000 to compensate Dr. J. Milton
Best for the destruction of his dwelling house and its contents by order
of the commanding officer of the United States military forces at
Paducah, Ky., on the 26th day of March, 1864. It appears that this house
was one of a considerable number destroyed for the purpose of giving
open range to the guns of a United States fort. On the day preceding
the destruction the houses had been used as a cover for rebel troops
attacking the fort, and, apprehending a renewal of the attack, the
commanding officer caused the destruction of the houses. This, then, is
a claim for compensation on account of the ravages of war. It can not be
denied that the payment of this claim would invite the presentation of
demands for very large sums of money; and such is the supposed magnitude
of the claims that may be made against the Government for necessary and
unavoidable destruction of property by the Army that I deem it proper to
return this bill for reconsideration.

It is a general principle of both international and municipal law that
all property is held subject not only to be taken by the Government for
public uses, in which case, under the Constitution of the United States,
the owner is entitled to just compensation, but also subject to be
temporarily occupied, or even actually destroyed, in times of great
public danger, and when the public safety demands it; and in this latter
case governments do not admit a legal obligation on their part to
compensate the owner. The temporary occupation of, injuries to, and
destruction of property caused by actual and necessary military
operations are generally considered to fall within the last-mentioned
principle. If a government makes compensation under such circumstances,
it is a matter of bounty rather than of strict legal right.

If it be deemed proper to make compensation for such losses, I suggest
for the consideration of Congress whether it would not be better, by
general legislation, to provide some means for the ascertainment of the
damage in all similar cases, and thus save to claimants the expense,
inconvenience, and delay of attendance upon Congress, and at the same
time save the Government from the danger of having imposed upon it
fictitious or exaggerated claims supported wholly by _ex parte_ proof.
If the claimant in this case ought to be paid, so ought all others
similarly situated; and that there are many such can not be doubted.
Besides, there are st