Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

It is recommended that the word "jurisdiction" in line 12, page 1, of the bill be spelled (orrectly. As thus modified, I recommend that the bill be passed. Very truly, yours,

Hon. W. C. ADAMSON,

WILLIAM C. REDFIELD, Secretary.

Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, March 18, 1916.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Referring to your letter of March 16, 1916, requesting the views of this department on House bill No. 13233 of the present session of Congress, "Authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to exchange lands belonging to the United States at the mouth of Crum River, Pa., for other lands adjacent thereto, for the purpose of removing thereto the Schooner Ledge Range Front Light, so that it may be on the range of the channel of the Delaware River, and further authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to remove said range light from its present location to the property acquired by the exchange," you are respectfully informed that the matter is being investigated and that you will be further advised in regard thereto at an early date.

Very truly, yours,

Hon. WILLIAM C. ADAMSON,

WILLIAM C. REDFIELD, Secretary.

Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, March 25, 1916.

MY DEAR JUDGE ADAMSON: Referring again to your letter of March 16, 1916, requesting the views of this department on House bill No. 13233 of the present session of Congress, authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to exchange lands belonging to the United States at the mouth of Crum River, Pa., etc., I have to advise you that, after carefully considering the matter, this department is of the opinion that the bill should be amended, in the interests of the Lighthouse Service, and a draft of bill to supersede the bill inclosed with your letter is transmitted herewith, with recommendation that the bill, as modified, be passed.

I wonder whether you will not think, as I am inclined to do upon considering the facts which lie behind this measure, that it should not be made a portion of a general bill to be introduced later, but should be treated as promptly as possible on its separate merits. The reason for this suggestion is that there are facts in this case which seem to me to indicate that this small measure, with which no one disagrees, should go through irrespective of whether a larger measure were delayed or not. It would be too late, I imagine, after the larger bill were introduced, to get the small one through, whereas if the smaller one were introduced first it would have a double chance of passage, both by itself and in connection with the larger one.

The facts are that this exchange of property is quite as important to the interests of the Government as it is to the private interests concerned, and time is of the essence of the contract. The private parties concerned are investing large sums in improvements. which are necessarily delayed till this exchange can be made, and the Government interests require that if possible the exchange shall be carried on so that it shall be completed and the new house erected upon the new site before the winter.

I defer to your judgment, merely placing the facts before you for such action as you think best. I always feel in a matter of this kind where private parties have treated the Government with entire fairness that we should treat them in such a way as to secure action with the least possible risk of delay and the expense and annoyance to them which such delay necessarily causes.

Yours, very truly,

Hon. WILLIAM C. ADAMSON,

WILLIAM C. REDFIELD, Secretary.

House of Representatives.

Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

The above letters give in detail the views of the Department of Commerce as to the necessity of the proposed legislation contained in this bill, with the exception of section 7. This section authorizes the equipment of all seagoing vessels in the Lighthouse Service with radio equipment and auxiliary power for the operation thereof, at a cost not to exceed $60,000, and the department is heartily in favor of it and urgently recommends it as will be seen by reference to the hearings on the bill, pages 30 to 35, inclusive.

O

CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. No.

FREDERICK (MD.) WAR CLAIM.

APRIL 17, 1916.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed.

Mr. LEWIS, from the Committee on War Claims, submitted the

following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. R. 4751.]

The Committee on War Claims, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 4751) to refund to the corporate authorities of Frederick City, Md., the sum of $200,000, exacted of them by the Confederate Army, under Gen. Jubal Early, July 9, 1864, under penalty of burning said city, submits the following report and recommends that the bill do pass.

GENERAL STATEMENT.

During the Civil War Frederick, Md., was a military supply depot of the Government. In July, 1864, Gen. Early, in need of money and supplies, marched into Frederick and, under threat of destruction of the town, levied a ransom of $200,000. This sum was paid and saved the Government stores, exceeding $200,000, from destruction. The town issued $200,000 of bonds to pay the ransom, which are still unpaid and outstanding, and upon which the town has since been paying interest. The object of this bill, now favorably reported for the fifth time, is to retire and pay off these bonds, in consideration of the Government stores saved from destruction by their issue. The modern precedents at home and abroad make it the duty of the Government to accept responsibility in this case.

Great Britain in 1784 passed an act awarding £4,000,000 sterling to indemnify the losses of the royalists at the hands of the American Revolutionists by confiscation and otherwise.

At least 48 statutes (see list) have been passed by Congress indemnifying loyal citizens for losses inflicted by the enemy. France, in the Franco-Prussian War, appropriated 220,000,000 francs to reimburse its citizens for such losses inflicted by the Prussians, including ransoms and levies, and similarly, Louis XVIII for losses of French subjects during the Napoleonic Wars. Italy did the same for Lombardy in 1857. And as recently as the Boer War Great Britain appropriated $10,000,000 to reimburse loyal British subjects for losses inflicted by the enemy. All this in growing recognition of the reciprocal character of the duties of the Government and its citizens; the citizen to pay his share of the expense of military defense, and sacrifice his life if necessary, the Government in return to protect him in his person and property." The Constitution recognizes this duty, where it provides that "the United States shall protect each of them (States) from invasion." The troops which the State of Maryland had raised during the war would have been ample to protect it from invasion by Gen. Early, had they been available. The State supplied 42 military organizations containing 50,316 white troops and 8,718 colored troops, together with 3,925 sailors and marines, a grand total of 62,959, nearly one-tenth of its entire population during the war. But these troops were withdrawn from the State for service in the cause of the Union, and thus Maryland was deprived of her own defense, as a border State.

This claim is now reported favorably by the Committee on War Claims for the fifth time, but has not hitherto received consideration by the House.

A statement of the law and particular facts bearing on the subject follow:

DETAILED STATEMENT.

THE LAW.

Whatever may have been the views as to the duties of a government in remote times, the modern practice of nations accepts the rule that it is its duty to protect the property of its citizens from destruction, and failing to do so to indemnify them, if finacially

able.

The medieval view.-It is doubtless true that in sovereignties founded on force, as were those of the Middle Ages, the sovereign refused to accept any obligation to indemnify his subjects; and so references can be given to instances where the subject has been left to bear alone the loss inflicted upon him, either by the enemy or the military activities of his own government.

"According to the laws and usages of nations," it was said, "a State is not obliged to make compensation for damage done to its citizens by the enemy."

And this was but what we should expect of a government founded on violence and conquest, and which did not even compensate its own subjects for losses inflicted by its own troops. However, at the very dawn of the modern state we find Grotius declaring the end

of this order of things. In his Rights of War and Peace, published in 1623, he says:

But it is to be observed the state is bound to repair the losses of individuals, at the public expense, in aid of which the sufferers have contributed their due proportion. Nor will the state, though unable to repair the losses for the present, be finally released from the debt; but whenever she possesses the means of repairing the damages, the dormant claim and obligation will be revived. (Grotius's Rights of War and Peace, p. 383.)

Even the statement of the medieval rule seems to foresee the coming order of the voluntary state. Bentwick, quoting from Vattel, says:

As regards losses inflicted by the enemy's army the state had no obligation; though here, too, if it could afford it, and especially if it received a war indemnity, it was equitably called upon to compensate the sufferers.

War and Private Property, p. 42.)

(Bentwick's

What could be said of a rich and opulent State which withdrew from an integral division all of its military resources for defense, laid it open to the enemy, and even invited its attack by placing its stores of war therein which when thus defenseless had suffered such a loss through which the Government had actually experienced a corresponding gain, refused to indemnify its loyal supporter?

THE MODERN RULE.

"Instances showing the application of the modern rule occur as early as the Revolutionary War. The British Parliament, after the Revolutionary War, provided to the extent of £4,000,000 sterling for the reimbursement of the royalists in America for the destruction and confiscation of their property by the American troops and authorities." See "An act for appointing commissioners to inquire into the losses and services of all such persons who have suffered in their rights, properties, etc., during the late unhappy dissensions in America, in consequence of their loyalty," etc. This act was extended from time to time in the years 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, and in the year 1788 by 28 George III, chapters 40-44. (Wilmot Claims of American Loyalists, pp. 197-199.)

In modern States the rule could not be otherwise. The medieval State was founded on force. Its constituents were subjects, not citizens. But the modern State is a voluntary organization and its constituents are citizens; and their relations to it and its relations to them consist of reciprocal rights and duties, the duty to defend the state and comply with its orderly demands for resources through taxation being institutionally dependent upon the correlative duty of the state to protect the citizen in his private rights.

France his distinctly accepted this as a principle of national law. The French courts have laid it down that such compulsory contributions when demanded by a properly commissioned officer of the enemy were to be considered as made for the general body. Those who had advanced contributions on behalf of the community were repaid in full, and it was laid down in the French courts that it was the law of the land that payments, whether in money or kind, by individual citizens, when demanded by a properly commissioned officer

« AnteriorContinuar »