The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1873-11-20

Letter Explanatory OF Ills PRO
posed Loan 10 tAae $oWtIa---No
COmpemsatHom Asked for Loss
) OF slave PROPERTY. R &
OoronER 81, 1873.

+
any slave, or to compensate the owner 70
such loss, either in substance or form
That $500, 900, 900 would not pay 70
4 800, 900 slaves when they were emanci
pated is so obvious that / need not dis
cuss the question. This amount woul'
| be very far from paying. for such mum
Der of slaves at the time of the emancipa
tion- Nor did / propose to give abso
lutely 800, 0O0, 900, or any other amour
Of money to pay for these slaves. Blu
on the contrary suggested deposit o
that amount to the slavehoIding States
without interest, to be loaned to the de
lspoiled shareholders in the same manner
after the model and strictly upon the
precedent of the act of June %, 1886
deposititing the surplus revenue of the
/ United States with the different States
upon the terms and in the manner therein
Espeeifed. When the United States gov
eminent wished to transfer their surplus
revenue to the States, finding that it had
no authority to give money to the States,
| it saved the constitutional point and
eluded the difficulty by giving the trans
fer the form ofa loan or deposit without
interest, to be resumed by the United
States IN certain events, and in a pre-
serihed mode. / proposed that s400, 000,-
900, the sum named by Mr.. Lincoln as
that which he was willing to give the
despoiled Shareholders, should be depos-
tied with the States without interest, and
in the same manner to be loaned to the
Shareholder in proportion to his losses.
If the loan of the surplus revenue in the
manner in which it was made was not an
assumption of the power to give money to
the States not granted in the Constitu-
ton, then the deposit of the $400, 200, 900
which the slave-holding States In. the
same manner and upon the same terms
would be no violation Of the Fourteenth
Amendment, which forbade the govern
ment to pay for slave lost by emancipa-
ton. The inducement to deposit the
surplus revenue with the States was the
hope that it would be used far more use
fully for the purpose in this way than if
it remained in the Treasury of the United
States. Far greater would be the induce
ments to deposit the $500, 900, 900 with
the slave-holding States for the easement
and the benefit Of the despoiled slave
holder than existed for that of the sur
plus revenue when it took place. 1t
would be difficult to estimate how much
such deposit, to be loaned to the slave
holder, would contribute to the prosper
ity and revival of the States to which he
was a citizen. That this revival would
greatly promote the Interstate trade and
commerce, in which all are interested, is
a proposition so plain as to need no dis
cussion. All may see how much this
would increase the capacity of those
States, now so depressed, to contribute to
the common taxes and burthen of the
country Although unable to estimate
the advantages of these peeuniary re-
turns to the government of the United
States and their people, | should proba-
bly, be not far wrong in saying that these
advantages would repay before very long
to the who'd Union the expenses of the
original outlay But this is not all. The
union and fraternal action of the two
races in the South have been delayed by
the fear, real or affected, on the part of
the colored race, that their former mas
tiers would seek to re-enslave them. This
fear is so absurd that it is difficult to be-
lieve in its existence. But if it really ex
lists, then such a measure could hardly
fail to extingtiish it, as the negro would
feel that the claim of his former master
had been satisfied, if not paid or compen-
stated by the money of the United States.
Perhaps there is no measure which would
contribute more to restore peace between
the two races. | say, then, that if the
inducements to'deposit the surplus reve-
nue. of the United States with the States
were strong enough to justify the act,
still more would similar deposit Of the
$500, 000, 900 which | have proposed be
commended for the probable benifeence
of its operation. But the measure may
be recommended upon still higher
grounds.
When the private property in slaves
was taken by the United States for pub
lie uses, a claim accrued to the individual
owner for just compensation under the
/ fifth article of the amendments to the
Constitution. This claim thus accrued
to the individual slave-owner, not only
upon consideration of justice, but upon
the express provisions of the Constitution
before the adoption of the Fourteenth
/ Amendment. It was claim upon the
| United States, not Of States. but of indi-
| viduals, and the obligation could only be
| discharged by lust compensation to
the despoiled owner or BY release of the
claimant The State had no authority to
release the claim of the Individual which
accrued before the adoption of the Four
teenth Amendment. On the contrary,
the State. as a member of the Union,
was partly bound for the payment of the
debt, and could not release itself by any
act but one of payment. 1t could no
i h
obligation to compensate the individual
ewner for his property thus taken Tor
public uses than it could release the
United States from the claims of phi
vate citizen whose land had been seized
by the government as the site for light
house or nayylyard. Il 1t could, how
ever. and it, did assist in ratifying an
amendment byswhich the United States
government was forbidden to discharge
an obligation which it incurred under the
/ fifth article of the amendment to theCon-
stitution. II could not release the United
States from any inter-claim of individuals,
but it could say that they should not
discharge this obligation or pay this debt.
Thew thus multiplied the obstacles to a
fair and practical solution of the diff
Guilty. and aided TO place the United
States IN this absurd sdilemmaso IF they
compensated the slaye-holdeFy whose pro-
perty was taken for public uses, they vio-
| lated the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Gonstituti on,. and if they failed to pay
this claim, which accrued before the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment,
they, Violated the Fifth Amend
ment, which declared that ''pri-
vate property should not be taken for
public uses without just compensation :
a dilemma produced BY the Fourteenth
| Amendment So absurd that it is difficult