without quarters, and almost without
covering; and, close by, was a town affording comforta-
ble shelter. Would any man hesitate as to what was the
duty of the American officers ? Were they to leave the
troops under their command to perish in the open air,
many of them sick, many wounded, and none properly
clothed? Surely not. The houses were taken posses-
sion of, and it was right they should be. They were our
only camp, our only barracks, our only magazines; and,
while in this constructive occupation by the Government
of the United States, they were destroyed by the enemy.
But, we are asked, how happens it that the destruction
■was indiscriminate and universal ? that no selection was
made—but all the buildings on the frontier laid waste ?
Why, sir, it can hardly be expected that the enemy,
when successfully invading a hostile country, should go
into every house and inquire, Is this house occupied, or
lias it at any time been occupied, by the troops or muni-
tions of the Government ? At such a moment it is held
sufficient that the house is apparently in public use—it
is destroyed without further ceremony. But because
some have been destroyed wrongfully, is that a good
reason why they should pay for none ? Suppose these
houses had been built by the Government, and occasion-
ally occupied by troops or by public stores, would there
be any question or doubt that the Government would be
bound to suffer the loss ? It would then be held that
these buildings belonged to Government. But what
difference did it make in the case who built the houses?
Is the loss not to be borne by the Government because
the Government did not builcl the house that was de-
stroyed ? Suppose the United States had bought the
houses, (no matter what their form or what their size
whether of stone or of wood, in the form of a castle, or
of a dwelling house, or of a barn,) there would then be
no question who was to bear the loss. ISut what differ-
ence does it make if the Government takes the houses,
and uses them as it would if it had bought or had built
them ? They were used for a military purpose, and they
were destroyed for a military end. They were burnt,
that thereby we might be weakened and the enemy
might be proportionably strengthened. The fact of the
destruction was enough—the presumption followed of
course that this was the cause of the destruction.
Gentlemen, however, maintained that the destruction
was accomplished on a principle of retaliation. The
evidence, however, all went to show that, not only was
it the understanding of the American army, but of the
British officers themselves, that the invasion and de-
struction of the frontier was on account of its occupation
by the American forces. Here Mr. R. referred to the
letter of Col. Chapin, the capitulation at Buffalo, &c. and
argued from both, that it was the shelter giv^n to the
American army that occasioned the destruction of the
houses. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Bucha-
nak,) had referred, yesterday, to the same event, and
had contended that the burning of Buffalo was an out-
rage on the principles and usage of civilized warfare—
that it was a wanton destruction of private property,
Bui, said Mr. R., it appeared, from the conversation of
Col, Chapin with the British Gen. Rial), that the cause
assigned by him at the 'ime was, that, when he entered
the town, he found the houses occupied as bavracks and
magazines. Other testimony went to establish the same
fact. Indeed it was perfectly notorious, that the Govern-
ment had no other barracks or magazines for their army.
Mr. R. referred also to the language of Gen. Prevost, at
Quebec, as reported by Capt. Swazy, who had asked
leave to lay waste the frontier, and had been told, in
reply, that the British arms should never be stained by
such an act of retaliation. He compared dates to show
that, at this time, Prevost did not know of the ravaging
of the Niagara frontier, and argued, from the dates and
distances, that it was impossible he could have order-
ed it; although, afterwards, in his proclamation, he held
out the idea that he had commanded it in retaliation
for the burning of Newark, which he calls an "act of
meanness and cruelty " The proclamation was evident-
ly, palpably, nothing more than a mere salvo to cover
the infamy of an act which he had before condemned,
as tarnishing the British arms. Mr. R. inferred, from
the whole case, that the country had been wasted solely
because it afforded a shelter to our army, and enabled it
to act with effect against the forces on trie other side.
so, ought not the House to go back to the principle
oi its own act of 1816, under which a part of these claims
had already been paid ? Mr. R. concluded by assign-
ing some reasons why he had felt himself bound to de-
liver his sentiments on this subject, conceiving that his
course, on a former occasion, might otherwise have led
to a false conclusion as to what were his principles io
relation to the Niagara Claims.
Mr. FARKELLY, of Pennsylvania, rose, and, in an
argumentative speech of some length, advocated the
bill. Conceiving that the dispute which had taken place,
regarded rather the facts of the case than the principle
on which the law should be framed, he proposed to in-
quire whether the property for which indemnification
was claimed, was, or was not, a legitimate subject of de-
struction by the enemy. To determine this point, he ar-
gued, it ought to be remembered that the Niagara Fron-
tier was the only point from which the Government pro-
posed-to make a descent upon the enemy's territory. It
was here that, in 1812, an army had been collected and
commanded by a gentleman, now an honorable member
of this House, (Gen. Smyth,) and it was from this fron-
tier, in the fall of that year, another honorable
member (Gen. Van Rensselaer) had made a descent on
the Canada lines These facts were suffcient evidence
that this was the place from which we intended our hos-
tile operations to proceed : yet no barracks had been
provided; no arsenals were built there ; no accommoda-
tions were prepared for our troops. He asked whether,
under such circumstances, it did not become the. duty of
a British military commander, if he had any regard for
the interest oi his country, and his own military reputa-
: tion, to dcstrov the only means of our army. He found
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/m1/70/?rotate=90: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.