Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-02-09
ARLINGTON AND THE RIGHT OF
nnNRHIESsr.

CIeswell as unfit for his position in the
Cabinet" a- IL ~ o-1-ss 5
ARLINGTON AND THE RIGHT OF
CONQUEST. -s--.
Don Piatt, the Washington correspond
ent of the Cincinnati Commercially HIM
self q Radical as well as the paper for
which he writes, is of the opinion that
the Lee family should receive some COM
pensation from the government for the
loss Of the Arlington estate. He writes
that not only did Senator McCreery, of
Kentucky, offer his resolution looking to-
ward the restoration of Arlington with
out consultation with the leaders of his
party, and without the knowledge of
those he desired to aid, but that the
widow of Gen. Lee ''tWould be shocked
at the idea of removing the dead from
that populous graveyard" He adds:
''Mr. Stanton, while Secretary of War,
seized the property, and made, as he
said, title that could not be disputed,
by burying thousands of Union soldiers
there. But this does not prevent the
widow of Gen. Lee and her children
from asking now and demanding at some
future day a reasonable compensation"
Mr. Piatt shows common sense and a
spirit of equity in these reflections, which
may well be commended TO the leaders of
his party. The Constitution of the
United States provides that ''private
property" shall not ''be taken for public
use, without just compensation. This
property descended TO Mrs. Lee, not to
her husband, from her ancestors, and
was, according to Mr.. Stanton, taken
''for public USE" Still, it COMFORTS with
Radical ideas of justice in great gov
eminent to withhold from Mrs. Lee COM
pensaiion for this property, simply be-
cause she was the wife of the
great captain of the Confederate ar
mics. 1t is somewhat amusing 10
witness the shifts to which the Radicals
are driven to justify this piece of little
meanness. For instance, the Philadel
phia Press of the I'd inst says:
'tSeveral of the MISUNDERSTANDING
class of journals are waging wordy war
as to whether the United States holds
title to the Arlington estate, where sleep
the legions of our dead, by virtue of a
tax sale or proceedings under the cOnfis-
cation act. Fortunately, how
ever, we have full legal title to this
| property independent of tax sales or con-
fiscation acts, or anything of the kird.
Back of parchment titles, behind any
mere judicial proceedings, the full and
complete ownership of this property
vests in the United States by .
81. The Right of Conquest, or
SO. The Right of Eminent Domain.
"Back of all mere municipal law, our
| title to Arlington is grounded on the law
| of nations, and, leaving that, on the very
elemental principles of our English COM
mon law-the sovereignty of the State,
| by virtue of which it holds the ultimate
fee to all the territory with IFS limits.
| Hon.. VIM. l. StOughtOn, of Michigan,
| himself a veteran of the Army of the
| Cumberland, now representing his State
| in Congress, we'll Celebrates this argument
| in his recent report. He says: That
the conquerOr has right to take so much
of the conquered territory as MAJ re ne
cessary for forts, arsenals, and burial,
| appears too clear for controversy. This
right is fully realized by Grotius, Vattel,
| Wheaton, and all other writers upon in
terna,ionsl law. The land used for such
| purposes may revert to the original own
ers when no longer required by the Gov
eminent, but in case of cemetery such
| a time can never come The object for
| which land was taken for cemeteries is
lasting, aud precludes the possibility of
any reversion.
A question suggests itself justhere. If
the Conft derate Government was not a
public enemy" how could the United
States acquire title to Airing on by ''the
right of conquest" and if the Confeder-
ate Government was "public enemy, "
in the sense held by the Press and Mr..
Stoughton, by what right did the Emitted
States, ''the conqueror," hold and try as
traitors citizens of the Confederate Statesl
| 1t appears that the Radicals hold that the
late war was rebellion, when it suits
their purposes to do so, and then when it
is necessary to justify an opposite course,
| they hold that it was a civil war. 1t
strikes us that the claim now set up by
Mr.. Stoughton and the Philadelphia Press
is Just the position the English capitalists
who hold Confederate securities, would
desire the Government of the United
States to assume. 1t was stated by the
New York Post recently that sales of
Confederate bonds predicated on the cot
ton loan, sold on the Stock Exchange in
London few weeks ago, at five per cent,
and the Post expressed the opinion that
the holders of these bonds expected to
realize on, them some day by the United
States assuming their payment. The
| course of the Radicals in justifying their
| outrages upon the rights and property of
the people of the South, is certainly well
calculated to strengthen the Confederate
bondhOlders in Europe that the Govern
| ment of the United States will be placed
in a position that will justify them in de-
manding payment of these bonds. Such
has been the loose, stumbling manner in
| which the Radicals have conducted The
| affairs of the Government since the close
of the war, especially in whatever has
related to the people or States of the
South, that the foreign creditors of the
Confederate Government may now, with
reasonable show of justice in their
action, in the light of international law,
demand that the United States pay their
| claims.
| AT the recent Negro State Convention
held at Atlanta, one of the speakers de-
clared that nine -tenths of the Radicals in