The Abingdon Virginian. [volume] (Abingdon [Va.]) 1849-1883, 1862-12-19
Abinaaon Umsillialt.
Friday, Dec. 10. 1862.
The saEt Question.

In our paper OF tio lAse No.eihpei, We p"
missed to give the next week letter from
Messrs. Stuart, Buchanan & Co., in regard to
the salt supply for this county. Not having
been able to issue our paper till week before
last and the letter referred to having been
mislaid, we could not comply with our pro-
mise to give the letter week before last. Up
on our application, Messrs. Stuart, Buchanan
& Co., have furnished us a copy, which We
give below:
SALTv1LLE, Nov. 18th, 1862.
JNo. N. HUMEs, Esq, abingdon, Ta.,
Dear Sir-Your favor of the 18th inst, is
received.
For the expression of your private and per-
sonal friendship towards US, we are obliged
to you, and we trust that nothing Will occur
between us to change those sentiments on
your part.
Be assured that they are and will continue
to be fully reciprocated. We are fully aware
of the feeling of the people generally OF " ash,
ington county on the subject of the contract
which they claim was made between the
County Court of their county and our ilrm.-
We know that feeling to be much stronger
than you have expressed 1t.
We have even been told that the people OF
your county would come and help themselves
to salt. Whether they are disposed to carry
matters to this extreme or not, cannot alter
the facts we are about to consider. and will
not affect our course in the matter. But to
the pont-will we honor the orders drawn on
us by the various salt commissioners OF Wash
ington county
We answer, we Nill not, because we can
not, and why? We answer that we are un-
der neither legal or mora! obligation to do SO.
As we are not capable of arguing legal PRO
positions, we will merely state that two of the
best lawyers of your town stated that there
was no legal obligation upon us. But we are
not driven to the extremity of shielding our
selves behind legal technicalities. We are
willing to take the broad moral ground uppn
which, no doubt, we will be tried by public
opinion How then does the question stand
in moral aspect? Let us review the facts
and begin with the beginning.
We believe the subject originated from a
letter addressed by US to Jno. w. Johnston,
ESQ.,, of your place, on the 10th June last
That letter speaks for itself. and we would ike
to haveit considered as incorporated just here.
Perhaps Mr.. Johnston or Mr.. kreger can fur
nish you with it.
In that letter, we asked the Court to appoint
an agent either to contract with us for years
supply at 81, as contemplated by the act of
the Legislature, or to receive and distribute
salt for Washington county at our selling
price from time to time. The June Court,
we believe, had the Justices summoned to
consider the subject at the july Co"rt. At
the last mentioned Court, the writer was not
present, but Mr.. Buchanan, of our firm, was,
and from him and a number of others, we as
certained these further facts that a CON
tract, such as we had made with sn;.ny other
counties of the State, viz 20 lbs. to the in
habitant as years supply, at s. per bvshel.
was offered to the Court and deaiined-fhat
there was great outside pressure from the
people ATTENDING the Court against any con-
tract being made-tbat many petitions were
presented TO that effect, and that finally the
arrangements now set up as a contract, was a
greed on fThis arrangement, rs we under
stand it, amlSa as we contend was well under
stood by tha Court. bound neither party tnr-
Their than our Mr. Buchanan's statement eS-
pressed in the order of Court, which see, Viz :
ssthat it was his Or our intention and desire to
furnish the people Of Washington county with
salt" or something to that effect, for we have
not a copy of the order present We are sure
that our obligation did not extend beyond the
words intention and desire.
Now let us ask, was not that intention and
desire evinced by supplying the salt from that
time to the day the Governors proclamation
came out, prohibiting The removal of any salt
from these works?
1t is true that proclamation was afterwards
resci7ded, but not until every pound of salt
which we could make for several months over
and above our contracts was promised and
contracted to the Governor. And is it not well
known in this vicinity, that but for our pro
missing him the amount of salt demanded, our
works would have been seized, and we turned
out. of possession.
Now, suppose that from wish to carry ont
our desire and intention towards Washington
county in furnishing her salt. we had refused
to contract with Gov. Letcher and he had
seized our works, as he doubtless would have
done, why then Washington county would
have received her fair distributive share of
salt through the Governors agent: and that
is exactly what she viii receive as matters
now stand. Therefore we contend that as to
! legal obligation, there is noIe--and none was
ever intended by either party; and, as TO mo,
raj obligation, if any, We were entirely abb
solved from it by the act of the Legislature
making our works liable to seizure, and the
proceedings under said act.
We hope, however, that you will not infer
from our formal manner Of arguing this ques-
ton, that we are not duly alive to the distress
of our neighbors in regard to salt. We az
sure you that we feel the deepest concern en-
the subject: and we think, after giving the
subject q good deal of reflection, that there is
remedy, and peaceable remedy, in reach Of
every farmer In ynnr county Ii IA this-let