Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-10-12

lore Congress now by the CARLOAD. He
frankly states that he is in favor of paying
all of them, and he does not hesitate
to include payment for the slaves in his
catalogue. As corollary to this it may
be of some interest to refer to the opinion
of United States Judge upon Hanccck's
letter on Southern claims The Inter
Ocean publishes the opinion as written by
"one of the ablest and most distinguished
Judges upon the United States Bench"
As it occurs in private letter the name of
the writer is properly withheld. This iu-
rist says that he has read General Han
cocks letter carefully several times, and
that he is somewhat surprised at its char
acter. And then he says: If General
g Hancock intended to declare himself
against all claims for losses growing out
"of the war, except those made by loyal
s' citizens, he does not say so in this letter.
"If it is intended as declaration that he
/" is hostile to the payment of all claims
" for losses during the war of disloyal per-
sons, or persons who aided or Allotted re-
bellion, it is clumsy and loose in the last
degree. If it was written SO as to APP
"pear to the casual reader to be very full
I" and positive, and yet so as to commit the
"writer to very little, it is an artful per-
" Torrance. Hethen proceeds toanalyzeit,
and shows that Hancock only pledges him
self to oppose the claims of persons who
were actually in rebellion i; that is, who
waged war in person. But" says the
Judge, the great mass of Southern dis
loyal claimants never 'waged war, and
:" they are not claiming a debt, pension or
'''reward for doing any such thing.
"They are claiming pay for property taken
"by Union armies while they were march
ing through the South, not from people
g in the rebellion, but from citizens in
general, aud as TO this class Of Southern
claims Hancock is silent" Again the
Judge observes .Nowhere does he
I" (Hancock) say that he will veto bill to
"repeal the test of loyalty in claimants for
" damages resulting from the operations of
"war. Nowhere does he say that he
" favors the existing legislation which
g stands as barrier against a thousand
"million dollars of claims of people in
"the South who were not IN the re-
"bellion, but who aided and encouraged
those who were. Twice he refers to the
" claimants he weuld exclude, and in both
instances he is careful to say persons who
"were in the rebellion. Why did he twice
employ these words? Will any reasonable
"man believe that General Hancock does
"not see their full significance" And
he concludes with the opinion that the
letter "proves that Hancock does not
dare to come out squarely and unequivo-
"cally against the repeal of those statutes
(which keep the aiders and abettors of
rebellion away from the Treasury. :"
This view of Hancock's position is the
more significant when we perceive that his
letter has in no respect discouraged those
Southern politicians who, like Senator
Vance, boldly declare their purpose to
push the Southern claims. The inference
is that the South fully understands Han
cocks attitude, and that it has no reason
to apprehend any resistance On his part to
the prosecution OF the claims which
Vance and his colleagues are so audaciously
announcing their intention to pursue.
We recommend prayerful reflection upon
these facts to all who may have thought
that Hancock letter was sufficient set
Element of the Southern claims question.