The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-06-08
MIR. Thaddeus Stevens-ConfscatiOn-
Policy of the Evening Telegraph

Hon. Thaddeus Stevens in favor OF connsca-
ton This sweeping measure was therein
advocated because of desire to see the Iarnn-
ers of "Bedford, Franklin, Fulton Cumoer-
land, and York counties" reimbursed ior losses
sustained during the invasion OF lS65' IL
was not on the ground of national policy, OF
of necessity, nor yet for the purpose of pun
ishment or prevention that this step was sup
ported by Mr. Stevens. 1t was to repay
local loss, oooasioned by the Vicissitudes OF
war. We then said:-
.4,If they,e Is 10 better ground for confiscation
than to repay the cowardly, seml-disloyal
farmers of the counties named, who charged
our soldiers for cup Of milk, and ned fro rom or
hscation. We have no sympathy to waste on
such losers The State has already reimbursed
all the deserving, and many who were not de
serving. 1t may be that confiscatton Will be
necessary as punishment for continued con,
tumacy. II may be that il will be n 3eded TO yet
further humble the spirits of the late Rebels.
But 1t can never be that it VIII be enforced TO
repay the Pennsylvanta farmers for losses
suffered years ago, and already once paid by the
State"
To these sentiments the Gettysburg Star
and Sentinel, edited by Hon. Edward
Mcpherson, takes exception, and in an article
over a column long attacks our policy and
motives We do not intend to reply to that
portion of the editorial which refers to our
''fippancy' and "grossness, nor to our
2 :tplace beneath contempt" nor yet our
s'foul SANDER" Those of our readers who
read our article can judge for themselves
whether it was by word or inference deficient
in courtesy to any one. In our views, how
ever, we probably did reflect on the loyalty
of the farmers of the southern counties and
the justice of their claims. In doing so we
were not guilty of passionate prescription"
I'VE expressed what was and is our deliberate
opinion, and the article of our Gettysburg
contemporary has not caused us to waver
in our sentiments. Our neighbor says:-
''The editor of The EVENING TELEGRAPH, by
his own showing, Is not opposed, IN principle, to
confscation; but declares he will be for 1t III IL
be necessary as punishment, or to humble the
spirit Of the late Rebels. Mr.. Stevens is for it,
as his letter shows, because the law and prac.
tice of nations Justify it, and because Justice
innocent and plundered citizens of the United
ence, In this respect, between the position of
the editor of THE EVENING TELEGRAPH and
Mr.. stevens. The former makes his approval of
the policy dependent upon his desire to punish
the Rebels; Mr.. Stevens, upon the inherent JUS
lice of nations, and the outraged RIG HTS of
citizens. Which is the nobler view?"
True, we are in favor of confscation, on
principle, under certain contingencies; but
these contingencies do not include local greed.
We base our advocacy of such a step on a
possible necessity, on a chance that national
safety and security in the future may need
such step. But on no other grounds than
the positive demands of expediency do we
feel willing to lend it our assent. The right of
private property is one of the most sacred
known to men, and to divest citizen of it in
order that another not specially injured by
him may be gratifed, is not to be tolerated.
Mr.. Stevens and the Gettysburg Star
favor it because of "the law and
practice of nations" Now, this argu-
ment will not hold good a moment. We
are not dealing with nations-not even belli-
gerents. No such recognition was ever
vouchsafed to the Confederate" States.
We view the Rebellion as an organization of
individuals; the invasion was an invasion of
individuals organized against the Government.
The losses sustained were inflicted by marau-
ders, and for all such injuries the law provides
claim not against the General Government,
but against the States. If mob DESTROYS our
office, do we sue in Washington Clearly not.
Our only chance of recompense is from Penn
sylvania. We therefore oppose the assump-
ton by the General Government of claims
which cannot legally be brought against it.
Again, the Star and Sentinel states that our
remarks ON the farmers
care intended to convey the impress
sion that the bulk of the citizens of the
border counties were unfaithful to the
Government and unkind to its soldiers, and
are therefore undeserving ofsuch consideration.
The war has produced no fouler slander.
Doubtless, there were here disloyal men during
the war. Nest of them got their inspiration
from disloyal Philadelphians whom we could
readily name 1t may be that, under this
stimulus, in some cases, greed got the better
Of patriotism. But we utterly deny the truth
OF the general statement of The EVENING TELE-
GRAPH. These counties responded promptly
to every call of the country for troops, or for
supplies and contributed of their substance
as fully for the support of the Government in
every good work as any portion of this or any
otner state. We make the statement broadly
and we mean it precisely as it stands"
Very we'll. We will join issue, and look at
the facts. We boldly assert that, as rule,
the citizens of the border counties of our State
were disloyal; that they did not sympathize
with the war; that they opposed the Govern.
ment by every means in their power and
wished the success of the South. In 1859
the election Immediately preceding the inva.
sion, the counties named by Mr.. Stevens gaxe
nearly 10000 majority for the ultra peaoe.at-
any-prioe wing of the Democratic mart,