RESOLUTIONS

Submitted by Mr. Speaker to the Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union.

MARCH 28, 1820.

Ordered to be printed.

1. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States vests in C gress the power to dispose of the Territory belonging to them, that no treaty, purporting to alienate any portion thereof, is v without the concurrence of Congress.

2. Resolved, That the equivalent proposed to be given by Spai the United States, in the treaty concluded between them, on the day of February, 1819, for that part of Louisiana lying west of Sabine, was inadequate; and that it would be inexpedient to make transfer thereof to any foreign power, or to renew the afores treaty.

REPORT

Of the Committee of Claims, on the bill from the Senate, entitled "An act for the relief of the officers and volunteers engaged in the late campaign against the Seminole Indians.

MARCH 27, 1820.

Read twice, and, with the bill, committed to a Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims, in the case of John Cowan.

MARCH 29, 1820.

Printed by order of the House of Representatives.

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the bill from the Senate, entitled "an act for the relief of the officers and volunteers engaged in the late campaign against the Seminole Indians," submit to the House the following

REPORT:

The discussion of the principles involved in this bill, at an early period of the session, supersedes the necessity for any very detailed remarks; the committee, therefore, merely suggest, with as much brevity as possible, the reasons which have induced them to recommend its indefinite postponement.

The bill presupposes a liability in the United States to pay for horses; which the committee are unwilling to acknowledge. The loss of horses for want of forage was one of the contingencies to be apprehended at the time they entered the service. In every country, in those best cultivated and most highly populated, a scarcity of food, both for man and beast, will sometimes be experienced. It is an accident or privation incident to the very condition of war. What, then, must have been the mutual understanding of the parties when the persons for whom the bill provides engaged in the service of government? The act of Congress assured them they would be allowed forty cents a day for the use and risk of their horses. This sum they are entitled to claim, and perhaps, in every instance, have already received.

The act further assured them they would be supplied with forage but this, like every other promise, cannot be understood as obliging government to act beyond the boundaries of reason and probabili ty. It has been already stated that the want of forage is one of the contingencies to be apprehended in every country where military ser vice is to be performed; if this be true in general, how much more so is it in regard to the particular country in which the Tennessee lunteers engaged to serve? It is unreasonable to suppose that go vernment could promise to supply them, at all times, with sufficient forage, in a wild, uninhabited, and uncultivated country, when it is well known that it would be impossible to execute a similar promis in those districts of country where agriculture obtains in the highes perfection. The act of Congress must, therefore, be understood t mean, that, as far as it was practicable, or even possible, for govern ment to supply forage, it should be done; not that it should be done a all hazards, in defiance of every accident or the most uncontrollab

events.

The committee cannot judge of this principle assumed in the bl by any other rule. For whose benefit, let it be asked, was it the forage should be furnished? Certainly for the government. Iti lows, then, that, from a regard to its own interest, government wou have supplied forage whenever it was practicable; but to require pa ment now for losses occasioned by the want of it, goes to char government with culpable negligence; with having failed to perfor its duty to itself. Such allegations cannot be supported either in pr ciple, or by the facts which exist in the case. The letters from Bronaugh and col. Gibson, submitted to the committee with the k prove clearly that there was no negligence on the part of governme that no exertions, however great, could have procured the necessa supplies. Will it then be said that government should be required perform impossibilities, or provide against events which the par must be supposed to have included in the conditions of their contra For these reasons, the committee object to the principle assumed int bill, and deny any liability in government to pay for horses wh died in the Seminole campaign, for want of forage.

The bill further provides, that when owners were dismounted battle, and the horses escaped, payment shall also be made. T committee think this is another of those risks anticipated and und stood by the parties, and covered by the allowance of forty cents day. It cannot be pretended that government engaged that the re should always remain on horseback, notwithstanding the incidents any particular battle, or the general service of the campaign, sho require them to be dismounted. The mounted gun-men, on the oth hand, must be supposed to have stipulated that, either on horseba or on foot, they would engage the enemy; that they would fight any way pointed out by their commander; and if, in rendering dience to orders, their horses should be lost, the loss was to be sidered only as an usual and customary result from the service which they had stipulated to engage.