1 Claims for the Use and Destruction of Private Property during llie Late War. ' SPEECH HON. JOHN RITCHIE, OF M:^R YL^IsTD, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 1 3, 1872. The House having met for debate as in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union — xMr. RITCHIE said: Mr. Speaker : I propose on this occasion to invite the attention of the House to the bill that I introduced early in the session, and which is now pending in the Com- mit lee on Appropriations, '' lor the ascertain- ment and examination of all claims for com- pensation for the use. damage to, and destruc- tion of private property by and for the benefit of the United States Army during the late war arising in those States that remained in the Union." This measure is one in which the counties of Allegany, Washington, Frederick, Carroll, and Montgomery of my State are especially interested. The bill is as follows : Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represent- atives of the United Slates of America in Conoress axsembled. That the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby, authorized to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Sen- ate, appoint a board of commissioners, to be desig- nated as Commissioners of Chiims, to consist of three eoiamissioners, who shall be commissioned for two years, and whose duty it shall be to receive, examine, and cons.der the justice and validity of such claims as accrued in those States that were not proclaimed as in insurrection to the United States, as shall be brought before them by citizens who re- sided therein, for stores or supplies taken or fur- nished, or lor property used, damngcd, or destroyed for the use of the Army of the United States during the late war for the preservation of the Union, in- cluding the use, loss, damage, or destruction of Vessels or boats while employed in or taken for the benefit of the military service of the United States. And the said commissioners, in considering said claims shall be satisfied, from the testimony of wit- nesses under oath, or from other sufiicient evidence which shall accompany each claim, taken under such rules and regulations as the commissioners may adopt, of the quantity, quality, and value of the property alleged to have been taken, furnished,^ used, damaged, or destroyed, and the time, place, and material circumstances of the taking, furnish- ing, using, damaging, or destroying of the same. And upon satisfactory evidence of the justice and voiiidity of any claim, the commissioners shall re- port their opinion in writing in each case, and shall certify the nature, amount, and value of the prop- erty taken, furnished, used, damaged, or destroyed, as aforesaid. And each claim which shall be con- sidered, and rejected as unjust and invalid, shall likewise be reported, with the reasons therefor ; and no claimant shall withdraw anymaterial evidence submitted in support of any claim. Sec. 2. That said commissioners shall each take the oath of ofiice provided by law to betaken by all officers of the United States, and shall proceed with- out delay to discharge their duties under this act. ThePresident of the United States shall designate in his appointment one of said commissioners to be president of the board, and shall be authorized to fill any vacancy which may occur by reason ot death or resignation in said board; and each commis- sioner shall have authority to administer oaths and affirmations, and to take the depositions of wit- nesses in all matters pertaining to their duties. Tbc said commissioners shall meet and organize said board, and hold their sessions at Washington. Two members of the board shall constitute a quo- rum for the transaction of business, and the agree- ment of two shall decide all questions in contro- versy. The said commissioners shall have authority to make and publish rules for their procedure, not inconsistent with this act. and shall publish notice of their sessions. They shall keep a journal of their proceedings, to besigned by the president of the board, and a register of all claims broughtbefore the board, showing the date of presentation, num- ber, name, and residence of claiinaut, subject-mat- ter and amount of claim, and the amount, if any, allowed, which records shall be open to the inspec- tion of the President and Attorney General of the United States, or of such officer as the President may designate. Sec. 3. That said commissioners shall make are- port of their proceedings, and of each claim consid- ered by them at the commencement of each session of Congress, to the Speaker of the House of Repre- sentatives, who shall lay the same before Congress) for consideration; and all claims within this act and not presented to said board shall be barred, and shall not be entertained by any department of the Government without further authority of Con- gress. Sec. 4. That the commissioners of claims sh.all be paid qu.arterly under this act at the rate of $5,000 per annum each, and they shall have authority to appoint one clerk and one short-hand reporter, to be paid quarterly at the rate of $2,500 per annum each, and one messenger, to be paid at the r»te of $1,200 per annum, who shall perform the services required of them respectively; and said board shall be further allowed the necessary actual expenses of office-rent, furniture, fuel, stationery, and printing. M^T to be certified by the president of the board, and to be audited on vouchers and paid as other judicial expenses nre. Sec. 5. That a sufficient appropriation to carry this act into effect is tiereby made out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. It will be i-einembered that I made an ia- efFeCtual attempt to attach it to the naval appropriation bill some time since; and when the annual Army appropriation bill was on its passage a few days ago I proposed to incor- porate it as an amendment to that iti order to avoid the delay of a report in regular turn from the committee having it in charge; but 1 re- gret to say that notwiihstajiding my appeal to the contrary, the parliamentary point was made, and necessarily sustained, that it was not germane legislation. It is proper to say, how- ever, that the gentleman raising the objection, [Mr. Dickey,] while doing so, disclaimed any hostility to the measure as an independent one ; and I trust, therefore, when it is regu- Lirly readied, to find him, and also the gentle- man from Ohio, [Mr. Garfieui,] who excluded it on the former occasion, with a sufficient num- ber of others, giving it their support. I do not permit myself to suppose that the ra;ijority, which is responsible tor the legisla- tion of this House, will permit a bill so just and meiiiorious in its object and so cautious and moderate in its provisions, to fail of pas- sage. The effect of this bill would be to place those claimants for supplies taken and prop- erly damaged, who reside in the States that C'lntinued in the Union, on an equal footing with loynl claimants for similar relief residing in tiie States that seceded. As the law now stands, the latter class have superior facilities ibr the preferment and con- sideration of their claims, and a wider range in their subject-matter; an inequality that could not have been designed and should not be suifered to continue. Surely — while not meaningany reflection — citizens residing north of the Potomac are imtitled, in any aspect, to equal advantages with those on the other side in seeking redress at the hands of the Govern- raeut. This bill is modeled after that which was in the interest of southern claimants inserted as an amendment into the Army appropriation bill of last year, and it was to secure the weight and equitable suggestion of the precedent and extend the parallel that I endeavored to intro- duce it as an amendment at the same point in the same bill for this year. As in that amendment, this bill provides for the appointment of three commissioners, who are to investigate all claims of the nature de- scribed that may be submitted, and to rejiort the same, with their judgment thereon and the reasons thereof, to Congress for its final disposition. lu view of the reluctance hitherto mani- fested to entertain claims based on loss or destruction of property, 1 have thought a bill providing for their preliminary investigation the most eligible one, and most likely to receive favorable action. It obviates the dan- ger of setting precedents in legislating on par- ticular cases that might prove embarrassing, and of committing Congress in principle to appropriations the extent of which it has now no reliable means of ascertaining. At the same time its adoption would not preclude Congress from taking action in special cases if inclined to do so. It is admitted that many of the numerous appeals for relief and compensation are merit- orious, and that in common justice the Gov- ernment should extend them prompt and favor- able consideration ; yet it is evident that Congress cannot devote the time necessary to a careful investigation of these claims in detail. 'Still, at the same time, the amount involved in the aggregate might prove so large that Congress may be unwilling to transfef all control of them to the ministerial departments. The Committee of Claims is oppressed with a large numljer of these applications, which they are somewhat perplexed how to treat until Congress shall have indicated some set- tled policy ill regard to them. In those various aspects I have presented my bill framed as it is. If Congress is in a mood that will admit of more speedy means for the adjustment of these demands, I shall be only the more pleased to have my method superseded. If this bill shall but serve to in.tiate favorable action of any kind, it will have mainly answered its purpose. If more can be now effected than 1 have supposed, I shall be gratified that I have underrated the disposition to afford relief Should my effort prove the occasion of accomi)lishing something in the desired direction, although in a modified or different shape, and through the agency of some one else, even should it be much less than what 1 have moderately proposed, I shall be glad to welcome it as affording an earnest that adequate justice is eventually attainable. But while I am not exacting as to the method, or even measure of present redress, I am importunate that a beginning should be made in the matter. And if the majority in this body, which has control of its legislation, shall continue to disregard the well-founded appeals which come up from those whose sub- stance was consumed in supplying and sus- taining your triumphant armies, I cannot but hold up such a failure to a much-wronged community as cruel ingratitude and injustice. But I shall at least acquit myself of my re- Iponsibility, and I propose to vex the ear of this House till I touch its heart, if, in the lan- guage of a once popular but now somewhat disparaged individual, it takes not only " all the summer," but the ensuing winter besides. •8 As I have stated, sufferers by reason of '- supplies taken and losses inflicted in the ad- hering States have not the same opportunities with southern clainiauts for pressing their demands. The Court of Claims, by the act of July 4, 18G4, was deprived of jurisdiction in all cases of damage arising from the war; and the same act comprises the only legislation thus far pro- vided for sufferers in the "loyal" States. The relief, however, furnished by that act and the regulations based upon it is entirely inadequate. Under that statute, and the construction given it, the only claims that can be enter- tained are those of loyal citizens for articles that were taken by or supplied to the Army on the authority of a com[>etent officer, and come within the technical discription of '' quarter- master's stores," or "subsistence." Claims for damages for property injured or destroyed, or from thefts or depredation's committed by troops, or so much of a charge for stores or supplies as is an element of damages, are, by the regulations, excepted from consideration. Moreover, proof of the furnishing such arti- cles as are provided for is restricted to "the receipts ol' the otHcers taking the same, or other official evidence, and in the absence thereof there is required the testimony of some officer, soldier, or person employed by the Government personally cognizant of the al- leged appropriation, detailing in full the cir- cumstances attendant thereon, and setting forth of his own knowledge the details of the seizure, the quantities and values, and the use to which this property was applied, and the regiment, company, detachment, or other mili- tary body to the use of which the stores were appropriated." Numerous claims have been rejected because of the failure to furnish evi- dence of this minute and onerous strictness, and its exaction operates a practical denial of justice. From the circumstances and na- ture of the occasion under which much was taken for and supplied to the Army, this proof is in many cases unattainable. Under the southern claims commission the . evidence to establish a claim is such as would be admitted in a suit in a court of law, or be reasonably competent between man and man, and is not conlined to official records or the testimony of those attached to the Army or Government. The testimony of credible private citizens is received ; and common experience and common justice sanction such evidence as properly admissible, particularly where official proof is made unusually difficult from circumstances caused by the party making and benefited by the appropriation, and wlm had the power to take without the consent of the owner, and frequently so exercised it. Can it be that the Government, afier having exercised a power of seizure which is denied the private citizen, will continue to deny common and reasonable facilities to the sufferer to establish his claim for compensation ? It is not in this sense, I trust, that it is boasted we have " a strong" Government. In the nature of the case the emergencies of the Army often forbade the delay of a formal requisition, while they equally necessi- tated an immediate supply of its wants. And frequently when supplies hfid been formally taken, the sudden movements and numerous casualties of a campaign prevented the execu- tion of proper vouchers, or making full offi- cial returns. TJ^ citizen, ignorant of the subdivisions of t.?R~force, was often unable to trace up the officer responsible for the taking of his property, and who could give the necessary voucher, and access to the camps was always difficult, at times imjjossible, atid frequently attended with much personal hazard. Where proper receipts were not secured the effort to supply secondary evidence often proves futile because of the fatalities of the war, and the dis- persion to their unknown homes at\d changing residence of those in the Army wlio were per- sonally cognizant of the taking of the stores. The practical difficulties besetting a sufferer, under the strictness of proof required, must be apparent with but little reflection. The needs, for instance, of au army of a hundred thousand men in active movement, for food, fuel, forage, shelter, and transporta- tion, brooked no delay. After a f )rced march, and in the presence of an active enemy — assailing perhaps the supply trains — bivouack- ing on its arms for a day. or a night, or a week, as the case might be, there was little opportunity for the "red tape" routine that might be practicable in "the piping times of peace," when morning reports, dress-parades, and furbishing buttonschiefly consume the time and relieve the monotony of garrison duty. The three memorable campaigns, with hur- ried marchps, which swept over western Mary- land like siroccos, almost in the same track, and were marked by Antietam, Monocacy, the mf^uace of the national capital itself, and Gettysburg, necessarily involved an immense use amtdestruction of private property. When Lee and McClellan or Lee and Meade were confronting each other, and a Stnan and a Mosby were charging the flank or inter- cepting the wagons, was the cavalry with its jaded horses to sit motionless in their saddles till fresh ones could be regularly bonght or impressed, and proper receipts given? Were the exhausted and famishing inf^xntry to lie shivering in the gloom on the cold earth till cord-wood, as known to the regulations, could be procured from the distant wood-lot, and vouchers in due form made out? Were the starving wagon teams to be hitched passively at the way-side till the owners of adj:)ining pasture -lields or convenient hay-stacks could be hunted up and directed to let down ihe bars? If any inexperienced civilian or martinet can complacently respond in the affirmative, not so would reply the officers and men who endured the rigors, wants, and dangers of active service, and whom you sent to the field. No; the pressing necessities of the Army re- quired to be at once supplied, even if the plow in the field or the farm- team on the way to mill were bereft of horses ; though fences furnished the only ready material for light and fire, or ripening grain fields were the only handy pasturage. But as your Army impersyiYely needed these things, and appropriated tnfls, you are bound to see to it that the damage from these exac- tions is not borne exclusively by those individ- uals who chanced to live in the pathway of your troops or close to their camping grounds, and whom you should reimburse from the com- mon Treasury of that Government which these troops were called out to sustain. The camping of such 4in Army as that led by McClellan or Meade on a farm for even a day or two sufficed to destroy it. Many a fair homestead, blooming with beauty, luxuriant with the coming harvest, and promising a plenteous return to the toiling owner, was trans- formed in a night almost into a desert. The instances are not few in which the destruction has reduced the proprietors and tenants of small farms to the verge of poverty ; and these losses have fallen with peculiar hardship on widows and orphans, who required the more careful husbanding of their small resources to " make both ends meet." Especially frequent are such cases of hardship in Montgomery county, which lies within the shadow of the Dome that covers us, and which should symbol- ize the moral rectitude, as well as power, size, and aspirations of this great llepublic. While the dusky antipodes ot Japan can open the hand of your bounty in mammoth subsidies, and the outstretched arms of Ethiopia encircle you in welcome embrace, let your brethren at the door at least have justice. While the hand of war pressed heavily on all western Maryland, the county of Montgomery particulary suffered. In ISGOsheownei within her borders five thousand four hundred and twenty-one slaves, worth $2,500,000, a prop- erty in which her people had invested under the solemn recognition and sanction of the Constitution, in which instrument New Eng- land had secured, as one of the conditions of its ado()tion, against southern remonstrance, the extension of the slave trade till 1808. These $2,500,000 of property, more than a fourth of her entire wealth, you forcibly consumed in your holocaust of freedom. For this she is urginj^ no cl:iim : but as you lay her under tribute, stripped as she has been, equally with other portions of the land, to support the Government and pay the war debt, see to it that she suifers, as far as you can elfuct it, only her fair proportion of the actual desola- tions and ravages of the war. Equitably con- sidered, every exaction from a citizen for national purposes beyond his distributive share of the common burden is but the con- tribution of a trustee or agent, which the Gov- ernment, in good conscience, is bound to reim- burse him. But further, not only is the relief afforded by the act of July 4, 1864, too narrow, first, in limiting the compensation to such articles taken by or furnished to the Army as were appropriated by the authority of an officer; and secondly, in restricting the proof of such appropriation to written official evidence, or the testimony of those attached to the Army or in the employ of the Government, but it ia grossly inadequate in that it excludes all claims for supplies that do not come within the defi- nition, technically, of "quartermaster's stores" or "subsistence," or are founded on "depre- dations" or the damage, as such, to property. Now, it might fairly be contended that upon the advent of an army which practically super- sedes or suspends the ability of the ordinary civil authorities to maintain law and order and punish offenders, and renders the citizen pow- erless to protect his property — exposing him indeed to personal danger from straggling soldiery if he attempts it — the Government, which is responsible for the presence of that army, is responsible for all the consequences of its acts which the private citizen by no reasonable precautions or efforts of his own can prevent. But, conceding that the Government should not be held liable for losses from theft and unauthorized depredations as commonly un- derstood, or for destruction of property wan- tonly committed, there still remains a class of depredations which, while perpetrated with- out specific orders, and not literally within the denomination of "quartermaster's stores" or "subsistence," were yet committed as much to meet the necessary wants and exigencies of the Army, and were as expressly so applied, as any supplies technically recognized as such. Examples of this species of depredation are grain-fields into which cavalrymen and team- sters turned their famishing horses, and fenc- ing consumed as fuel for camp-fires. Grow- ing wheat is not recognized as among "quar- termaster's stores" or "subsistence;" nor are fences that have bfeen burned allowed for except at the marketable rate of cord-wood. How inadequate such a compensation, to com- mute say, twenty panels of post and rail fenc- ing, worth $1 50 {)er panel, as a cord of wood at the price of three dollars; and yet this is the rate of compensation which now mocks the owner who seeks relief for the destruction of his inclosures and the laying open of his farm as a common ! But not even this meager pittance is avail- able if the fences were torn down to admit of free passage for troops, or were used in making breastworks. And there is further, no relief whatever where farms have been seamed over and rendered unfit for husbandry, or even occupation, by entrenchments and ditches, or were made the sites of fortifications, as was particularly the case in the vicinity of Wash- ington ; where too, acres upon acres of valua- ble groves and bodies of timber were felled as defensive obstructions, or to clear the view and prevent surprise. Another class of meritorious claimants in Maryland are those interested in and doing business in connection with the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, and the Chesapeake and Ohio canal. These works run beside the Potomac river, along which the war raged with especial fury. Every canal boat was liable to seizure for the transportation of troops and supplies, and their availability for such uses peculiarly exposed them to loss and destruction. Still another class of sufferers not sufficiently provided for are the owners of churches, sem- inaries, school-houses, and other buildings that were occupied as quarters and hospitals for troops. True, such occupation has been in instances paid for so far as such use could be treated as a mere renting. But such a rule of payment is grossly inadequate ; for it ex- cludes from the estimate all injury in excess of ordinary wear and tear, while the buildings were often so dismantled and ruined as to ren- der them unfit, except at heavy outlay, for their original purpose. It also debars from consideration the incidental injury to the busi- ness connected with the edifice, sometimes its chief element of value, as is the case where institutions of learning were appropriated, and the scholars were necessarily dispersed to their homes or other places of tuition. President Grant, while in command of the army, advocated the equity of compensation to owners of property occupied or destroyed for " public use," as appears from his in- dorsement of the claim of James and Emma S. Cameron for relief for the appropriation of their residence by United States troops, re- cently qouted, and with approval, by the Committee on Claims of the Senate. There is one particular in which the bill I have introduced differs from the law estab- lishing the southern claims commission, and from the act of July 4, 18C4. In the first of these two it is directed that the commissioners in considering the claims must be satisfied, not only of their justice and validity, but also of "the loyalty"ofthe claimant. In theact of 1864 there is a provision similar in effect, and the Quartermaster Getieral and the Commissary General of Subsistence, in their respective departments, are made tlie tribunals to in- vestigate and determine this question of loyally. In the bill I have tiubmiaed proof is required only of "the justice and validity of the claim." This may be regarded as a material omis- sion by the majority in this House; and if its disposition is such that no additional facili- ties will be accorded to claimants unless the qualification referred to is added, I would sug- gest that the bill is within the power of this House for such amendments as it may insist upon. I can only say for myself that in the light of my sworn obligation to support the Constitution as I understand that fundamental charter alike of our powers and of the rights of the citizen, I could not recognize in any legislation of my offering a discrimination so false in principle, so pernicious in example, and so unjust in operation. The genius and safeguard of republican institutions is freedom of opinion and account- ability only for actual deeds to rightfully es- tablished law. In tl)at view, and providing for both as inevitable and desirable in a coun- try intended to be free, the fullest liberty of thought and conviction, the framers of our organic law took care to define in what treason should consist: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in ppeu court." — United States Consti- tution, article 3 section 3. Disloyalty is not taken cognizance of until it shall have assumed form and expression in a tangible or overt act. And whether such overt act has been committed is to be determ- ined only by that tribunal provided by the Constitution for that purpose. It declares: "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of im- peachment, shall be by jury." — Constitution, article 3, section 2. And further : "No person shall beheld to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a present- ment or indictment of a grand jury." * * « * "Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private prop- erty be taken for public use, without just compen- sation." — Amendment^ to Constitution, article 5. ■'In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accu- sation ; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." — Amendment to Con- stitution, article 6. "The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted." — Constitu- tion, article 3, section 3. "No bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed." — Constitution, article 1, section 9. Now, it is an established principle of con- struction, that what cannot be directly done cannot be done indirectly. 6 Since, therefore, the Constitution has de- fined the constituents Bnd offense of treason, and has prescribed the mode by which the guilt of its perpetrator shall be established, it is, to my apprehension, a violation of that instru- ment to impute that offense when any of the ingredients which it specifies are lacking ; or to try and in effect convict on practically what is an accusation of treason, in a mode other than that which it has ordained. Tested by the above-recited requirements of the Constitution, how unwarranted and illegal is a private accusation of disloyalty, unaccompanied by specific charges, to usurp the functions of a jury and invest them in the Quartermaster General for its determination, and then, as is the practice in his department, investigate the charge in the absence of the accused, in a secret, ex parte proceeding, without opportunity to the party charged to confront the witnesses, and even, indeed, as is generally the case, without being able to ascertain who they are. Could there be a more flagrant and dangerous violation of all the safeguards of private rights? But, further. Assun.ing a charge of dis- loyalty, and so preferred, to be a proper one, the quartermaster an appropriate tribunal to try it, a secret investigation by concealed wit- nesses legitimate, and the guilt of the accused established, it by no means follows that you have the right to deprive him of his property, and to an extent dependent on and having no limits but the necessities of the Army as the penalty of such guilt. However plausible the ''plea of necessity" for confining his person in the exigencies of war and within the range of martial authority, you have no right to work a forfeiture of his estate by withholding pay- ment for the property you have deprived liimof. The constitutional injunction still remains: "Nor shall i)rivate property be taken for public use without just compensation." Among nil the penalties you have prescribed in your statute law against, the traitor, the murderer, the pirate, and the robber, commen cing with the act of 1790, chapter nine, enacted in pursuance of the constitutional power to Congress to define the puTiishment of treason and other crimes, this prohibition has been re- spected. By that very act, in section twenty- four, still ill full force, and but a reaffirmance of the constitutional injunction, it is declared that— "No conviction or judgment for any capital or other offenses shall work corruption of blood or any forfeiture of estate." Chief Justice Story, that champion of Fed- eral power, on page 180, vol. 2, of his Commen- tary on the Constitution, in eulogizing the wis- dom and expediency of the clauses prohibiting bills of attainder and forfeiiure of esiaie, re- marks, (and the quotation lias great pertinence:) "Ibo Lislury uf other couutries abundantly proves that one of the strong incentives to prose- cute offenses as treason, h;is been the chance of sharing in the plunder of the victims. Rapacity has been thus stimulated to exert itself in the ser- vice of the most corrupt tyranny; and tyranny has been thus furnishrd with new opportunity of in- dulging its malignity and revenge ; of gratifying its i envy of the rich and good; and of increasing its means to reward favorites and secure retainers for the worst deeds." And on page 239 he continues: "The injustice and iniquity of such acts in gen- eral constitute an irresistible argument asainst the existence of the power. In a free Government it would be intolerable, and in the hands of a reigning faction it might be, and probably would be, abused to the ruin and death of the most virtuous citizens. Bills of this sort have been most usually passed in England in times of rebellion, or gross subserviency to the Crown, or of violent political exnitemonts; periods in which all nations are most liable (as well the free as enslaved) to forget their duties and to trample upon the rights and liberties of others." By the laws of civilized warfare, private property even in an enemy's country is re- spected. In his triumphant march to the city of Mexico, the famous Scott added to iiis laurels by his scrupulous observance of the rule. And more recently the king of Pru,