Of the tax-in-kind for 1863, $100,000 was collected in Pickens county alone, one of the poorest in the State. The produce was sent in too freely to be taken care of by the government quartermasters, and, as there was enough on hand for a year or two, much of it was ruined for lack of storage room.[[17]] An English traveller in East Alabama in 1864 reported that there was abundance; that the tax-in-kind was working well, and that enough provisions had already been collected for the Western armies of the Confederacy to last until the harvest of 1865.[[18]] There were few railroads in the State and the rolling stock on these was scarce and soon worn out. So the supplies gathered by the tax-in-kind law could not be moved. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of beef and bacon, and bushels of corn were piled up in the government warehouses and at the dépôts, while starvation threatened the armies and the people also in districts remote from the railroads or rivers. At the supply centers of Alabama and along the railroads in the Black Belt there were immense stores of provisions. When the war ended, notwithstanding the destruction by raids, great quantities of corn and bacon were seized or destroyed by the Northern troops.[[19]]

IMPRESSMENT.

The State quite early began to secure supplies by impressment. Salt was probably the first article to which it laid claim. Later the officials were authorized to impress and pay for supplies necessary for the public service. In 1862, the Governor was authorized to impress shoes and leather, and other shoemakers’ materials for the use of the army. The Legislature appropriated $250,000 to pay for impressments under this law.[[20]] In case of a refusal to comply with an order of impressment, the sheriff was authorized to summon a posse comitatus of not less than twenty men and seize double the quantity first impressed. In such cases no compensation was given.[[21]] The people resisted the impressment of their property. By a law of October 31, 1862, the Governor was impowered to impress slaves, and tools and teams for them to work with, in the public service against the enemy, and $1,000,000 was appropriated to pay the owners.[[22]] Slaves were regularly impressed by the Confederate officials acting in co-operation with the State authorities, for work on fortifications and for other public service. Several thousand were at work at Mobile at various times. They were secured usually by requisition on the State government, which then impressed them. In December, 1864, Alabama was asked for 2,500 negroes for the Confederate service.[[23]] The people were morbidly sensitive about their slave property and there was much discontent at the impressment of slaves even though they were paid for. As the war drew to a close, the people were less and less willing to have their servants impressed.

In the spring of 1863, the Confederate Congress authorized the impressment of private property for public use.[[24]] The Confederate President and the Governor each appointed an agent, and these together fixed the prices to be paid for the property taken.[[25]] Every two months they published schedules of prices, which were always below the market prices.[[26]] Evidently impressment had been going on for some time, for, in November, 1862, Judge Dargan, member of Congress from Alabama, wrote to the President that the people from the country were afraid to bring produce to Mobile for fear of seizure by the government. In November, 1863, the Secretary of War issued an order that no supplies should be impressed when held by a person for his own consumption or that of his employees or slaves, or while being carried to market for sale, except in urgent cases and by order of a commanding general. Consequently the land was filled with agents buying a year’s supply for railroad companies, individuals, manufactories, and corporations, relief associations, towns, and counties—all these to be protected from impressment. Most speculators always had their goods “on the way to market for sale.” The great demand caused prices to rise suddenly, and the government, which had to buy by scheduled prices, could not compete with private purchasers; yet it could not legally impress. There was much abuse of the impressment law, especially by unauthorized persons. It was the source of much lawless conduct on the part of many who claimed to be Confederate officials, with authority to impress.[[27]] The Legislature frequently protested against the manner of execution of the law. In 1863, a State law was passed which indicates that the people had been suffering from the depredations of thieves who pretended to be Confederate officials in order to get supplies. It was made a penal offense in 1862 and again in 1863, with from one to five years’ imprisonment and $500 to $5,000 fine, to falsely represent oneself as a Confederate agent, contractor or official.[[28]] The merchants of Mobile protested against the impressment of sugar and molasses; it would cause prices to double, they said.[[29]] There was much complaint from sufferers who were never paid by the Confederate authorities for the supplies impressed. Army quartermasters would sometimes seize the necessary supplies and would leave with the army before settling accounts with the citizens, the latter often being left without any proof of their claim. In North Alabama, especially, where the armies never tarried long at a place, the complaint was greatest. To do away with this abuse resulting from carelessness, the Secretary of War appointed agents in each Congressional district to receive proof of claims for forage and supplies impressed.[[30]] The State wanted a Confederate law passed to authorize receipts for supplies to be given as part of the tax-in-kind.[[31]] The unequal operation of the impressment system may be seen in the case of Clarke and Monroe counties. In the former, from sixteen persons, property amounting to $1,700 was impressed. In Monroe, from thirty-seven persons, $60,000 worth was taken. The delay in payment was so long that it was practically worthless when received.[[32]]

(Concluded next month.)

THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS
IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN THE ROYAL COLONY OF NEW YORK.

CHAPTER I
THE PRESS IN ENGLAND BEFORE THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

Immediately on the introduction of printing the Church assumed towards it an attitude at once intimate and watchful. Since all that affected the welfare of the mind and the health of the soul was of importance to the Church, it was not at all surprising that the demand was at once made that nothing should be put forth by the press save that which had received the sanction—the “Imprimatur”—of the Diocesan authority, or later of the official delegated by the personal representative of the Papacy. The rules that were laid down for the direction of the printer were full and explicit, and no resistance seems to have been attempted at the period of the Reformation in England, the power of supervision over all forms of printing passed from the hands of the Church to the civil authority. This followed naturally from the theory that the King, as Head of the Church, inherited all rights of oversight in matters of opinion and morals formerly pertaining to the Pope, and exercised in England by the Bishops in his name. The Henrician and Elizabethan Bishops still gave the “Imprimatur,” but it was now as representing the King. The fact of publication without authority was in itself a crime deserving of severe punishment.[[33]]

A further step in the restriction of printing was the establishment (in line with the general tendencies of the time), of monopolies by patent. In 1557 the Stationers’ Company was formed of ninety-seven London stationers, and to it was committed the sole right to print books licensed by the proper authority.[[34]] As representing the Sovereign, the Star Chamber exercised a supervision over the manner in which the law was carried out; in 1559 it ordered that all books were to read by a Bishop or a member of the Privy Council before going to the press, and in 1586 gave permission for a printing press to be set up in each University, the licenser in this case being the Vice Chancellor. In the same year the Star Chamber ordered that all books were to be read and licensed by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London, with the exception of law books which were to be read by the Chief Justice of either Bench or the Lord Chief Baron.