Newbern weekly progress., 1861-01-15
FEDERAL PROPERTY IN THE STATES.
The Propositions Of Senators Hum
fer and Davis

!
lation to federal property situated within the
bordaries of States that secede, is, perhaps,
the most dangerous problem to which seces-
| sion will give rise. In appearance at least,
the claims are atagonistic. On this subject,
and the two propositions Of Senators Hunter,
of Virginia, and Davis, of Mississippi, intro
duced into the Senate on the I'd inst, the Wash
| ington Constitution has an interesting and
weIl-considered article, which it seems is in
keeping with the policy of the administration
for preserving peace while federal rights are
duly sustained The Constitution says:
Tho federal authorities may insist that the
mere act of withdrawal from the Union does
not confer upon State any right to possess
| forts, arsenals and other property within the
| State but belonging to the Union. And, on
the other hand, the citizens ola seeding State
| NAV with fair show of reason, contend that
| the Commonwealth whose sovereignty has
| been asserted is entitled to its proportion Of
| Union property, and that that proportion may
| in the first instance, be taken to be the proper
| ty comprised within the State itself. Upon the
satisfactory settlement Of these claims, more
than upon all beside, depends the peaceful so
| luton of the difficulty through which the
country is passing.
Nothing can be gained by persistent efforts
to discard the contingency which thus chal-
lenges attention tits of no avail that the right
and even the possibility of secession are still
desired by powerful party. The fact IS before
us that one State has already seeded, and that
others are on the Of seeding; and we are
bound therefore, to deal with the fact rather
than with vague hope and underlined expecta
tions, and to prepare for the questions to which
it leads A war, simply TO prevent secession,
were madness a military or naval attack up
on communities, punishment TOR Their de
claration Of sovereignty, We're a CRIME which
in those days would provoke the indignant
condemnation of free nations. Ofcoursc, prop
crty interests remain to be examined and ad-
iusted The national balance-Shect exhibits
common assets and common liabilities; and to
these the separated States ought not to be, and
the General Government cannot be, lndlffer-
ent Is the process Of adjustment so difficult
that it should be feared?
1t may be shown, we believe, that the South
crn States have contributed more than their
quota to the expenditure Of the government un-
der the Union; that, comparing taxation and
outlay, benefits realized and liabilities incurred
the South has paid more and received less than
the North OF this broad and general question,
however are not required to take cognl-
zance. 1t will arise naturally in the order Of
events, and the South has nothing to fear from
meeting it. The immediate point to be consd-
cred has reference to the federal property in
South Carolina and i'll other States which arc
about to follow her example.
The federal government has forts, arSenals
dock wards in the seeding StateS-occupied
may be, by federal troops, and all, under the
Union, subject to the control OF federal officers.
The States desire to acquire possession, and IN
some instances have actually taken possession
of this class Of federal property; declaring an
intention to hold it at all hazards. From this
circumstance springs imminent danger OF col
, ision between the forces OF the general govern
mellt and the militia Of the States Is there
DO mode Of escaping the peril Are we to con
cludc that neither party can honorably yield
that neither can honorahly consent to IN ar
ran-cncnt calculated to protect the rights OF
the States, without prejudice TO the right or IN
terests Of the general government?
The resolutions presented to the Senate by
Mr. Hunter and Mr. Davis are designed to IA
cilitate an amicable settlement of the points IN
dispute upon this aspect Of the question. Mr..
Hunter, in effect, provides for the resurrende'
to States of lands which they respectively ccded
! for the purposes of the general government
compensation being made to the latter by the
States for property erected or deposited there
! on Mr. Davis, again, develOpes plan by
which federal troops may be Withdrawn from
States on the requistion of a Legislature or
! convention; subject to adequate provision for
|
propositions are in perfect harmony and both
! tend to the maintenance of peace.
| Except on the suppositlon that the seeding
| States are to be invaded by federal forces, sub
! iugated and reunited to the confederacy against
! their will, what use will the general government
| have for forts and arsenals situated in another
! sovereignty? But as this idea of subj jugatlon
! is at once absurd and barbarOuS, what can be
said in defence of policy which would retain
means of aggression in the midst of an independ
! ent people? That the States themselves would
! object to having in their very centre standing
menaces upheld by the Union they have left,
is not at all surprising. And hence on both
sides, are motives to the adoption OF some
! friendly arrangement. The States will not al
| low their own forts to be turned against them
and the general government will have no neec
of forts in districts over which it has no Longer
jurisdiction Mr.. Hunter meets the case with
proposition which, whilst guarding the IN
terests of the general government, amply pro
tects the rights and interests of the States
The latter may have the forts and aresenais
he says, on payment of their value. Less thar
that the general government cannot accept
without injustice to other States. More than
that it should not seek.
Nor can we conceive of valid objections to Mr.
Davis suggestion for the withdrawal of troops
even the receipt of guarantees for the preser
vation of the property they now protect Ger
tainlv. if coercion were resolved upon, the plar
would be nadmissible. But assuming thai
secession is not to be followed 'y the employ
ment OF federal force, the gain accruing from
the maintenance of small bodies of troops
in other common wealths is not apparent
whilst the risk of collision is obviously great
At any rate, the force alreRdy in possession i:
too small to resist successfully the attacf
of numbers, and is therefore insufficient for the
only purpose which-on the no-coercon grount
can justify its presence And the withdrawal
on proper application, would be productive
no less if the States be made responsible to-
the property at stake
The National Inteligencer, in referring t.
Senator Hunters proposition, says:
We cite this proposition for the purpose o
indicating to our readers that Hunter is not en-
tirely indifferent to the present critical condI
ton Of the country, as might have been erro
neously inferred from his protracted silence a
this period If he has no plan to suggest for tn
preservatian the of Union, it is something t
know that, by virtually legalizing the doctrln
of peaceable secession, he is willing, IN comp
: ance with the mere legislative vote OF an
State, to facilitate dissolution of the Union uE
der the forms Of law.