Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1857-06-30
THE RiCHMOND ENQ.sREk.o


-~~o>~S~~~>~~~~~~~~~ ,,>T
By RITCuIE s. DUNNA'ANt.
,fTEsDAY MORNING, IINE 30, .e..
rM CONFLICT OF AUTHORITIES IN ohlo
The reasonable notification OF Feuetai ID" ="
Ohio. lately enacted in the rtsi'tance ana mprsoa
mept of the U. 5. Marshal, by subordinate officers
..aose conduct has been approved by Gov. Chase IL
AMONG the most alarming evidences of u ioregone
determination on tho part OF tho aboltlonists to re
sist Federal authority, at every hazard ~hen I"
comes in coDfc. with their own prejudices ana op"'
iods There ia no political doctrine dearer to Ms man
that expressed in tho significant term Stae-Fg"''
But State may exceed it's bounds, as wen 10 '"'
General Government. And paradoxcal as Il ""'
seem to those who are uninitiated in the poicy Of
our country. "a long az the Union lasts the rshts Oh
the States to be preserved must not only Do guarded
from Federal encroachmen but also Cautiously oo"'
fned within their own limits OF EXERCISE
The General Government acts upon autnor't'es'"tn
which Il il endowed and entrusted by the several
States for the protection and promotion Of the welfare
of ALL And when State, as in the Instance OF ohio
arrays itself in antagonsm to those delegated author
tes exercised for the security Of the rights ct other
States it becomes evident thar there is an abuse OF
sovereignty, breach of faith, and actual treason COM
mitted. While there is greater danger from centra
zaon than from usurpation of authority IN the sta'eS'
it 10 st impossible that the Government can % sus
tanned or the rights of each and ali the members o
the Confederacy protected and secured, unless 'he
Federal Government is allowed full and free exercise
In ito accurately defined sphere The State OF ONO
claiming to conform to the Constitution OF the United
States audaciously essays to nuy the fugitive slave
law within its limits by acknowledging the Legality
of acts of rebellion against officers appointed tor lite
execution. The question is ably discussed by the
CINCINNATI Enquirer. We publish its article in ano'
thar column, and invite attention to it. We are
plsssed to observe, that Mr.. VaLandigham is en-
ployed to oppose the Attorney General OF ONO. lie
u gentleman of sound politics and extraordinary
ability.
VIRGINIA REVOLUTIONARY SCRIP CLAIMS.
We have heard much within the last year Or two
on this subject, and in the form, mostly, of grave
complaint against the action of some Of the depart
uspts at Washington; but until recently We had no
conception of the wrong done in the premises TO our
State, her tribunals, and her citizens.
It seems that Virginia. through her constituted tri-
bunals her Governor and executive councils graheo
from time to time to her citizens land warrants for
military service in the army and navy OF the reVoiu
tion. A. the time she passed her land bounty laws
she was the uudisputed owner OF the whole Nor'h'
Western territory, comprising, now, i've large anu
aourishing States all Of which shegave away, at Pc
rous crisis in the revolution, to the confederation
reservng out CT the ample fund enough as she sup
posed to fulfil her engagements to her gallant sons
who had fought her and the colonial battles IN
the struggle for independence.
But this reservation proving insufficient, she ap'
piled to Congress for an appropriation OF land or
land Scrip to make good the deficiency, so that she
might be enabled to make good to the uttermost far
thing the sacred debt she had contracted in the
q the revolution.
Congress as clearly it should have done responded
10 tho call, and, the 3lst of August, 1852 passsd
cot making provision for the satisfaction in scrip
Of oil Virginia land warrants granted tor military
service in the Revolutions but in tho act was incor
aAeAtsd provision authorsing the Secretary Of the
anses'or 70 reVlsa the proofs on which they were
&tanteo with the viev of ascertaining whether the
warrants to be surrendered under the act had beer
Justly and fairly issued in pursuance of the laws
Virginia. ~, ...,.
Partnent because, at the time of the passage of this
Scrip Act, there no longer existed any tribunal in
Virginia that could arrest case of fraud or correct
smanifsst mistake, discovered after tho original al
lowance. Accordingly, tho Virginia delegation il
Congress raised no objection to the revision principle
OF ths Act, accepted it 10 that FORM and III pursu
snce OF legislative Instructions took it on the urhe,
condition that the appropriation it contained shou ID
DO In full of all claims of Virginia against the United
o.
States on account of military bounes
appears, further. that tho author of the revision
feature Of the act. Judge Underwood, Of Kentucky,
snd the whole of the Virginia representation, voted
Tor 1t under the impression, and with the understands
ing that the authority to revise the proofs was given
for specific objects only-to wit: to exclude warrant
obtained through the fraud of the claimant lshould
any such be discovered) and those shown by subse.
qusnt record to have been enormously granted
Judge Underwood speaks for himself in the matter,
end Judge Bayly. and Gen. Mison. declared on the
aoor Of Congress- that neither themselves nor any of
their colleagues, would have voted for the bill on any
other condition or understanding.
But the late Secretary Of the Interior on whom de.
volvsd the execution of the the power of
revision q unconditional and imperative, and accor.
ngy instructed bis subordnstes not to regard the de-
right, but to mako de nora examination in every
csss and to refuse the SCRIP unless these subordinate
authorities should be- satisfied with the proofs, the de.
olsions Of the Virginia tribunals to the contrary not.
withdrawing.
We are further informed that the EXTREMIST ryor is
exercised by the reviewing Clerk-Cor a subordinate
Clerk makes the revision-in making ths de nora OK
smnstion that evidence is regularly hunted up from
every possible source 10 order to discred the decision
Of Virginia. that the papers, in decided years
ago, are overloaded to detect, if possible dscrepan
ciss In the statements Of the same witnesses testify
Ing In different cases; that record evidence is called
for when it is known that the record was long ago de-
ssyed, and when it is we'll known that the laws Of
Virginia themselves do not require the production of
record proof that, accordingly, parol proof, mat
Ter now strong and conclusive. is utterly dsregared
and discarded, unless sustained by record mposs.
bic to be hsd that the land bounty laws Of Virginia
have been construed differently from the construc.
ton awarded by her own tribunals. that evidence re.
Gsrdsd satisfactory by the Governor and Councils of
Virginia has been repudiated by the subordinate re-
visng Clerk, as wholly unsatisfactory; and that the
result has been the rejection of claims amounting 70
many hundreds of thousands Of dollars WORTH TO the
reputation Of the judgments of the tribunals of Viz
gina AUD OF the just rights of our people.
1t seems to rs most palpabs that the late Secreta
~ of the Interior widely miscousrued the act of
August 81. so. His construction OF it is directly op
posed TO the intention of the auih" IF the recis;on
feature Of the act, and to the coeporansous under.
standing Of the whole Virginia delegation in Con.
grsss. The latter-thoss who framed the law-say
the revision was designed for tho defeat of fraud,
IA
nothing appeared on the face of the case indicating
&ssu oslp tho 81,