Those "rebel" Claims

Tho Republioan managers are making the most they oau out ot' the very silly and stupid, ag well aa tul.se charge against the Democratie party, that its triuiuph in the Presidential caiapuign means the payinent of thousands of " rebel claims," iuvolviiïg hundreds of milliuns of dollars. Thiá charge isindustriously ciroulated throughout the Northern States, and ia made the subjeot of a campaign document by tho National Republican Campaign Comniittee, of whieh Zauk Chandler is the heád and "Judge" Kdinuuds the tail, and the lie that the Democratie party is oomruittod to their payment is taken up by tho Republioan journals, from the New York Timen down to the Allegan Journal, and the ehanges rung on " war claims," in the vain hope that the peoplo can be deceived by 80 transparent a subterfuge, from the examination of the corruption of the Republican party, its niisinanagoment and extravagance for the past ten years. THE " ESTIMATES " Of the auiount involved in those " claims " run all tho way from five hundred millions of dollars up to five billions of dollars, the " average " amouut or " estimate " being the suio of f2,000,000,000, which your correspondent will accept as the average. IT 18 NOTICEABLE That none of the gentlemen who are.so free with their opinions and estimates on the subject of " war claims " give any official data to establish the correctness of thuir asseitions - in fact, their argumcuts are particularly noticeable and remarkable from the absence of any defiuite and spociñe information from which the " average " reader can draw a fair and propei conclusión for himself. Your correspondent finds in the Cincinnati Commercial an article on the subject which giveB tho average Republican assertion on this score and is herewith quoted : Direct tnx to bo rofunded, 92,500,000 Cotton tax to be refuuded, 8,000,000 Rebel claim lot rent imd suppliea, 2,400,000,000 Total, f2,470,000,000 This the writer calis the " lowest estimate." Yery likely. The niodesty and fairness ot Republicau editora and orators to thoir opponents juet now is a remarkable feature of the campaign. They are given to makiug low estimates - of their enemies' strength - and your correspondent takes the Commercial article for the purpose of bis argument. THE DIRECT TAX Referred to not being a " rebel " claim, it is not necessary to spend any time upou it. - THE COTTOX TAX. The charge is broadly oiade thut the Democratie party is committed to the support of the propositiou to refuud the cottou tax, and that its restoration to power in botu branche! of the government will be sigualized by the repayment or refuuding of the cotton tax oollected iu the Southern States, auiounting to sixty-eight uiillions of dollars. LET US EXAMINE THK RECOKD Oq this subject. The tax on cotton was repealed by the act of February 3, 18G8, euacted in the isecond session of the Fortioth CoogresB. xno stwps were taken iu either house of the Forty-first Congress looking toward its refund, and " a bilí to rofuud the tax collected in the years lS(ü-(-7-8 on raw cotton " made its first appearance in the 6econd session ot the Forty-secoud Congress, and was introduced by Mr. 3d.eK.ee, a Jttepuldican meiuber j'rom the State of Mixtmippk Tlie bill was reterrod to the Committee on Way s and Meaus, where it quiotly slept uutil tho next session - after election. On the 27th of January, 18(34, Mr. McKee moved to suspeud the rules and adopt a resolution instructing the Uommitteo on V nyt and Meuns to report the said bilí and make it a special order for the followiug day and until disposed of. On this inotion the yeas were 77 and thenays were 105. Auiong the yeas appear the names of every üoulliern Republicau membur of Congress but two, one abseut with and the other without leave, and also the names of several Northern Ropublicans ; whilo among the uays appear the names of sucn leading Democrats as Beek, Barnuiu, Bell, Cox, Eldrcdge, the late Speaker Kerr, Marshall, Mitchell, Morgan, Niblack, "Randall, Wm. R. Roberts, Roosevolt, tilucum, Van Trump and others - a very couclusive answer to the silly lie that the Democratie party was committed to the toheiue to refund the cotton tax. Ou February 3d, 1873, Mr. Dawos, chairman of ths Committee on Ways and Means, moved to suspend the rules in order to roport adversely upori several bilis proposing to rofuud the cotton tax, but was beaten, not receiving a two-thirds majority, among the nays being such leading Republicans as Garfiuld, Hoar, líale, Hooper, Scofield, Paker and others, including Conger, Fouter and Ytaldron, of the Michigan delegation, the negative vote beiug ahnost solidly Republicau, tho plaiu iutention boing to keep the subjeot as a " bugaboo " for campaign purposes, which they are now doing, for there was all the wbile a clear working majority agaiust the bill, which could have been beaten at auy time that the Republicans choso to briug it to a voto. But if auything more were wauting io pi ove the falsity of the chai ge, it eau be furuished in the election of the late Michael C Kerr to be Speaker of tho present House. Mr. Kerr, iu the Forty-second Congres, was tho steady and active foe of the bill to refund the cottou tax, and was one of the sub-committee in the Comuiitteo on Ways and Means to which it was referred and which reported it adversely to the whole committee. He made, on the 18th of February, 187Ü, an able and exhaustivo speeoh on the subject, from which the following extractB are quoted : AfteT giving an elabórate history of the tax, with statistics as to the aiuount of oottou raised, uxportod, eto., he said : " There is no legal obligation resting upon the governmeut to refund to the producers all the tax colleoted." He then shows that the producers of the cotton growu in 1S6G-7-8, which was taxed and which was afterward exported, had at tho time of exportation a clear equitable claim upon the government for the repayment to them of the ainount of such tax, but that it was hnpossible to make good that claim in a court of law as the cotton could not be followed and identiüed, and that there wore insurmountablv dilh'culties in the way of refuuding the said tax. Besides, the claims had passed out of the hands of the producers iuto the control of a ring of speculators and middlomen. He said, " I am unalterably resolved never to counteuance by iny votes or action in this House, any measures which will favor tho schemes of the lobby at the expense of tho people. None of the bilis now on our files proposing the refund of this cotton tax are so framed as to meet my views of tho duty of Congiess." After 8uowiug the unconstitutionality of the tax, its cruelty to an impoverished people and its ineqnality. he concluded by saying : " No such indefensibie tax was ever before enacted in our country. To me it is a source of sincero and profound regrot that I cannot cons8tently with convictious and safe principies of action find some more efficiënt mode of relief. But I cannot, and I ain not willing to adopt a mode that will establish additioual vicious precedents and endanger the interest of the whole country." And yet a majority of the Democratie members froru tbo Soiith, knowing perfectly well his views upon this subjeot, voted in the Democratie cauous tor Mr. Keir tor Speaker, with the full knowlsdge that be would constitute tbo Committee of Ways and Mettng, as he did, agaiust the repoal of tbia same ootton tax. Is anything more wanting to settle the stupid He about the refund of tbe cotton tax bting a Demooratio sóbeme Í And will the Republicun spouters on this subject claim that the llepublican party has a clean record in regard to tbis same proposition, in view of the forogoing rocord 'r1 " REBEL WAR CLAIMS." The charge i made tbat thoro are "war claims" which under the "bloody shirt " oampaign have now become " rebel claims," pending before Congress, the Commissioners of Claims and the depsitments, amounting to $2,400,000,000, and that the Democratie party is comiuitted to their payment. No details are given, uo proof whateyer is furnished in support of the assertion, but it is lelt to stand upon the general ground of assertion which the euemy must diflprove. And this charge, infamously and absurdly t'alse, as it will be shown to be, is being repeated by Republican editora and stumpers day by day all over the country, and will bc uu til at'ter election. THE COMMITTEE ON WAR CLAIMS Was oreated in the House of Bepiesentatives iu the last Cungress, aud to it is required undor the rules of the House to be referred all claims growiug out of the late war. From House report No. 134, seoond session, Forty-third Congres, made by Judge Lawrence, from the Committee on War Claims - an able and exhaustivo report - it appears that there were 1,420 claims before that committee during that iCougres, involving the sum of $28,950,000, of which nuinber 1,420 weru reported back to the House 68 iavorably aud 148 adversely ; that the claims reported favorably in volved $1300,000, while tlit atnount involved in those reported adversely is not giveu, but an examination of the records show that they were for the most part small claims mainly of one class, viz., property destroyed as a casualty of war. In that reportajudge Lawrence - an extreme partisan, opposed to the payment of these " war claims " - says, " If the ordinary rules cf law on these subjects are not adhered to, the war claims growing out of the rebellion will probably reauh $500,000,000 without including pay for emanoipated slaves or debts coutracted in aid ot the rebellion, which are exoludod by the fourteenth auiendmi'iit to tbe Constitution." Will probaUy reach $500,000,000 ! No reasons are given, no data of any sort or kind to maintain that estimate, while at the time that sentence was penned tbere were lessthan $30,000,000 involved in all the claims before his committee during the Forty-third Congress, and but $3,000,000 before the Benate Committee on Claims. Now contrast that showing with the facts appearing from an examination of the calendar or docket of the Committee on War Claims of the present House. THERE WERE ON THE DOCKET Of the said oommittee on the löth of August, the date of adjournment, 1,287 claims, involving $26,500,000, of which nuniber. 1,131 were old claims presen ted in the Forty-third or some preceding Congres, sixty-nine were for rehearing before the Commissiouers of Claims, and eighty-seven were new claims. Truly a reuiarkable avalanche of " robel claims" as a resul t of a Democratie " Confedérate House," as the Ilupublioan organs term it! Juat think of it - eighty-seven new claims! Not one apiece for the "Confedérate" membeig from the Southern States, and involving less thau $200.000. Of this number (1,287), there have been reported fifty-seven cases, twentytwo favorably, iuvolviug less than $100,000, and the remainder unfavorably, including one claim tor proporty destroyed, reported favorably by Mr. Huzeltou, a Kepublican member of the Committee ou War Claims of the last Congress, while the bill appropriating sums to pay the amounts reportad allowed by the Commissioners of Claims in their ñfth annual report amountod ia the aggregate to $494,000, while the bill reported in tbe lirht session of the last Congress to pay awards in the third annual report ot the commissiouers appropriated $663,000, aud in the seuond sessiou of the last Congress the bill appropriated $721,000. If this is not a complete answer to the lying and hypocritical bawl of the " truly loil " organs on the subject of " rebel claims," then to a dead moral certainty " the court don't know herself." But she thiuks she does, and she don't believe that the wool oan be pulled over the eyes of the people to hide the iniquities of Kepublican rule for the last eight or ten years by the senseless clamor and hurrah made about the payment of war olaims by the Democratie party. H. H. S.