Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-03-26

|
petent to remedy, qualify or withdraw as conside
rations of necessity or of paramount interest may
! required Must shc SIR look, III quiet mbecility,
on the multiplying evils of her slave population
must she sit down in powcrlcss despair, and see
this population coming on-wavc after wave-a
! gathering dcugc to ovcrwh helm her! No sir, she
has the corrective power which she may justly APP
! ply when her Judgment directs, and apply in such
| event without violence to private rights, which,
so far they convcntal, do not and cannot OK
! ist but in dependence upon the higher rights of
l the State All States resting upon compacts, cX-
press or implied for the public good, no one has
the capacity cvcn'to rW much less TO auth orize,
! an injury to tho wcll-bcing, which, and which
| only, il was constituted to ptotcct. The private
property therefore, which State allows to he held
by its citizens, must consist with the general end
for which the State itself is crcated-inust be held
under the reserved and necessary condition that it
is not to be productive OF public disadvantages; or,
that if il be, that then it becomes the fair subject
! to the State of resumption or restraint. Any
other tenure to private property than this-a &c.
nurc by which it might be held over after disco
very of its pcrnicious dangerous influence, and
! the public welfare would be incompatible with the
very object for which it is authorized, and with
that Just relation of infcrorny of individual inter
! csts the interests of the State.
Tho power, therefore, Mr. Speaker, of correct.
ing the evil tendencies of an authorized property,
is inherent in all Governments, and the exercise of
that power in eifccting the correction, when such
tendencies arise, is Infringement of private
rights-no infringement, because, these exist
|
tho general veal they may be considered deter
mined when that conflict A State can
not arbitrarily cancel private property when it's
uses arc salutary without committing injustice to
private rights: an individual cannot hold proper
ty when its general qualities arc dangerous or
bancful without doing equal injustice to the rights
which are public. Both have rights in this sub
Jcct OF property then which, at certain limits
tually exclude interference But, sir, whilst it is
unquestion.bly true general principle that the
right to private property is grant ION the pub
lie which it may may not make at its pleasure
and which, when made, does not dctract in the
smallest degree from the power of that public to
recall IT if it be grant of evil opcration-whilst
this principle is true and admitted, an cmbarruss-
ing difficulty will generally arise i'll reducing it to
practice. How, when, and under what circum-
stances shall it he applicdl AT what degree of i'll
operation is private property justly rcstrainabe
by the State?
Let us see, sir, whether that which wo arc
considering, has acquired character and an opera
ton which places it within this degree and pro-
pcrly subjects to correction. And in this nvesti-
CATION there is notwithstanding has been
lett to speculation cnquiry-tor however
widely gentlemen have differed upon the power and
the justice of touching this property, they have yet
united in common testimony to its character.
1t has been frankly and unequvocally declared
from he very commencement of this debate by
the most decided enemies of abolition themselves
as well as by others-that this property is "cv'
that is Il dangerous property. Yes Sir, so dam
gcrous has 1t been represented 10 be even by those
who desire TO retain il, that have been .ep-oach-
ed for speaking Of it otherwise than in fircsidc
whispers-:eproachcd for entertaining debate up
on 1t in this Hall and the discussion of it with open
doors and TO the general ear, has been charged up
on us as a climax of rashncss and folly which por-
tend issues of calamity to the country 1t is then
dangerous property-hcld at the certain and de-
clared risk of involving, from any act of impru-
dcnce In us or its owners, the rcposc and security
of our people. What follows from this character
That the property which bears it is beyond the
rcach OF interference or restraint from the lawsl
Assuredly not.
With the principle undcned and undeniable that
1t is the right and the duty of every Government
to protect its citizens from danger, matter what
be the form of it--a right and duty which ncces.
sarIly result from the very purposes of political
compact and independently of any direct stipula.
ton to that eficct--with this principle admitted in
the government and with property amongst us
danger also admitted, does not the case exist
for its present and immediate exercise? WHY this
power OF protection unless it is do be applied when
danger occurs7 Danger is the very thing to which
TINS power is the necessary and intended gonis
lilo very thing TO which it is pcrpeually opposed
from the first moment of its existence TO any
amer period OF its progress, this power is always
ready to meet and resist it. AT no time therefore
can the existence of danger and the duty of pro-
tccton, suGsist side by side in quiet fellowship
with each other.
But it is thought that this protective power is
altogether Interior in its nature and objects and
cannot be properly resortcd To but when the
suspension of her ordinary laws that it is in fact
power which never arises except when the life oi
, community Is Al stake and when consequential
right is derived, from that circumstance, of doing
whatever the public eXigcncy may demand. Now
, SIR, the idea that we cannot remedy evil ex-
lstng IN the form of a private right and sanction
ed by the civil law without waiting until it becomes
formidable enough to threaten the very being of
the state and thus to Justify resort TO the Su-
premc claw of necessity" is a mistaken and n mis-
chleV0us one. 1T is an idea evidently founded up
on the supposed analogy between the case of State
exposed to peril from external or from organized
violence and assuming, in consequence, the SHIELD
OF The 'SuPreme Law" for its defence, and the
case OF State when the danger to which il is ex
posed proceeds from the il-regulaton or the ill.
character OF one or more of its private and domcs-
TIC rights. NO such analogy obtains. When the
violence is offered to State which requires an an
peal TO this ''Suprcme Law" for protection The
danger is ompromising--total;--
e ilot arising out OF the laws, but directed a0anst
them; comPrehending all the rights of all the citi-
zcns, and demanding such suspension of them all
, aS may DC necessary for their ultimate safety
"eiii"hulng remedy prompt the danger and
Co-eA'cHSiVc with the injury which it thrcathens
In thc case, however, of a similar danger being
likely 10 result to State from the -mana cement
D UT NUN the progressive extension of injurious
I ProPclylt is one which must, at first be limited
9 must be OF gradual advancc-of slow rowth--and
therefore not one which necessarily subjects the
State to the exercise of any extraordinary means to
r repel it. On the contrary it is a danger which
is talry within the reach and correction of the or
binary laws, out of whose provisions it proceeds
and whose beneficial objects i'm ESTABLISHING proncr
ty must be abascd before it begin to cxist
, That there is Il power to be exercised, at some
time or other when tho safety of the State re-
{ CURES 1T, and against whatsoever NAV be re-
pugnant to that safety, nobody questions
s The difficulty seems to be in fixing upon the