Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the First Session of the Twenty-Fourth Congress Page: 4,017
[865] columns, 114, xlviii p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
4017
OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS.
4018
Mat 25, 1836.1
Abolition Report.
[H. oe R.
Legislature, the measure would conduce to the "good
and welfare" of the Commonwealth.
Rhode Island derived her institutions from King
Charles II, of blessed memory, and still reposes
under the protection of the royal charter. That
charter gave to the Governor and company authority to
pass all laws, as to them might seem meet for the " good
and welfare" of the said company, &c., so as such laws be
not contrary and repugnant to the laws of England; and,
as slavery was 'an institution not recognised by the laws
of England, whatever doubts may exist of the right to
establish it in Rhode Island, none can possibly exist as
to the right to abolish it.
Connecticut, like Rhode Island, remained during our
revolutionary struggle under the regulations of a char-
ter granted by Charles II. She never formed a con-
stitution till the year 1818. By a provision of her bill
of rights adopted in 1784, section 2, it was declared that
" no man's goods should be taken unless clearly war-
ranted by law." AH that was necessary to justify the
taking of them was to pass a law to that effect! and
the royal charter gave full authority to pass all laws not
contrary to the laws of England. An act, accordingly,
for its gradual abolition was passed in 1784, and it
ceased, probably, to exist before the adoption of the
new constitution.
In New York, the old constitution of 1777 gave, if
possible, still greater latitude. It vested the supreme
legislative power in two bodies; it contained no direct
provision, as far as I have seen, protecting private prop-
erty from seizure, except what is contained in the 13th
section, which declares " that no member of this State
shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights
or privileges secured to the subjects of this State, by
this constitution, unless by the law of the land, or the
judgment of his peers." Thus, then, in New York,
not only was the right of the citizen in his property not
secured by any constitutional provision, but, even if it
was, it might at any time be wrested from him, by any
"law of the land," passed by the supreme legislative
power: supreme, indeed, since it might abrogate the
constitution itself.
Nor do I find in the constitution of New Jersey any
recognition of inviolability of private property. The
Legislature is clothed with power simply " to pass laws."
The common law of England is declared to be in force:
and it follows, consequently, that the Legislature might,
(as the omnipotent Parliament of Great Britain might,)
under the common law, and in the absence of any re-
strictive clause, exercise the power of abolishing slavery.
Pennsylvania, it is known, passed a law abolishing
slavery as early as 1780. I have already shown that the
right to do so existed under similar provisions to those
which existed in the institutions of New Hampshire, and
other Northern and Eastern States.
It would be tedious, and unnecessary to the purpose;
of my argument, to enumerate in detail the various
provisions in the constitutions of those States where
slavery still exists. It is enough to say, in general, that
Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennes-
see, in reference to the security of private rights,
adopted, with perhaps slight modifications, the pro-
visions of the 29th chapter of magna charia. [9 Hen. HI.]
One example, taken from the bill of rights of Tennes-
see, (article 8,) may suffice for all. It is in these words,-
" That no freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or
disseized of his freehold or privileges, or outlawed, or
exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of life,
liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers,
or the law of the land."
The constitution of Kentucky contains a special pro-
vision on the subject of emancipation. It declares that
" The General Assembly shall have no power to pass '
Yol. XII.—252
laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent
of their owners, or without paying their owners, pre-
vious to such emancipation, a full equivalent in money
for the slaves so emancipated."
Virginia, in her bill of sights, inserted the provisions
of the 29th chapter of magna charta; and, in regard to
private property, adopted a provision varying from those
in the other States, and closely resembling that in the
constitution of the United States. In the sixth article,
the language is this: "All men having sufficient evi-
dence of permanent common interest with, and attach-
ment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and
cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for pub-
lic uses without their own consent, or that of their rep-
resentatives so elected."
But whatever opinions, Mr. Speaker, we may form,
from the peculiar structure of the different State con-
stitutions, or from general reasoning, as to the legislative
power of abolishing slavery, when we look to the con-
stitution of the United States, to which alone we must
refer to ascertain the extent of our authority, we shall
find little room for doubt or difficulty.
The fifth article of the amendments to the federal
constitution is in these words: "Nor shall private prop-
erty be taken for public use without justcompensation."
AVbatis the just interpretation of this provision? Is
it not obviously this? Private property may be taken
for public use: and when so taken, must be paid for.
This construction is, indeed, expressly maintained in the
report of the select committee. " The true meaning
(says the report, p. 15) of this provision obviously is,
that private property shall be taken only for public use,
but shall not be taken even then without adequate re-
muneration."
It is impossible to deny this, without perverting the
terms from their ordinary signification. To found a
claim for taking private property, it must be wanted for
the public use. No learned lawyer need be consulted
to give the true meaning of this simple language. You
can have it expounded without difficulty, by the plain-
est farmer or mechanic of the country. Can it be pre-
tended that those who framed the constitution could be
ignorant of the import of the terms they employed? No
attempt can be successfully made to construe these
terms as conferring a right on Congress to seize upon
private property, whenever they may suppose the pub-
lic good, the general welfare, require it. No expres-
sion can be found justly warranting so bold a proposition.
The enlightened men who framed the provision would
never have consented to such a grant of power, which
would indeed authorize the invasion of private prop-
erty at the mere will and discretion of Congress. They
designed that it should be held sacred and inviolable by
the Government, unless it was necessary to appropriate
it to the exigencies of the public. When that was the
case, and then only, could it be touched. For example,
is land wanted for an encampment' it may be lawfully
occupied; slaves, servants, and horses, munitions of war,
provisions, may be impressed, when the country requires
them for its own uses or necessities; but for no other
purpose. You cannot take the property of one man to
bestow upon another; still less can you confiscate it un-
der a pretext of the general welfare; nor, under an au-
thority to use it, render it absolutely incapable, as prop-
erty, of any future use whatever. Such would be the
necessary consequence of abolition. In this view, Con-
gress has no more right to effect it under the constitu-
tion, than to confiscate a merchant's goods, and throw
them into the Potomac, or to waste and destroy his lands,
or turn them out as a common.
An attempt, however, has been made to call in aid
that provision of the constitution which gives to Con-
gress the right to exercise exclusive legislation over the
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales, Joseph, 1761-1841. Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the First Session of the Twenty-Fourth Congress, book, 1836; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30757/m1/93/: accessed April 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.