a foreign market, without being obliged to enter and secure the duties on her cargo; to which inquiry, the collector answered in the affirmative; and the said collector further states, that he informed Mr. Coffin, that, if he entered the cargo of oil, it would be subject to a duty; but, if the same was exported, it would be entitled to the benefit of debenture. And further the said collector states, that he believes the Bonif would not have been entered, and the duties secured to be paid on her cargo of oil, (which amounted to $2,337 55, and at that time was about two fifths of the whole value of the oil,) if he had not informed Mr. Coffin, that the said oil would be entitled to debenture on being exported, which, at that time, he believed was a correct construction of the law. And it further appears from the documents submitted to the committee, that a great part of the said cargo of oil was afterwards transported coastwise to Boston, and from that port, exported, by the said William Coffin, to Bilboa, and, debenture certificates issued from the custom house in Boston; but your committee are informed, that, before the debenture became due, a decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury arrested the payment of the debenture. Your committee were informed by the honorable Mr. Folger, of this House, that he believes the remaining part of the said oil was exported from the United States in the same brig Bonif; and, furthermore, that about one third part of the said oil did belong to the captain and crew of the said brig Bonif; as they performed service for shares of the oil obtained, and not for wages; which part, or shares, the said William Coffin and others, owners of said brig Bonif, purchased from the said captain and crew, paying therefor the full price that oil of the same quality, but not subject to duty, was at that time worth; and have since paid to the United States a duty on the same oil, equal to about two fifths of its whole value. From all which, it appears to your committee, that the owners of said brig Bonif, by placing full confidence in the erroneous construction given to the law, by the collector of Nantucket, have been induced to pay to the United States the duties on said cargo of oil, which they could otherwise have fairly and honestly avoided. Your committee further report, that, from the loss of the petition and other documents, . which were presented at the last session of Congress, they cannot now determine what amount, if any, should be allowed as a drawback of duties; but consider it a case that may be fairly adjusted at the Treasury Department.

This case, thus appearing to your committee to be one which requires legislative interposition, for the relief of said owners, your committee report a bill conformably to the principles above stated.

REPORT

Of the Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the Bill from the Senate, for the relief of Eli Hart.

JANUARY 3, 1820.

Read, and ordered to be printed.

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the bill from the Senate, for the relief of Eli Hart, have had the same under consideration, and submit to the House the following

REPORT:

The bill from the Senate directs the accounting officers of the Treasury Department, to settle the claim of Eli Hart, and to allow him the sum of six thousand six hundred and seventy dollars, the appraised value of his buildings destroyed on the 30th of December, 1813, at Buffalo, in the State of New York.

The claim of Eli Hart belongs to the class of Niagara cases, which have often been before the House, and as often rejected. At the first session of the last Congress, this claim, with one hundred and fifty eight other cases of a similar description, was examined and reported on by the Committee. The claimants then demanded of Congress payment for buildings and other property destroyed by the British, between the 19th of December, 1813, and the 1st of January, 1814, both days inclusive. After the most patient and deliberate investigation, the committee were satisfied, that, under the law of the 9th of April, 1816, the claimants had no right to the indemnification which they asked. They now beg leave to adopt in part, and to offer to the House, their report in these cases, made at the former session, in 1818. It is as follows: "That, during the period above named, to wit, (from the 19th of December, to the 1st of January, inclusive,) nearly every building on thirty six miles of frontier, from fort Niagara to Buffalo, except the fort and its appendages, which were captured on the night of the said 19th of December, were, with their contents, destroyed by the enemy, which, it is alleged, was in consequence of a military occupation by the United States."

"The law of the 9th of April, 1816, was intended to grant relief to the citizens whose property might have been destroyed in conscquence of some act of the government, and to such only ought it to be.. confined in its application. But the circumstance of there being a war between the United States and Great Britain, and the enemy

during its progress destroying the property of our citizens, would not prove that this government was the cause of the destruction, unless it shall have given to the property a character, which, by the usages of civilized war, would render the destruction legal; any other rule would give an enemy the right to destroy the property of our citizens, in peace as well as war."

"The committee have endeavored to ascertain, from the mass of testimony in these cases, whether the burning on the Niagara frontier, was of such a character as to entitle the claimants to relief, under the provisions of the above recited act, and their examination has resulted in an unanimous opinion that it was not."

"It appears, from the evidence, that, at different periods of the war, particularly in the fall of 1813, many of the buildings on the frontier were occasionally and partially occupied for military purposes, but very few of them are alleged to have been so occupied as to exclude from them the families or their effects, and in most cases, that the buildings were used for barracks."

"From the fore part of July, 1813, till after the commencement of the burning, there were but few troops on the American side of Niagara river, consequently, during that period, there must have been but a very partial occupation by the United States. It is stated, that, for some time before the villages between fort Niagara and Black Rock were burned, (the 19th of December, 1813,) there were only about fifty drafted militia on the whole frontier. That, between the 19th and 29th, the neighboring militia, to the number of from two to three thousand, had assembled at Black Rock and Buffalo, and sheltered themselves from the inclemency of the weather, with the families of the citizens."

"On the morning of the 29th of December, the enemy landed at Black Rock, and having burned the village at that place, proceeded to Buffalo, which latter place capitulated, on the express condition that public property should be surrendered, and that the citizens and their effects should be protected; after having burned a few buildings, the hand of desolation was stayed until the first of January, when all were reduced to ashes, except a very few, (which are supposed to have escaped more from accident than design,) and that too, without allowing the inhabitants an opportunity to withdraw their moveable effects."

"That some of the buildings, particularly at Buffalo, were so occupied as to give them an unquestionable military character, is undoubtedly true; and had no others been burned, the committee would not have stopped to inquire, whether the occupation by the United States had been the cause of the destruction. But they have yet to learn, that, because a building may have been occupied for military purposes, at a remote period anterior to its destruction, or because a few militia may for a moment have taken shelter with a hospitable family, the destruction of the buildings, with the effects of the family, can, upon any legal principles be justified; more particularly, when

the enemy shall have possessed himself of it by a capitulation, like the one above mentioned."

These and some other views, as will more fully appear on reference to the report itself, induced the committee at that time to recommend the passage of a law, giving to all the sufferers on the Niagara frontier a sum equal to one half the amount of their claims, for the buildings which had been destroyed, and thirty per cent. on the loss of personal property, exclusive of merchandise. A bill for that purpose was reported; was fully discussed in the House; and, after various modifications, was finally rejected, by a considerable majority.

This decision is evidence to the committee, that Congress thought not only that the claimants had no legal demand against government, but that it would be inexpedient to grant them any thing in the nature of charitable relief, as had been proposed by the committee. At the last session many of these claims were again presented, and the committee, in accordance with the opinion of the House, reported against them.

At this session, the claim of Eli Hart, included in the number of those heretofore rejected, has been brought forward in the Senate, and a bill for his relief sent from that body to this house for concurrence, proposing to allow him $6,670 for the loss of his buildings. The committee are not aware that it is either just or expedient now to depart from the rule heretofore assumed, and grant this allowance to a single individual, when one or two hundred other persons, neighbors and fellow-citizens of the present petitioner, can make claims equally urgent upon our justice, or appeals equally forcible upon the charity of government.

The petitioner, however, alleges that his claim comes within the provisions of the act of April, 1816, and therefore it should stand on its own merits, apart from the claims of his fellow sufferers.

The 9th section of the act is in these words: That any person who, in the time aforesaid, has sustained damage by the destruction of his or her house or building, by the enemy, while the same was occupied as a military deposite, under the authority of an officer or agent of the United States, shall be allowed and paid the amount of such damage; provided it shall appear that such occupation was the cause of the destruction."

It appears to the committee that a claimant must prove clearly and unequivocally that the occupation was the cause of the destruction, before he can be entitled to relief under the law. For how else can we account for the insertion of a proviso to that effect in the law. It evidently goes on the presupposition that a house may be occupied; that it may be destroyed; but that the occupation was not the cause of the destruction.

In the case before us, the committee have already stated, that the occupation was not the cause of the destruction. It cannot be alleged that all the houses were occupied, but yet all were destroyed. What, it may be asked, caused the enemy to burn and destroy the property

of our citizens, wherever he landed, during the late war? In this District, under the eyes of Congress; on the shores of the Chesapeake, in Virginia and Maryland; in the state of Louisiana, and neighborhood of New-Orleans, heaps of ruin, the remains of his wantonness and barbarism, are yet to be seen. Did he not, in his official correspondence with our government, assign to himself other motives for these acts? As well might it be supposed that the house in this city, belonging to Christiana Hamilton and Samuel S. Hamilton, was destroyed in consequence of military occupation, when only a few old books and journals of Congress had been deposited there for safe keeping, as to suppose that the enemy, in the present instance, was influenced by any other motive than that of the indiscriminate wantonness which usually characterized his aggression upon every quarter of the country.

The principle contended for by the claimant in this, as well as in all the other cases of destruction on the Niagara frontier, would tend, in the judgment of the committee, to most dangerous consequences; and no government can safely assume it as a rule of action. War, at all times, is a great evil. The losses of property incident to it, are often very calamitous; and wo be to him on whom the heaviest portion may chance to fall. But he must sustain it; and well may he do so, when life itself is often surrendered for the public good. The committee can see no reason to indemnify one class and not another. No rule of propriety, for example, would require that persons should be paid for the loss of their houses, while the farmer or planter, who loses in the reduced price of his crop, or the merchant in the capture of his vessels at sea, should not be paid.

If government sanctions the principle contended for, may not an enemy wage war upon the property of our citizens, and thus aim an effectual blow at the finances of the country? Every man on the frontier may, at one time or another during the existence of hostilities, be called out in the military service. When so called out, according to the doctrines assumed, he would not be permitted to shelter himself under his own roof, because, if he did, the enemy would, from that circumstance, be legally authorized to burn and destroy it. It has therefore appeared to the committee, that a transient, casual, accidental, or contingent, occupation of houses, by the military forces of the United States, cannot be considered as imparting to them that belligerent character, so to speak, which would justify the enemy in destroying them; for otherwise every house in the country, the cities of New-York, Philadelphia, or Baltimore, might, if defended by a military force, be destroyed by a victorious enemy.

In another point of view the committee think it impolitic, if not dangerous, for Congress to assent to the present demand. It is believed that the Americans are as generous and patriotic in devotion to the cause of their country, as any other people in ancient or modern times. The committee would not be understood to cast the least imputation on the present petitioner, or his fellow sufferers, But, if government should hold out to them the assurance that they should be