The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-09-05

gress claiming either that this is not ma
ton, or that Virginia justice OF the peace
has the right to open and detain the mails OF
the United States. We took care to limit
our censure to the question OF cXpediency
or policy. We did not say as to the latter
claim whether we agreed or disagreed with
Mr.. TUCKER in opinion; but merely that it
was unwise and impolitic in him to utter
such declaration, seeing that its uttcrance
could result in no possible good to the coun-
try or his constituents, but would be used
in the North as an argument in favor OF the
election OF the Republican, candidate for
President. The course OF Mr.. WHEELER
proves that we were not mistaken rs to the
use which would be made OF this uniortu-
nate speech.
The paper, however, which charges us
with endorsing misstatement OF Mr..
WHEELER's kindly furnishes us with abund-
ant evidence that the so-called misstatemcnt
was no misstatement at all, but plainly the
statement OF fact. The evidence is found
in the following law, which is the one that
Mr.. TUCKER pronounces constitutional
s.Section %. If free person write or
print, or cause to be written or printed,
any book or other thing with intent to adj
wise or incite negroes in this State to rebel
or make instruction, or intoxicating resist
ance to the right Of property CT masters in
their slaves, or il he shall with intent to aid
the purposes OF any such book or writing
knowingly circulate the same, he Shall be
confined in the penitentiary not less than
one nor more than five years.
"Section "a. II postmaster or deputy
postmaster know that any such book or
other writing has been received at his office
in the mail, he shall give notice thereon to
some justice, who shall inquire into the cir
cumstances, and have such book or writing
burned in his presence. And Ii 1t appear
to him that the person to whom 1t was d.
rected subscribed therefor, knowing its
character, or agreed to receive 1t for clrcu-
lation to aid the purposes OF the abolition
lists, the Justice shall commit such person to
jail.
s'if any postmaster or deputy postmaster
violate this section he shall be fined not On
ceeding $500"
Now, when Mr.. TUCKER before the war
pronounced this law constitutional, we
agreed with him cordially. Such was the
fact ut that time, according to our then under
standing Of the relative powers OF the State
and the General Governments. We held to
the doctrine thus announced rs firmly and
conscientiorsly as we held to the doctrine
that q State had the right to secedc from the
Union. Attorney-General CUSHING and
Postmaster General Holt both then held
the law to be constitutional; but Which Of
them would so hold it now? What has be-
come Of that law? How did it get out OF
the Code OF Virginia: Why has not Fir-
ginia Il law now authorizing justices to
s'burn' - in their "presence the obscene
letters, books, and papers, which are
known TO pass through the mails !?
But we do not propose to discuss
the constitutionality Of this law, though our
decided opinion is that if Mr.. TUCKER were
justice, and were to act upon his belief, lie
would soon find himself in the pcnitentiary
at Albany. The United States Government
will never again allow such law to be en-
forced. We say, we wish only to show
that the law did authorize i justice not only
to open and detain the mails, but to burn
the mail matter. The law speaks for itself.
1t is too plain for argument that justice
could not burn book or letter that had not
been detained in the Office for his inspec-
ton, and that the postmaster could not pos
sibly know whether any" written thing.
that is, Of course, a letter-contained pro-
hibited matter without opening andreading
the letter. II it be said that the Virginia
law constitutionally gave power toa Federal
postmaster to s,open and detain " the mails,
the subteriuge would be apparent and abb
surd. THAT was surely worse than autho-
rizing one Of her own officers to do it. But
the justice was not to take the postmaster's
word for it. 1t was his duty to enquire
into the circumstances" and if he found the
book or the letter to be OF the kind whose
circulation was prohibited by law, then he
(the iustice) was not simply to detain it (he
had already opened and read itl, but he was
to burn it. We suppose that no one viii
contend that justice could burn letters,
books, or papers on bare suspicion, even be-
fore the war. That would have been too
bad. 1t must therefore have been necessa-
ny for the justice to open, read, and detain
the mails which. he afterwards found it to
be his duty to burn up.
We advise Mr.. TUCKER to drop this sub
iect. We are confident that he will never
again refer to it in Congress il he can
avoid doing SO; and that If he does refer to
itagain, he will not deny that the law au-
thorized Virginia justice to detain and
open the United States mails. A similar
doctrine was acted upon during the war by
the Federal authorities. They claimed and
exercised the. right to open all the letters
written by southern men or southern SYM
pathlzers in the North to their friends in
that section. And surely if State may de-
tain and open letters the United States, to
which the post-office belongs, may consti-
.tutionally do it.
81 The nature OF the blunder we have here
In discussed may be described by saying
that II Hr. TILDEN were to ayow his belief
in such doctrine, he would not receive
the vote OF single northern State.
sfss -
The September No. OF the ViTqinta Ned