The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-01-22
As TO CONEISCATIoN.

Mr.. Chamberlain, British colonial secre-
tary, is a very bright man, but he is some
times illogical and sometimes inaccurate.
In his speech in the House of Commons
on Monday defending the British policy in
the Boer war he denied that the govern
ment intended a general confiscation of
property. He said the magnanimous treat
ment of Confederate soldiers by the United
States at the close Of our civil war had
been held up as an example, and he de-
clared he was willing to accept the parallel,
for, while the lives of the soldiers were
spared, no political conditions were given
the Confederates. and their property was
confscated on tremendous scale"
To place the war for the suppression of
the Boer rebellion on the same footing with
the war prosecuted by the United States
for the preservation Of the Union is unfair.
to say the least. While Great Britain
claimed a quasi sovereignty over the Trans
vaal. that country was never a part Of the
empire in the sense that the Southern
States were part Of the Union, and the sue
cess of the Boer rebellion would not be
anything like as disastrous to the British
government as the success of the rebellion
would have been to this government. The
cases are so different that to treat them as
alike seems illogical if not disingenuous
Mr.. Chamberlain's statement regarding
the confiscation of the property Of Con-
federate soldiers by the United States is far
from true. He says their property was
Cd m 10
the exception Of the emancipation of the
slaves. which occurred nearly two years
before the war closed, and which was in no
sense coniscation. there was almost no
confiscation Of the property Of the Confed-
crates. There was none at all after the
war closed. In 1862 Congress passed the
act authorizing the confscation of the
property of those engaged in rebellion
against the United States or giving aid and
comfort to its enemies. While the war
continued a good deal of personal property
captured by the Union armies was practi-
cally confiscated, but the amnesty proca-
nations issued by President Lincoln in De-
cember, 1853 and by President Johnson in
May, 1860, practically ended the operation
of the law. Two military orders were is
sued by Gen. Lew Wallace. commanding
the Middle Department at Baltimore dated,
respectively. April 20, 1864, and May |, 1864,
ordering a wholesale confiscation or the
property Of persons who had left the de-
partment to engage in the rebellion, but
both orders were revoked by President
Lincoln and moneys paid under them were
ordered to be repaid. Within a short time
after the war ended all conhscatiOn pro-
ceedings were discontinued. During the
war there were some confscations of real
estate in Northern States owned by prom
inent rebels, but in no instance was the law
| ever enforced against a private soldier in
the Confederate army. Mr.. Chamberlain's
statement that their property was con-
fscated on a tremendous scale is con-
| spicuously erroneous 1t is not known
what the policy of the British government
in this respect viii be in the Transvaal, but
IT will have to be very mild and mag
| unanimous to equal that of the United
] States towards the Confederates