Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-01-24

ter, shall subsequently, enter into another contact
with another master before the first has exnircd
may not he with whom the first contract was made
insist on its execution, and set aside the second
Though the corpus of slave be person. vet he Is
nevertheless property; and Oh this great principle
L found my argument. The parallel attempted 10 he
established IS wholly untenable. The slave "a an
item OF property, is not member OF the BODY
polite; he owes no service OH his own account 10
the Government. The Government knows MIN
only as the property of his MASTER and can pet AT
him only in two ways-the one is by the ordinary
process OF taxation, and the other is by the extra
ordinary exertion of power, under pressing pub
lie emergency. In that case, compensation mus,
be made-it must be just-and TO be lust il must
be equivalent. This is an answer 10 the arpument
drawn from the analogy of minor or apprentice.
Another argument was advanced by the gem
tleman from New York, (Mr. Storrs) which Also
calls for notice That gentleman labored TO prove.
that the Government, in circumstances what
ever, may take slave for the public military SER
vice.
have already cndcavored to shcw that slaves
cam III no case, be considered or treated az militia
AS troops. That is out of the question. Such q
proposition cannot even be received for discussion
There Is no man who can doubt that the People
only, are ft To compose the army But a slave
considered as property, may rightfully he taken
ior the Government service when extreme ne
ceSstty requires But, placing the question on the
| gentleman own ground and admitting for arpu-
ihcht sake, that the Government acted wrongfllly
IN taking this slave, ask this committee if thew
are prepared for the conclusion that the sufferer IS
etiuuea 10 no compensation, because, In nficting
the loss, the Government did wrong Is the Gov.
ernment not TO pay, because il acted wropefulIy
Wnen II would be bound TO pay, even if il had
acted rightfully, in taking this slave! Ifyou once
ina'p'ain that Tie Government acted wrongfully in
,niS matter, you must then compare the case IN
mat oil two individuals, one Of whom has wronp-
iuiy injured the property Of the other Is not the
wrong -doer bound 10 make compensation 10 the
iuil extent OF the njury9 The argument of the
gentleman comes TO this: that Government il mot
responsible, because it has done wrong. Now, |
say, with all Difference for the acknow ledged tall
ents OF that gentleman if ever there was non
Seqmfur. this is one The case il not at all alter
ca because the act was done by an officer of the
oo'cr hineht ior besides the argument that the
act Itself was right-supposing it TO have been
wrong, appeal again TO the gentleman himself
whether, II one party commit on another a tort or
rcspasS by his agent, the principal is not respon-
sible for all consequences
Here MIR Storrs replied: l agree with the homo
tabie gentleman that, when the act of the agent
IS tcith'n the LAWFUL Tine of his agency the ppin
cipal is respohsible.1 f
Mr. Barbour resumed. put it to the gentle
man whether, If one trespass by order of another.
the latter Is not responsible But there is no need
10 discuss the question in that view of it. Where
the case OF extreme necessity exists the extraord;
nary power oil the Government NAV be exercised
ne officers for the time being are only its agents
ana the responsibility devolves their principal
10 not, indeed, wish TO carry this principe N an
extraordinary and unreasonable length If the
oiilcer wantonly, or unnecessarily, invade the
property of the citizen, he is n trespasser Rut
then this must be shewn, and, in the present case
not SO much as doubt has been suggested of the
existence OF such case of necessity. If the ne
cesSty exist, then that case has arrived in which
the Government may take private property for the
pubic defence. The Government did this They
ala through their officer, and the result has been
loss to this claimant OF much value as that for
which he asks us TO indemnify him. If we do so,
we must restore him to an equality, az to his con.
triouuon to the public service, with othcrs--his
ieiiow-citizcns. If he had but this one slave, and
lost this, then he would have contributed more TO
me requirements of Government, for the public
ueience III proportion 10 his ability, by perhaps ten
or twenty times, than his neighbors had done
/ ms surely ought not TO be. | conclude, there
iore, that we ought to make him compensation,
ana That the compensation ought be equal to the
loss And shall, therefore, vote for the amend
ment.
ITO be Confinuedj