Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-02-02


not been able To discover that cnormty Of charac-
cr and those destructive features which had been
liviShy ascribcd to it. He was not to be drive N
from u principle which bc believed was correct. by
"o'sh expressions, nor was Inc to be deferred from
"dVocatng that principle by the severity of denun-
ci"ioh' lie might regret, he certainly did, that
Such weapons had been rusortcd to, but certainly
'hcy were not such, were hes, calculated to
convince tho Judgment and onlightcn the under
standing of this House.
According to strict parliamentary rule, hc pre-
S"mcd 1t was not in order discuss the substitute,
but as the principle of the substitute had never
been lost sight Of by the llousc-as every gentle
man who had taken part in tins debate, both before
ana since the presentation of the report oil the
Sclec; Committee, had alluded to it, and as it had
been the object of unceasing animadvcrsion and
unqualified dcnuncaton, he hoped he should find
pardon III the House for attempting to vindicatc
that prnci pic from tho odium which has been cast
upon 1t, and Tor cndcavoriry, in very brief man
ncr, To shield 1T from tho charge OF n wanton and
reckless invasion of private rights. He was more
ucsirous OF dong as nc found himself differing
WIN several gentlemen with whom he should act
on tho main question, i'll several important posi-
tons which they had assumed. lilo was therefore
ANXIOUS to have this opportunity of presenting tho
isolated ground Oh which he willing to stand
III regard TO the constitutional question. Sir, you
are told that the principle is unconstitutional in
tins, that it appropriates private property to pub
lie uses " ithout Just compensation, and you have
been referred 10 the CONSTITUTIONS of the United
States and of Virginia as authorities this point.
In answer to that objection, the position has been
taken by several gcntlemon that there is no viola.
ton of private property in disposng of the post
ndf', in Us much as they contend, there can be no
property in that which is not in esse or has no
existence. You will at perceive that this
ortngs up the enquiry, are slaves property in the
proper sense of that tcrm7 for upon this question
materially depends the correctness of the other
position. Upon the abstract question whether ono
man has the right TO hold his fellow man i'm bond
age he had not a word to say. No man has been
found sufficiently bold to come forward here, as
the advocate OF slavery in the abstract The prin-
ciplos of free institutions, the spirit of the
times In which We live, the genius of liberty which
is now walking abroad over the earth would alike
dcnouncc such doctrine odious and abomina.
bic, and he trusted its advocate would never he
found III this Republic, famed in revolutionary
history for its attachment to the unaenablc rights
oil man, and tor the many sacrifices it made i'm that
glorious struggle. 1t was not necessary to discuss
that point about which all arc agreed but in icgs.
lating Tor great community are compelled to
regard things they really exist modified and
controlled by necessity and un,cccdcnt crcum-
stances. We all know in the various occurrences
of human life that circumstances do exercise n
controlling influence over our notions of abstract
rights. 1T always had been so, and would
from the nature OF thingc ever continue. Look
ing upon slaves in this point of view, he was
compelled 10 regard them as property. They were
so regarded by our statute law and by the constitu
uoncd III the constitution i'll totidem rer6iS, vet
the Constitution throws its protection around all
property ana as slaves were held and regarded as
property, at the time of its adoption the conclu-
SION is irresistible that they included, and so
intended to be in that general term. The idea of
there being adversary and conilictipu ruht os
mas Decn supposed the part of the slave TO
ms freedom, does not at all affect the case as it
now stands. That may be well supposed, and vet
would not destroy the distinct idea of Il present
IN hat, IL
ccSsfuliy maintained tho slave would still be pro-
Pcr,y;-properiy by the force of circumstances
and the authority of the law,-not property by
any authority derived from nature but property
exclusively OF conventional character; and it is in
this point OF view, for all Legislative PURPOSES we
arc bound TO regard it. If then SIR the question
oi property is settled and slaves arc to be so re-
gardcd, he considered the question of Increase MS
also settied:-tor the prospect Of increase enters
essentially into the estimate of tho value of tina,
h'hu OF Propcrty:-it forms a component part o.
the price demanded, and the price given, and it i.
Impossible TO cut of that prospect, without at tho
same tne lnlparing the value. He did not con
tchd 'hat 1t was vested right, but it was a con
urgency, the full benefit of which belonged to tn,
owner of the slavc,-it was n continqencv vL;cI
ne presumed might become the subject of contrac
unconLcctcd with tho slave then in beno nm.
such contract would be enforced by the proper in
dlcial tribunal! The absolute right of propcTt,
winch the master has in his slave carries with IL
&c ~ tcrmini, all consequential as well as immcd
ate dement's, ana you cannot cut off those consc
l"oht'al ana contingent advantages, without de
hToylhg the characteristics of that right. AND
besides, the principle of the common law that "Doy
tHS Sequitur rentreH," was propcrIv apnlicoIIc g.
tins case for though slavery does not exist in Enc
land as 1t docs here, and hence the common Law
mas no application to 1t there; yet the common
Jaw is part OF the law of this land, so far as it is
adapted to our different institutions and variant
wants, and as slavery does exist here its prinrnne
90 apply to 1T, and nc believed were so applied Ly
the judicial tribunals unless controlled bv stotnto
ry enactmentS. While therefore he disscntc,l from
gentlemen With whom nc would finally act, upon
theSc two, by no means unmportant points in tho
discussion, and whilst he had felt himself com pcllcd
TO make known that dissent, and the reason of if.
he believed there position which thew moht
occupy with safety, and ground on which they
could stand together. He should briefly cvon;ro
IhaI position. 1t was the ground taken bv the
gentleman from Berkeley, in the remarks bc eub
ml'tcd 10 the House few days past II is the in
hcrcnt right which belongs 10 every coumunitv a.
preserve tseif, and to remove whatever is destruc
tive TO ITS ends and happiness, or in other words !,
is the principle contained in that maxim which has
occn more than once quoted, that "saIys oon,,J;
s"Prema ter"-the safety of the people is the su.
prene law. There must be in everv povernmont
scit-PreserVlng principle-a principle whicI, i'm.
parts to 1T a right to do that which its own 49,;
tence requires, and the vital interest of those ~,
on whoin 1t operates, demand. If this he CONGO
ded, and 1t can not well be denied il follows that
when any emergency arises which threatens dan.
ger to the body polite, to the people, that
ISht OF action at once springs into cxistcnce CII,
commensurate with tho difficulties to bc encn,n
tered, or the dangers TO be met This RIGHT i;
not derived from any statutory or consti,mtionaI
Iaw-It is superior to- that aw-it is the law Of en-
premS necessity inherent in the community, Ii.
mitcd and controlled alone by the cxioonc;os mi
emergencies of the which call il into heinz
The gentleman from Petersburg thinks il dange.
rous to resort to this principle as it is so lalIr ~
abuse, and may be perverted to purposes oftvronnv
ana oppression, and in illustration of his idea Inc
referred IL I'm Inc Hucf cCf 4.