Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2010 with funding from 
 The Library of Congress 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/warclaimsofbordeOOmeye 
 
War Claims of the Border States. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 //■ 
 
 HON. B. F. MEYERS, 
 
 OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE 
 
 UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 APEIL e. 1S72. 
 
 PRINTED AT THE OFFIOE OF THE DAILY PATEIOT, 
 llARRISBURy, PA. 
 
 18 7 2. 
 
11- ^ ?5. "^ 
 
War Claims of the Border States. 
 
 
 Mr. Meyers— Mr. Speaker : Dur- 
 ing the early part of the present ses- 
 sion of congress a bill was introduced 
 in the House by the gentleman from 
 Maryland [Mr. Eitchie] providing for 
 " the ascertainment and examination 
 of claims for compensation for the 
 use and destruction of private prop- 
 erty by the United States army, dur- 
 ing the late war for the preservation 
 of the Union, in the states not pro- 
 claimed in insurrection against the 
 United States," and authorizing the 
 President, by and with the advice and 
 consent of the Senate, to appoint a 
 board of commissioners, whose duty 
 it shall be to receive, examine and 
 consider the justice and validity of 
 such claims. 
 
 There can be no doubt as to the pro- 
 priety of the passage of this bill. It 
 is but the initial measure of that just 
 legislation which the people of the ad- 
 hering states whose property was de- 
 stroyed during the war of the rebel- 
 lion, have so long but so vainly ex- 
 pected at the hands of congress. 
 Though modest in purpose and limited 
 in scope, its passage would be regarded 
 as an earnest that the federal author- 
 ity recognizes and means to discharge 
 CO the extent of its power its duty of 
 protection to the citizen, as well by in- 
 demnity for injuries to ])rivate proper- 
 ty resulting from domestic violence 
 too powerful to be suppressed by in- 
 dividual states, as by compensation 
 for such injuries inflicted directly by 
 the acts of its own agents. The bill, 
 indeed, is not sufficiently comprehen- 
 sive. It fails to provide for the ascer- 
 tainmpjit of losses sustained by citizens 
 of the adhering states through the 
 
 seizure and destruction of property in 
 such states by the insurrectionary 
 armies. In this respect it should be 
 amended. But it will do for a begin- 
 ning. It will serve as a pioneer to 
 clear the way for measures approach- 
 ing more nearly that adequate justice 
 sought and expected by those who ask 
 its passage. 
 
 While it is true that the citizen 
 owes fealty to the government of which 
 he is the subject, the converse of tlie 
 proposition is equally true, that tlie 
 government owes protection to the sub- 
 ject. These mutual and reciprocal ob- 
 ligations of the governor and the gov- 
 erned lie at the foundation of our 
 polity. The very object of the forma- 
 tion of the federal system was at the 
 same time to draw the people of the 
 states into a closer union, and to en- 
 able and require the general govern- 
 ment to defend them against foreign 
 aggression and internal disorder. The 
 preamble to the constitution declares 
 that— 
 
 "We, the people of the United 
 States, in order to form a more perfect 
 Union, establish justice, insure do 
 mestic tranquillity, provide for the 
 common defense, promote the general 
 welfare, and secure the blessings of 
 liberty to ourselves and our posterity, 
 do ordain and establish this constitu- 
 tion." 
 
 It is plain, therefore, that the gov- 
 ernment created by the constitution is 
 obliged to maintain domestic tran- 
 quillity and provide for the common 
 defense; and it logically follows that 
 the whole people of all the states are 
 equally bound to sustain it in the dis- 
 charge of this duty. There can be no 
 
partiality in the distribution of tjiis 
 burden. Tliere can be no in- 
 equality as to the responsibility 
 of the states or the people in 
 this behalf. This rule of impartiality 
 and equality to be applied to the 
 states and people by the general gov- 
 ernment in drawing upon their resour- 
 ces for the preservation of domestic 
 tranquillity and in providing for the 
 common defense is not confined to the 
 raising of armies and the levying of 
 taxes for their support. It has a 
 broader and more comprehensive sig- 
 nificance. It certainly embraces losses 
 of private property on the part of citi- 
 zens faithful to the government, occa- 
 sioned by the act of the government or 
 by its failure to perform its legitimate 
 functions. Such losses are to be borne 
 as the expense of raising and support- 
 ing armies is borne, by the whole peo- 
 ple, not by the few who are forced by 
 the fortunes of war temporarily to 
 sustain them. 
 
 If the general government, in pro- 
 ceeding to quell insurrection in order 
 to fulfill its duty of insuring domestic 
 tranquillity made obligatory upon it by 
 the organic law, should, through its 
 civil or military agents, seize the pro- 
 perty of A (who is a faithful adherent 
 of the government), and convert it to 
 its own use or destroy it, is the burden 
 of A's loss not to be shared e(iually by 
 the remainder of the people who are 
 alike interested with Inm in the su- 
 premacy of law and the restoration of 
 peace V Or, if the general government 
 fail to i)rovide for the common de- 
 fense, so that tlie public enemy be per- 
 mitted to injure or destroy the property 
 of A, does not the whole people, of 
 whom the government is merely the 
 agent or representative, owe him in- 
 demnity? If not, then the consti- 
 tution is a meaningless instrument, 
 and the equality of rights and duties 
 .supposed to belong to American citi- 
 
 zenship a figment of the patriotic 
 imagination. 
 
 Certainly, no true believer in the 
 just principle of equal rights and equal 
 responsibilities on the part of each 
 and every citizen, which is the basis of 
 the republic, will deny that it is the spir- 
 it and intent of the organic law that the 
 burdens of government shall be borne 
 alike by the whole people, and that its 
 benefits shall be shared alike by all 
 who bear it true allegiance. But con- 
 gress has thus far failed to make a 
 general application of this equitable 
 principle in dealing with the claims 
 of citizens for compensation for pri- 
 vate property injured or destroyed 
 during the recent war by the army of 
 the United States and the troops of 
 the rebellion. Wliy this delay to do 
 justice to those who, notwithstanding 
 their fidelity to the cause of the gene- 
 ral government, were either delib- 
 erately stripped of their property by 
 tlie armies which themselves aided in 
 raising and supporting, or were obliged 
 to submit to pillage by the public 
 enemy on account of that govern- 
 ment failing to make proper pro- 
 vision for the common defense ? Is 
 it not high time that these wrongs, 
 so patiently and patriotically borne, 
 be redressed V It is the trick of 
 the deiuiigogue to make ostentatious 
 profession of maintaining what he 
 is pleased to term "the nation's hon- 
 or." It is the fashion among states- 
 men to insist, with the unction of a 
 scrupulous honesty, upon the payment 
 of the public debt to the very last 
 cent. The value of private property 
 consumed in the tlames of civil war, 
 which belonged to citizens faithful in 
 tlieir allegiance, is under the equities 
 of the constitution, if not by the ex- 
 press letter of the law, as much a part 
 of the public debt as if it were a l)ond 
 of the United States held by the rich- 
 est broker in Wall street; and thena- 
 
tional honor suffers quite as much, in 
 the siglit of every just man, from the 
 deliberate and wanton disregard of 
 this fact by the general government, 
 as it ■would from the repudiation of 
 the solemnly executed bargains of 
 Secretary Boutwell's syndicate. But 
 there seems nothing in this to chal- 
 lenge the attention of either dema- 
 gogue or statesman. 
 
 It may be argued by some that while 
 it cannot be disputed that the general 
 government is bound, to make good to 
 citizens of the adhering states such 
 losses of property incurred by them 
 during the late war as were caused by 
 its direct act it is not responsible in 
 any case for damages inflicted by the 
 public enemy. Section four of article 
 four of the constitution furnishes a 
 complete answer to this argument : 
 
 "The United States shall guaranty 
 to every state of the union a republi- 
 can form of government, and shall 
 protect each of them against invasion, 
 and on application of the legislature 
 or of the executive (when the legis- 
 lature cannot be convened) against 
 domestic violence." 
 
 The language of the organic law is 
 mandatory. It declares that the gen- 
 eral government shall protect each 
 state against invasion ; and by this 
 is meant not merely the prevention of 
 incursions of the public enemy upon 
 the territory of the states, but the 
 safe-keeping of the lives, liberty and 
 property of its citizens, Webster thus 
 defines the verb "to protect :" "To 
 cover from danger or injury; to throw 
 a shelter over ; to keep in safety." The 
 duty of protecting the states against 
 invasion, enjoined upon the general 
 government, therefore embraces the 
 responsibility of covering from danger 
 or injury, sheltering or keeping in 
 safety, as well the pioperty as the lives 
 and liberty of the citizens of the 
 states. If, then, a state is invaded. 
 
 the constitution presumes the prop- 
 erty of its citizens to be in the safe- 
 keeping of the general government, 
 which is bound by the very terms of 
 its existence to cover it from danger 
 or injury; and which, being thus made 
 the trustee for the citizens of the 
 state, is responsible to them for the 
 value of the property so entrusted to 
 its protection. 
 
 If the provision of the constitution 
 just quoted contemplated nothing be- 
 yond the prevention of a hostile army 
 from entering the territory of a state, 
 it would be of little value ; for when- 
 ever our country becomes the theatre 
 of war the soil of some of the states 
 must of necessity be invaded. Hence 
 that provision must be given a broader 
 interpretation. It must mean that 
 the general government is responsible 
 for the expulsion of the invader and 
 the injuries sustained by the citizens 
 of the state from the invasion. 
 
 But, conceding for the sake of the ar- 
 gument, that the United States are not 
 bound by the terms of the constitution 
 to make compensation to citizens for 
 losses of property incurred by theivi at 
 the hands of the public enemy, it does 
 not follow that congress may not per- 
 form an act of justice toward the peo- 
 ple who have suffered on account of 
 the inability of the general govern- 
 ment to protect them in the enjoyment 
 of the rights guaranteed them in the 
 organic law. It is doubtless good poli- 
 cy for the state, as well as for individ- 
 uals, to ol)serve the maxim which 
 teaches us to be j ust before we are 
 generous, but the opposite doctrine 
 seems to prevail in federal legislation. 
 
 Subsidies of millions of dollars to 
 private corporations receive approv- 
 ing votes, hundreds of millions of 
 acres of the public domain are bestowed 
 upon railroad companies, and the ne- 
 gotiation of government loans is made 
 to pour the wealth of Crcesus into 
 
the laps of favorites. The people for 
 whom I have the houor to speak claim 
 no such largess. They seek no gifts. 
 They ask no alms. They simply de- 
 mand justice, ^[ay it not be reasona- 
 bly expected that a government so 
 generous to those to whom it owes 
 nothing will not disregard the petition 
 of those to whom it is greatly indebted? 
 For, truly, the people whose cause I 
 am attempting to advocate, suffered 
 mucli for the sake of the republic. 
 They are tlie men of the border— those 
 men who during the war of the rebell- 
 ion were the living rampart of the 
 states which adhered to the general 
 government. They are the men whose 
 mountain farms were the fortresses of 
 M'Clellan and Meade, whose homes 
 were given to the flames by the torch 
 of M'Causland, and whose flelds are 
 historic in the world-renowned names 
 of Antietam and Gettysburg. 
 
 Many of them were soldiers of the 
 United States army, faithfully dis- 
 charging their duty, while the govern- 
 ment for whose preservation they 
 faced the cannon's mouth, seized and 
 used or destroyed their property, or 
 failed to dafend it against pillage and 
 destruction by the public enemy. The 
 widow and the orphan of the lieroic 
 dead who fell in defense of the Union 
 are numbered among those whose 
 property was made a part of the au- 
 gust sacrihce for the preservation of 
 tlie republic, and aged and infirm pa- 
 rents, whose sons sleep in nameless 
 graves on distant battle fields, are on 
 the same roll of unfortunates. It can- 
 not be that the just expectation of 
 these sufferers in the cause of the 
 union will be disappointed by indiffer- 
 ence and neglect on the part of 
 the representatives of the peo- 
 ple. It is scarcely to be feared that 
 the proverbial ingratitude of republics 
 is to be so sharply illustrated, so pe- 
 culiarly signali'/ed. 
 
 Objection will doubtless be made 
 upon the ground that a large exi)ense 
 will be entailed on the government if 
 the claims in question be allowed by 
 congress. I am not advised as to the 
 sum which would be required for their 
 satisfaction. Until the bill introduced 
 by the gentleman from Maryland, or 
 some measure of a like character, be- 
 comes a law, the amount cannot be ob- 
 tained with exactness. The claims of 
 citizens of my own state, for losses of 
 the character descril)ed, will not ex- 
 ceed $3,000,000. Those of citizens of 
 Maryland will hardly reach that sura. 
 I venture to say that $10,000,000 will 
 cover the entire amount of claims for 
 losses sustained in the adhering states 
 during the war of the rebellion 
 through the injury and destruction of 
 private property by the troops of botli 
 armies. Were it twice or thrice that 
 sum the government can pay it with- 
 out the slightest embarrassment. In- 
 deed, I am persuaded that the admin- 
 istration of public affairs with a pro- 
 per regard to economy would reduce 
 the present expenditures of the gov- 
 ernment to such an extent that these 
 claims might be paid in a single year, 
 and the burden of the taxpayers made 
 lighter than it was during the last fis- 
 cal year. It will not be out of place 
 here to attempt the proof of this. 
 
 The expenditures of the general gov- 
 ernment for the fiscal year ended June 
 30, 1871, were, as shown by the report 
 of the secretary of the treasury; 
 For civil and miscellaneous pur- 
 poses Si9,498,710 07 
 
 For the war departmeut 44,080,084 95 
 
 For the navy department 19,431,027 21 
 
 For Indians. 7,426,997 4! 
 
 Total exDendltures, not Includ- 
 ing pensions and payments on 
 interest and principal of public 
 debt 1140,43(5,8:0 57 
 
 Compare with this exhibit the expen- 
 ditures of the general government for 
 
the fiscal year ended June 30, 1860, as 
 stated in the report of the secretary of 
 the treasury for that year : 
 
 For civil, and miscellaneous pur- 
 poses $28,105,174 83 
 
 For the war department 16,409,767 10 
 
 For the nayj' department 11,513.150 19 
 
 For Indians 2,727,655 23 
 
 Total expenditures, uotmcludiug 
 pensions and pa yments on in- 
 terest and principal of the pub- 
 lic debt »5S 7P5.747 40 
 
 Here is shown an increase of the sura 
 total of the ordinary expenses of the 
 government for the fiscal year ended 
 June 30, 1871, over tlmt of the same 
 for tlie fiscal year ended June. 30, 1800, 
 of .$81,081,073.10. The cost of main- 
 taining the war department is now al- 
 most tliree times as much as it was in 
 1800. The same proportion holds good 
 as to the Indian department, wliile 
 the payments for the civil service and 
 miscellaneous purposes are two and a 
 half times ay great as they were in 
 1860, and the expenses of tlie navy de- 
 partment almost double what they 
 were then. It is but necessary to know 
 tliat the army of the United States at 
 present numbers twice as many men 
 as in 1860 to understand wliy the ex- 
 penses of the war department are 
 $28,000,000 greater per annum now 
 than they were eleven years ago. But 
 the most adroit apologist for the pres- 
 ence of a Urge standing army in the 
 midst of a free people cannot invent a 
 good reason why the government 
 should at this time be provided with a 
 military force of 30,000 men since 
 15,000 formerly performed all the ser- 
 vice which can now be legitimately re- 
 quired of the army. 
 
 The present is a time of profound 
 ppace. Domestic violence has ceased; 
 the attitude of foreign powers toward 
 our country is entirely pacific; and 
 "Lo! the poor Indian"' r-mokes his 
 calumet tilled with the kiniukinnick 
 
 of tranquillity. The battle flags are 
 furled, and the bloody occupation of 
 the military arm of the government is 
 gone— let us hope forever. The num- 
 ber of forts to be garrisoned, the ex- 
 tent of frontier to be guarded, the 
 work to be done by the army in every 
 respect, is not greater now than in 
 1860. Ah! I had forgotten. The pres- 
 ent federal executive has necessities 
 and perplexities which were unknown 
 to his predecessors in office. The 
 sword alone can cut the way for him 
 through the wilderness of difficulfeies 
 which surrounds his candidacy for 
 re-election. Party conventions must 
 feel the persuasive power of fix- 
 ed bayonets: federal troops must 
 parade the streets of New York, Tliil- 
 adelphia and other large cities on 
 'election day; and a brilliant military 
 I campaign must be made in all the 
 I southern states under the sacred ban- 
 I ner of the carpet bag. Herein is found 
 j the only reason for keeping up a stand. 
 I iiig army of 30,000 men at a cost of 
 i $44,000,000 per annum. It is not cer- 
 tain, but perhaps possible, that if a 
 new and indefinite lease of power were 
 assured the administration, a reduc- 
 tion of tlie number of troops would be 
 made whicli would save the govern- 
 ment some |iL'0,000,000 annually, and 
 thus enable it the more easily to pay 
 some of its honest debts. 
 
 Why is the expense of maintaining 
 the navy so enormous; or why, indeed, 
 are there any appropriations at all for 
 that department V We have no navy. 
 It is as much a myth as old Neptune 
 himself. Our few ships of war, well 
 as they are manned and officered, do 
 not constitute a navy. Why then 
 does this department cost us $8,000,- 
 000 per annum more than in 1860? 
 Since the country pays for a proper 
 naval establishment, the government 
 ought to give it such an establish- 
 ment or cease to tax the people in that 
 
l)ehalf, and devote its surplus cash to 
 additional payments of its honest 
 debts. 
 
 Why has the expense of the Indian 
 department been tripled since 1860 ? 
 Are we not told tliat the present ad- 
 ministration lias treated the Indian 
 (luestion with splendid success; nay, 
 was not the last tomaliawk buried in 
 the grave of the shiin Piegan women V 
 Have we not had the gentle suasion 
 of General Parker and Vincent Colyer 
 winning the savage nature to the prac- 
 tices of civilization and the arts of 
 peace V It must be that under the 
 lienignant influences of the iiresent 
 administration the aboriginal race has 
 greatly increased in numbers, and 
 lience the heavy expense of the bu- 
 reau which has charge of its affairs. 
 Statisticians say otherwise, but they 
 are doubtless at fault. Be that as it 
 may, 1 concUide that it is quite prob- 
 able that, with a proper manage- 
 ment of that bureau, several mill- 
 ion dollars could be saved annually, 
 which the government might apply in 
 ftntlier payment of its honest debts. 
 
 Wliy are the expenses on account of 
 the civil list and miscellaneous pur- 
 poses $41,(W0,(K)0 greater per an- 
 num than they were eleven years 
 ago y The machinery of tlie govern- 
 ment paid for under tliese heads is the 
 same now as it was then, with the ex- 
 ception of the internal revenue depart- 
 ment, which cost for the last fiscal 
 year S9,000,(HX). Deduct the expenbes 
 of that department from the $41,000,- 
 000 of increase on account of the 
 civil list and miscellaneous pur- 
 poses, and there still remain to 
 be accounted for i>i32,000,000 per 
 anniun. How is this enormous aug- 
 mentation of expenditures under these ' 
 heads to be explained? Is any expla- j 
 nation [(osiubleV Does it not betoken i 
 wastefulness, extravagance, or some- [ 
 thing worse in the management of the ' 
 
 bureaus which heap this monstrous 
 expense upon the shoulders of the 
 people? It is not to be doubted that 
 at least $25,000 000 could be safely 
 lopped off from the present annual 
 exi)enditures of those bureaus and 
 paid over to anxious creditors of the 
 government. 
 
 From this showing it is plain that, 
 alloAving fur the increase of expendi- 
 tures on account of the internal rev- 
 nue department, and I may add the 
 clerical force now employed in the 
 pension bureau and other offices hav- 
 ing charge of the settlement and pay- 
 ment of claims arising from the late 
 war, at least $70,000,000 of the public 
 moneys might be saved each year by a 
 judicious and frugal administration of 
 tiie government. Under such an admin- 
 istration the taxes of the people would 
 be at least $50,000,000 less during the 
 year in which the claims for losses of 
 property by the war of which 1 have 
 spoken would be paid than they are at 
 present, while payments of pensions 
 and the principal and interest of the 
 public debt would not be diminished. 
 
 It is clear, then, that econmuy in 
 the public expenditures ought to begin 
 elsewhere tlian in a denial of tlie 
 rights of citizens having just claims 
 against the government. A refusal to 
 settle and satisfy such claims is as un- 
 necessary in a sound and enlightened 
 policy as repudiation of the funded 
 debt. Honesty is the best policy as 
 well for the state as for individuals. 
 If the claims which are to be examined 
 under the provisions of the bill 
 presented by the gentleman from 
 Maryland, amended as I have suggest- 
 ed it should be, are just, there ought 
 to be no hesitation about their payment 
 by the government on the ground of 
 economy. Reduce the army, calk tlie 
 leaks in the navy, curtail the profits 
 in Indian contracts, and siiut down 
 that floodgate of the freasury, known 
 as "miscellaneous purposes," l)ut Iff 
 it not be said that a government wiiic^i 
 lias shown that it can afford to be gen- 
 erous, refuses to be just to those wlio 
 suffered that it might be preserved. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 701 751 9