The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-11-10
Mr. Hunters Scheme.

columns.
Mr.. HUxxs, is 20 we'll known ana 80
b;rh,v atsfseeutshed A. statesman that the
press Of Virginia cannot afford 70 'ga'fe nus
utterauces. We do not deem 1t necessary 10
enter ,iseo dispute Is to whether suostah
TALLY his proposition Is or Is not to compen-
satc che shareholders as class for property
lost IN consequence Of the war-whether II
is or Is not a proposition to do indirectly "na
the Constitution forbids to be done Directly.
We are willing to leave these questions en-
tirely to the judgment of the inte'iigen'
reader.
Mr.. HrsraR suggests deposit of money
for the exclusive benefit Of despolicd
slayeholders,7 and pleads as precedent
the deposit once made with the States oy
the National Government. First, we reply,
a deposit for the exclusive benefit of small
class is a very different thing from deposit
for the benefit Of An entire State. Secondly, IN
the case referred to Congress violated no
nroyision of the Constitution; it merely eX-
erriseda power not specifically granted 70 tna1
body. Mir. HuSTEE's scheme would Siolate
the Constitution-if not the letter of 1t, GER
t:ainy the spirit What does the tonSti'u-
ton mean when it says:
but neither the United States nor any
State shall assume or pay any deDt OF oph-
cation incurred in aid OF insurrectlon OF Te-
bellion against the United States, or any
claims for the loss or emancipation OF any
slave, but all such debts, obligations, or
claims shall be held illegal and void"
1t Is not worth while to waste words as
10 whether hr. HUNTERS scheme would con-
fict With the above provision.
Mr.. HUNTER Was unfortunate in his choice
of property. If he had proposed that four
hundred millions OF dollars should be de-
posted with the States to De lent out to all
their citizens who had lost dwclling-houses,
or barns, or mills, or factories, or store
houses. or legs, or arms, or husbands, or
brothers, or sons, be would have suggested
no violation OF the Constitution, and would
have had much better prospect of getting
the money; for four hundred millions would
certainly not pay for the property destroyed
in the South which the Constitution does
not forbid Congress 10 pay Tor.
Mr.. HUNTER thinks that the success Of bis
scheme would tend to the "union and fra
ternal action Of the two races" in the South.
We think, on the contrary, that it would
no sooner come up for di&ussion in Con-
gress than some good Republican would de-
Clare that the negroes had earned oil the
money with which their owners had bought
or maintained slaves, and would propose
that they should have at least half the
money. 1t Is not unlikely that proViso that
they should have it all would be put into Mr..
HUNTERS bill. But even imagining-and it
requires a great stretch of the imagination
to do so-even imagining, We say, that
the scheme hiss been approved by Congress
and the President, then the money is 10 be
diyided-howY Mr. HUNTER says in proper.
ton to the losses Of the Shareholders; and
vet seems to think that his scheme would
not conflict with the Constitution. Instead
of tending to peace, scheme that would
thus select favored class for benefits, and
of this class give the greatest benefits to those
who had owned the most negroes, although
these would necessarily be the men who,
having the most land, had saved the most
property from the disasters of war-we say
such scheme would convert Virginia into
scene of ill-will, strife, and commotion that
has had no parallel In her history. Instead
of being united, as they now are, as one man,
her white people would be divided into
classes which would hate each other, and the |
negroes would thus acquire the balance of
power and become the arbiters of the desti- |
MES of our good old Commonwealth. God
forbid such result. .-.a !
The British precedent cited by Dir. Hun.
TER has no applicability. The British Gov.
eminent agreed in 1882, at the end of the
,car, in which ii ,oaS foilea, to carry away
no negroes" Theyery word "negroes
was used, and they were described as "pro-
perry OF course, any arbitrator would
decide that that Government must pay for
all the negroes carried away by British Yes
sells. But the United States Government,
instead OF agreeing at the end of our civil
war to pay for our slaves, actually did the
very reverse, and provided in the Fede-
nl Constitution that they should not be paid
for. TO argue, therefore, that the United
States Government ought to do what it has ]
declared in the most solemn manner shall
not he done because the British Government
did what it declared in the most solemn {
manner should be done is to chop logic in a y
manner not characteristic of the distinguish 4
ed and honored statesman whose arguments
We are examining. ...... .a Tx
AS to the idea that the United States are
~ estopped" from denying our claims, that
appears to Us TO be almost ludicrous. To
talk about "estopping" Government which
has already done the thing that it was
'estopped" from doing is to talk very
loosely, to say the least. Nay, the Govern
ment has not merely done the thing which
Mr.. HUNTER thinks II Is " estopped" from
is, refuse to allow this " claim -
but 1t has Incorporated into the organic
law of the country provision absolutely
jorbiddins that pery thing to be done-abso-
lutcly forbidding that very claim" to be
paid.
Mr.. HUNTER argues that this claim of the
accrued to the individual
owners under the 9th article Of the Federal
Constitution before the fourteenth was lati-
fed, and that the State had no right to re-
lease the claim, as 1t did in ratifyiug the
amendment. We say nothing as
10 the soundness Of this argument; but we
do s,ly that if II il souud then the yarious