Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1885-03-13
Is the Wrong without a Remedy /!

The Port Tobacco Times is discussing the
question of payment being made for the losses
sustained hv the people of this State in being
robbed of their slaves during the late civil war
Is the Times discussing the question an ah
stract proposition? or is it in dead earnest :?
Granted the rights of the matter, will it tell US
hoW the money can he gotten? Does it expect
that any Congress of this or any future day
will ever appropriate any money, or any Pres
ident sign BILL for any such payment? If
this cannot or will not he done, is not the mat
ter ''resadj udcata" so far as any practical re-
suit is concerned? Our recollection is, that
Mr.. Lincoln, as President did make PROPOSE
ton to cur authorities for payment for this
slave property, and the State representatives,,
blind to the possibilities of the conflict then
raging, refused to take the money. What is
to be done with this fact in case of demand
for payment? But in case Of demand, Who
is to make it? Upon whom is it to be made :?
If payment is refused, what then? To our
minds the whole matter is as completely nom
comatibe as redemption at par of the old issues
of continental money barrels full Of which can
be occasionally found numbering up some old
garnet. If, however, the Times is discussing
the question as matter of abstract right, we
grant The justice of the case, and wonder over
such waste of intellect and words in this
practical age, and Democratic President
husly engaged in ''turning out the rascals." -
Zorsen (Balto. Co.. Voice.
We will endeavor to answer the more
important of the questions of our esteem
ed contemporary. In the first place the
TIMES is not discussing this question as
can abstract proposition" but has been
endeavoring, by clearly establishing the
acrong, to make it appear that the remedy
must, as matter of public and private
justice, follow.
Our contemporary grants 'the rights of
the matter" and asks Us to tell "hou the
vored heretofore to show that the manner
of obtaining the money had been pretty
clearly pointed out by the present consti
tulion of the State. The exact manner of
proceeding. we suppose, would be for the
next Legislature to pass joint resolution
reciing in its preamble the manner of the
abolition of slavery in Maryland and the
agencies by which it was effected, together
with The clauses of the State constitution
bearing upon the mater, and explaining
10y proper recitals the causes of the past
delay in taking action in the matter, and
calling upon the Federal government to
award pecuniary aid to the State of Mary
land to compensate for the inconvenien
ces public and private caused by such
change of system" in compliance with the
resolution of Congr IS adopted in April
1862.
This resolution, being duly presented in
the House of Representatives, which ORR
CLIMATES all appropriation bills, oy one Of
Maryland's representatives, would, we
suppose, be referred to the judiciary COM
mittee of that body. If satisfactory proof
were adduced before that learned commit
tee, which we believe could be conclusive
ly done that the trainers of the Maryland
constitution were right in their conclusion
that the slave property in the loyal State
of Maryland had been taken away "by the
policy and authority of the United States
then we believe that the conclusion found
in the same constitution that compensa-
ton in consideration thereof is due from
the United States would irresistibly fol-
low, and that a favorable report of the
committee would he made to the House,
with recommendation of an appropria-
ton for that purpose. The passage of
bill making proper appropriation would
in all probability follow.
The mistake our esteemed contempor-
airy seems to fall into latter granting the
rights of the matter in arriving at the
conclusion that it is merely question of
abstract right and that the remedy is
''completely non-comatibe" appears to be
that it presumes that Congress will not do
anything in such matter as this except
what it is compelled to do. All will agree
that there is no legal remedy now in ex-
istence by which the wronged people of
Maryland can compel the Federal govern
ment to do them justice. There was no
remedy available the day after the wrong
was committed, because the government
cannot be sued without its own consent
first obtained. The question is whe her,
when the wrong is clearly established and
the equitable liability of the Federal gov
eminent made apparent, the Congress will
not provide the remedy. Such has been
the uniform current of precedents in all
civilized governments.
1t was and is the boast of the English
law, which we inherit. that 'sthere is no
right without remedy" Whenever,
therefore, in the past history of our law,
even under monarchical rule, it was made
apparent that any right of the individual
had been violated and that the common
law justice did not furnish any adequate
or suitable remedy, the wronged party bad
only to present his grievance 10 the Lord
Chancellor, "the keeper of the Kings con-
science" and that official promptly award
ed such full remedy as the wronged party
ought, &c 0quo ct bono. to receive. This
defect of justice in the ordinary course
was what gave rise TO the extraordinary
chancery Jurisdiction.
Now it is not to be supposed that the
conscience of the Republic is less correct
than that of the monarch. Precedent es-
tablishes that when the monarchy of Great
Britain emancipated the slaves in one of
its provinces. it promptly awarded just
compensation for tho private property it
thus took away. The question then is
who is the keeper of the conscience of the
Republic The Congress undoubtedly
occupies that position, and the uniform
prec edents have been for that body to re-
move all technical bars, when right is
established, and let the wronged parties