The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-12-15
A QUnsrroN or roUrrr.

A QUESTION or EoUIrr.
 In recent issue Ths Columbia state has thoughtfui editofiAi on a subject that has been many times discussed without effect: the payment by the United States of the value of the slaves freed by its government. Tn equity" argues The state. 'the people of this country should pay for the slaves. The South has already paid more in pensions for Union sol- diers than the total bin for slaves that were freed, and the South would bear q considerable part of the ex- pense if the old shareholders were re- imbursed. The amount would not be stupendous---a half billion or six hun dred millions would wipe out that obligation: a third more than the ca- nal will cost is an outside estimate of the cost to the nation of paying for the slaves.
 'Ts 1t worth while for the United States to be just to a part of the United States that has suffered great ly? That Is a question calling for the consideration of the President Of the United States. If he questions the business of the claim, there could be and there should be deep inquiry in- to its equity by men far removed from the influence of the bitterness or prejudice of that strife"
 From a purely ethical and equitable standpoint The State argues we'll. Under the constitution and laws as they had existed from the forma ton of the government. slavery was a re- cognized species of property. man had just the same right to own slaves that he had to own horses. We are not discussing the question from humanitarian point of view. It may have been cruel and inhuman to hold human beings in bondage. or 1t may not; that is a matter about which there will ever be differences of opin- ion, but there can be no difference as to the right to hold them so far as the laws and the Constitution were concerned. The slaves were property, and the government had just the same right to take from us our horses and cattle that 1t had to take our slaves, and according to the strict code of ethics it should have paid their own CTS for them. There is no getting around this reasoning. whatever may be ones views as to the inhumanity of slavery.
 Then we come to the root of the question. which Is that the govern ment which took the Southern mans property from him should have paid him for 1t at the time of taking, or even now. An appropriation for that purpose would present the anomalous condition of men paying for property taken from them, but in some form the Southern people have been doing that all along. Each State of the Confectionery provides such pensions as 1t can afford for the Confederate sol diers. and in the meantime the South ern people are paying. in the way of taxes, licenses and in other ways a liberal proportion of Che pensions re- ceived by Union soldiers. This is the fortune of war. and if there Is any injustice about 1t there can come no good from arguing.
 Coming down to the question of now paying for the slaves. the bur den would fall almost as heavily on the South as on any other section. If the United States should appropriate five or six hundred million dollars for that purpose the South would pay a liberal share of it--possibly as much ties and other payments for the sup port of the government. Much of 1t would be paid by descendants of the shareholders. and by men who never owned a slave, for all citizens of the United States must pay their share of the cost of keeping up the govern ment. Thus it would come about that those who lost their property would help pay for it. That could not be avoided, but the money would come to them in way that would compensate them for any expense to themselves.
 If this money should be appropriat- ed, and the agents of the government set to work to make an equitable dis tribution of 1t they would find the most difficult task that men could well encounter. Many of the men who owned slaves have passed away and left no descendants, or none that can be found. Many others would have great difficulty in proving their ownership and the justice of their claims. and some would perhaps find 1t impossible to establish such claims. And then 1t would be fair to presume that there would be fraudulent claims, for men are not all honest, and there are those now. as there have ever heen uyho would not hesitate tn c1aiu,