Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-01-26


.0u.ion, and the higher ana more authoritative !
institution of justice
Mr. Storrs said, that he had not intcrca TO have
said another word in this debate. lie did not now
mean 60 enter upon the particular merits of the
claim. On former day he had so fully stated the
reasons for the final vote which he should give on
This particular amendment, tina, II wax useless to 20
over that ground asaia, and he would not now
lave thrown himself again on the indulgence of the
committee, if he had not heard some principles
advanced, in the of the discussion in view OF
which, the amount of compensation claimed by the
petitioner sunk into utter inSignihcancc, and was
not worth moments reflection. Ii / thought,
said Mr. S. that they could be sustained by the
laws and the constitutions of the country L would
not sit here for amoment; and represent People
whose rights would be nc ,enger worth the protec
ton or defence OF any said, sir, the other
day, that, i'll every case III which we had indemn-
he'd officers of the army tor the imprcssment of pri
vate property, we had indemn!icd them IN the
character of trespa5scrs. have voted for several
acts OF that kind, hut we have never acknowledge
cd the legality Of any seizures of that sort, and
lave always considered them Is Violations of the
personal rights OF our citizens l ircant 10 assert
this doctrine in its broldust sense, and if il cannot
be sustained here TO the most unqualified extent,
lhcn l have learned nothing from books, and
have protited nothing from the history of other
countries or my own. l could now have felt
that had done my duty here, if had not ri
sento re-assert 1t There can be nothing in the
Constitution that sanctions, by the renolcst imp-
eation the pcrnicous doctrine that, in time OF war
the officers OF the army can exercise any power
over the property OF our citizens, that is denied
them in time ofpcaco The change OF our AMIGA
Die relations with foreign power, does not work
such distraction of civil government among us,
destroy any the securities of civil liberties
at home. Ii is true that the Constitution declares
that private property sholl not be taken for public
without compensation. But so far does this
clause fall short of any implication that would
lion such principle, that il directly asserts the
very doctrine that condemns il. 1t placed
ak,orA
giant had despotic claim the part Of this Govern
Inent, in any case. The same clause is found in
many the State Constitutions; and if have any
knowledge OF the uniform course Of decision in the
courts, private property cannot be touched, even
by the Government ITSELF until the compensation is
actually made, provided for. l will not even
speak OF the Of officers Of Government. | say the
government itself for the clause has reference
whatever to any subordinate agents of Govern
Incnt, acting on their individual discretion. The
Legislature OF State, which finds this clause in
lis Constitution, cannot authorize the agents of
Turnpike Company, or the servants of the pctest
corporation, for any purpose of public utility, to
place their foot the land of any man. before his
damages have been ascertained and paid. IL
would be a fearful clause indeed, lift had been
placed there TO sanction, by implication, doctrine
that might shelter officer Of the army from the
Tctribution OF the law for the seizure of pri-
yate property. 1t neither legazcs it by iInpli-
cation, nor even acknowledges it as the act
oil the Government. Nor is there, in my judg-
OF private property for public use, under this clause
the Constitution, and the exercise OF the general
power of taxation. The process cannot be as
simulated to that OF taxation III any Just sense nor is
property so taken appropriated at all, by way OF
sessrnent. in the nature OF for the public use
For compensation IS strictly of the nature of an
equivalent for its value, and the only operation of
such power, even when lawfully exerted, a.
E3inSt the VIII OF the owner, is to fulfil the most
obvious dictate OF natural justice. do not think
an instance can be found, where the Government
,self, in the exercise OF the high and transcenden-
tli power which pertains 70 il, has taken the lands
OF any man, even for Notifications, without his
consent, vcntured TO dispossess him of his free
hold before his damages have been assessed and
provided for. But TO whom does this clause relate
10 any case? g Private property shall not be Ia
hen." By whom: by the officers Of the army, or
and other mere agent of the Government, acting
at his own will and on his own Judgment or plea
eure2 No, sir-by the Government itself am
yet TO learn that Commanding General, or any
other officer can exercise any OF the powers of tS
Government, i'll time of war, at any other time
except over the army. am not about TO saw that in
case of extreme and uncomfortable necessity when
the safety OF all army or the security OF post re-
gures such an act 10 be done, a commanding Off
may not be morally excusable by his Govern
ineut for the impressment of private property on
sudden emergency, nor that If he acted with dis
erection, he deserved its Ccnsure; nor will | speak
OF the measure OF contempt that would Justly fol-
low any man who should refuse TO dedicate
cheerfully, IN moment OF immediate danger his
property or his life to his country's defence. |
know that this power has been exercised i'm some
cases where censure was not demanded; but in o.
theirs, that We should never recommend as exam
pies. 1t IS against the doctrine that holds such
seizures private propertyby an officer of the army
against the will OF the owner 10 be lawful that
protest. Ii it be justified in court of Justice in
this country, the whole Government is a mockc-
~, and every man slave. / cannot reflect with
out emotions that cannot suppress on the mise
rable slavery under which we live if ouch DOW
is to be tolerated. Who sir, is 10 be the Judge of
the necessity that shall justify it? If an officer OF
the army, then is he only bound TO exercise his
Judgment military man, Il nc stands on every
analogous principle Of law, irresponsible and usii-
fed. VIII any gentleman here, of that profession
OF which am an humble member, show US Il
precedent Of such Justification Will he let Us
know the name Of an English lawyer that ever nut
his name TO such plea? Viii lac produce a re-
cord from the whole history OF British iurispru-
dCncc where IL can be found? Such a point was
never suffered TO be debated before Judge in
Engl9nd. No writer, since the days of james II
has asserted it, and no lawyer there would deflc
the record Of court with such a defence We
have recognized The eggl.ity OF these impress
ments in numerous acts for the relief Of officers
The act for the relief Of General Swaityqout even
Tecites the judgment Of the Supreme Court IN n .
York against him, for tie violacs Of rirh that he
committed by order of the superior officer in case
Of impressment The records Of that court abound
with the viudcaticu Of that principle in every free
Government, which protects us ffOn the arm or
lic discretion Of military power, IN every form 6.
Disguise. II such a discretion il vested in n Com
maDding General, the discretion is not favorable
IN 4 court Of justice. lie must be the ole Judge
Q. the necessity, and every mans property is held
At the mercy Of iiis sword. If his property is
subject 70 military discretion, then his person al