Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, 1828-07-12

but concerns that of the interest only.
AS ito the analogies between the slave s. apprcn-
tice; they have already been under considera-
ton
Mr. INGHAM, after claiming the right to take
property as a necessary attribute of SOVEREIGNTY,
and laying down that the war-making power is
another OF these attributes ;-denes compcnsa-
ton, on the ground that the imprcssment of an
OBJECT establishes between the government and
tho proprietor the relation arising from com.
mon hiring under whchthe former is not respon-
sible for damage
In this view of the matter, Mr.. I. has omitted
very important consideration-tlie rate of hire,
which would have, in each case, to be sui,cd to
the risk incurred by the object taken. Ina &c al
ready shcwn that this rule of compensation would
be lar less favorable either the Public or tAc
f. Citizen, than its alternative
Next comes MIR. SToRR's second speech: ano-
thcr specimen o. confusion, from which it is quite
impossible to ascertain with any sort of deuilcness
what ideas were floating abou, The orators brain
he CHEF of them seem to relate to his old doc
fnc That government owe no compensation be-
cause the imprcsSincnt was authorized. These
| are however, jumb,ed up with variety OF others
In the outset, he talks about the principles
winch had governed and should govern, in crerv
| case OF UNDERWRITING an officer against the liabili-
ties incurred by invading private property Where
| as the question IS not whether the officer shall be
| infemnihed, but whether RAuterice shall-the
| late oil whose claim has earthly connection with
| that Of the officer
| He next tells us that Congress have never &C.
knowiedgcd the legality of forced alterations of
property. This is very different ground from
| his hrst. I|.at is question between the Consti-
tuition aud Congress; this, between Congress g.,
their subordinate agents
Another proposition is, that there is nothing in
| the Constitution which conveys to the officers 0f
me army any authority over the property of our
citizens. The answer is that the constitution
mas nothing to do with the officers Of the army
| never SO much as advcrts to their existence
.hey are subordinate agents called into existence
| by Congress. 1t is Congress who cons,;t,,o no
war-iunctionary In the eyes of the Constitution -
congress are the " officers of the army" IN which
A looks tor the defence Of the country To Cm,-
grcSs hns entrusted authority over private mon
erty and 1t Is for Congress to determine how apd
oy "hom this authority shall be immediately cyc,-
From this position that there is NOTHING in ,hs
Constitution which conveys the authority in o,as
tion TO the officers ot The army he impcrceraibIv
siiues luto denial Of its existence I'm the sa,crn
cHt-aVerring ha this denial was the very chico,
/ or which the amendment was Introduced wan.
| ders on to the new ground that private nro,er,u
| cannot be touched by even Government itself
until compensation has been actually made or nro
vIded tor. In support OF this he alir,ns ,I,,t =,
/ IN
itself, in the exercise of the high and transcend.
'ntai power which pertains to -" (what high and
ltraiiscendcnta power? for Mr.. S. has IN = dozen
places denied the right to impress propertv\ has
taken land without the consent of the nronr;otor
Granting that, in times admitting ordclay. Con.
gross nave preferred negoc!aling for voluntary
"nSefS OF !hings requisite to the public defence:
now docs this, dlsprovc their authority, under 9th.
or circumstances TO take those objects without me-
gociation "
we are next favored with this pncr;y: Even
admitting the clause of the constitution TO convey
H"tnority over private property it conveys it, no,
10 the oiicers otthe army, but to the Goreruo,eut
nSey-thc property must be taken by the govern.
ment itself.
| similar to the inference from this tia, the oGi-
GERS OIL The army cannot be invested with auihori
" 10 take private property would be the inference
.hat the tax gathcrcr cannot have authority 20 col
icct taxes The constitution does not convey
.h's authority to the tax gathercr, any more than
IT docs the other to the military officer; both arc
the subordinate ogeSs of the agent Congress
Mf. D then gives us piece of his abstract phi
iosoPhy'-lie is not ready to say that, III case OF
extreme necessity, officer is not moraHy excus.
aoic by ms government, for the impressment oil
property. What he protests against is the doc
u'he mat holds seizures ofprvate property agains,
the WIZ OF the owner, to be iotcfuL
! "hat does he mean by La,otm? authorized ON
. p'!' y, lne oWc'r, by an act of Congress? O,
authorlzed on the part Of congress- by the eonstit
| tiOB2 "
! lie goes on to say that if the seizure can be ;us.
urea IN any court of Justice the whole govern.
inent IS mockery and every man a slave and
asks Tor precedents of such Qualifications, in the
Pieadings under the English Law
n question concerning the authority of Con.
gress under the Constitution, or the autbor;tv nt
an oflicer OF the army under congress, this is Ger
,a,nly very pertinent call Although it would
uoIoleSs se matter of difficulty to fird the pre-
uen9s winch MIR. s. requires it is very easy to
seems that by law of New York treble DAMAGES
are allowed Tor deliberate trespasses Let am I'm
pressment take place in that state; let an action
OF trcsPass be brought against the officer and LET
MN plead an authorization from CONGRESS- and ,
lehdcr OF lust compensation" or an authorize.
uon' ana failure on the part of the plaintiff to an.
f,,,o