Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, 1828-07-12
COHMUNIC1ITON.
NO. VIII.
Htcrire case.

NO VIII.
D'1Htcrire case.
ICoScLUpEp1
IL IS an unspcakabe relief to turn from this
confusion worse con(ounded," this jumbo of
lessons and propositions the relutation Of which
presents no other difficulty than the most p.rplex-
ing ono o! discntangling them and ascertainins
what they mean s. TO what they relatc-it is truly
delightful, to turn to the elegant discourse Of Mr.
RUNNER OF N. York, as distinguished for its solid
consistency as those by which it is preceded and
followed by their protcan weakness and bearing
the stamp OF refined philosophy and patriotism.
MIR. Il. tells US that, intending at first, to vote
IN favor Of compensation he had, retlexion, de-
termined otlierv Use on the ground that Slaves
are species of property not contemplated in the
amendment TO the constitution. The process
whereby his mind led to this conclusion is as
follows
He first advcrts to the distinction between aJso-
lnfc property in material THINGS and that prop
erty which consists in the exclusive appropriation
OF the services or labor of PERSON.
lie then nlers that, these two kinds Of proper
ty being distinguished by very important diTaren-
ces, had both been intended they would have been
distinctly designated.
Mr. Is also advcrts to tho analogics between
the slave and apprentice, thus IN difference ex-
lists between the property ina slave, and that in
minor by the Roman law, aud in an apprentice
by the Common Law. In-cach, the right e,lbra-
ces his sereices-his bodily and intellectual labor
either for life or years accompanied by the du-
ties Of protection and sustenanee. No Northern
man ever claimed compensation for the
ncnt Of his son or apprentice-or slave, when the
North had slaves
On MIR. BIS reasoning, will remark il, the first
place, that the fact slaves were not contemplate
Cd IN the amendment, although it were established
would not support his inference that compensation
was not due Tor the slave Of Anterive. This a.
mendment, as have elsewhere shcwn does moi
itself create power, but obviously refers to power
already existing and merely serves the purpose
OF additional evidence that it was considered to
exist, and intended to be accompanied by the mod.
Ihcation requiring compensation. Now, even il
an expression had been used in tile amendment,
under which Stare property was not included it
would not follow that government had right to
take slaves without compensation for the omission
might as well have been caused by their being
| considered to have right to take them at all
Ihc fact Is, that to give to this amcudmci; of the
constitution dchniic meaning, must neccs-
sarIy recur to those parts ofthe instrument where
OF 1t constitutes n supplement-, those parts which
convey authority over private properly. These
parts arc the passages which constitute Congress
the war functonary of the Union and to know
III any degree Of defniteness what authority this
Office conveys, we must have recourse to the
parties and public sentiment Of the several states
Next, as to Mr.. III grounds for the position that
slaves are not contemplated in the 1mendment.-
Ems is certainly very untenabe for it is utterly
| inconsistent with the most important of all the
principles on which language is formed and used
according TO this principle, we may, by the use
OIL general term, express intention embracing
| dH the individuals to which II applies. And, ac-
cordingly terms are used, by those who know what
they arc about when they speak, commemorate
and only commensurate with their intentions But
MIR. BIS ideas if pursued and there is no reason
tor stopping when it is once adopted would alto
gether change the nature Of language, and make
Of 1t collection of prgper names only Differ
cnces exist between every indiUiduaI and every
other individual object, rs well rs between every
class and every other class and If we adopt the
principle that the existence Of difference between
| two classes, makes it necessary that two words
should be used to express the two classes the
same principle pursued will require as many words
as thefe are individuals contained in those class
es-il other terms that nothing but proper names
should be used by man. When generic term
used the first principle Of language requires tina,
we should infer all the individuals embracsi nm
der 1T, to be meant; and it is totally at war with
TINS principle to infer, because the genus compri-
ses two species that one only oftiese was in con.
temptation.
Concerning the distinction between the two
Sinds OF property, will venture the remark that
MT. Is observations on the subject betray an nm
consciousness Of the ambiguity of this term which
have already had occasion TO point out This
only proves that he has exercised his Own fine mn
luerstandIng less. and trusted to law writer's more
on tins subject, than he should have done. Had
ne Dsen less confidDg, he could not have Ea1Ied
TO the confusion Of ideas which preyails in
them IN relation TO it and to perceive that the
oI'uncfion estweor gb;o'pfc snd 3voEfed ia, no