Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 34, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 October 1880 — A SPIKED GUN. [ARTICLE]

A SPIKED GUN.

(Jen. Hancock Declare* Himself on the Subject of Bebel Claims—Unqualified Opposition to Even the Consideration of Claims of Disloyal Persons—The Heresy of Secession, with All Its Incident Fallacies, Pronounced Dead Past Besurrection. New York, Sept. 24. The following correspondence has just been made public here : Cincinnati, Ohio, Sept. 20, 1880. To Gen. W. S. Hancock, Governor’s Island, N. Y.: Dear Sir : I inclose slips cut from the Gazette and Comniercial of this city, both of them newspapers of large circulation and influence in Ohio and Indiana, referring, as you will see, to the much-harped-upon subject in our politics of These newspapers and Republican stump speakers are constantly asserting that if you are elected President the claims of the disloyal people of the South for losses sustained in the war will be allowed and paid by the United States. They further direct special attention to the fact that this charge has been made against the Democratic party, and that you, its candidate for President, have not denied it. This warfare is made in all seriousness, and maintained with great earnestness, and repeated day after day in the press and in speeches. 'You are known to the country as a frank, honest soldier, now the representative of the Democratic party, and having the right to speak for it. Whatever you may say the people will hear and believe. I submit the matter to your judgment as to what you should say, or whether you should make any public utterance at all. Very respectfully yours, Theodore Cook. REPLY OF GEN. HANCOCK. Governor’s Island, N. Y., Sept. 23, 1880. To Theodore Cook, Esq., Cincinnati, Ohio : Dear Sir : Your letter of the 20th inst. has been received. I regret that you are disturbed about that bugbear, “Souther* war claims.” The people can not be misled by it. To suppose that “rebel claims,” or claims in the interest of persons who were in the rebellion, can in any way or in any degree be countenanced, is an imputation of disloyalty such as used to be made against Democrats, even when they were in arms defending their country. So far as it touches me, I denounce it. The Government can never pay a debt, or grant a pension or reward of any sort, far waging war upon its own existence, nor could I be induced to approve or encourage the payment of such a debt, pension, or reward. Nobody expects or wants such unnatural action. To propose it would be an insult to the intelligence and honor of our people. When the rebellion was crushed, the heresy of secession in every form and in every incident went down forever. It is a thing of the dead past. We move forward, not backward. If I were President I would veto all legislation which might come before me providing for the consideration or payment of claims of any kind for losses or damages by persons who were in rebellion, whether pardoned or not. In relation to “Union war claims,” the Government’s obligations to its defenders come first. They are lasting and sacred. The public laws of civilized nations do not in general recognize claims for injury to propertv resulting from the operations of war. Nevertheless, our Government has treated with great indulgence the claims for losses and damages suffered by Union men from the military operations of the war of the Union. But as hostilities were closed more than fifteen years ago, claims of that nature, now mostly in the hands of brokers, or persons other than the original sufferers, are becoming stale, and, in my judgment, might fairly be considered as barred by the lapse of time, and, if hereafter entertained at all, should be subjected to the closest scrutiny. Yours very truly.

W. S. HANCOCK