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

noncd application oft, then ~ tho repression, by
any country, of any existing cause of internal
danger or disorder, tOTtiori, u mere legitimate
exercise of the principle still. 1t is easier to de-
iend by excluding or preventing danger than by
permitting and then resisting IT. 1t involves less
sacriiicc less sulcrng and hence the propriety of
this principle right of national interference
Upon this ground alSo-that of preventing injury
10y anticipating its occurrcncc-are founded the
civil cnactments which relate to personal sccur;tv
Did the law afford no such provision as this for
tho safety of our PERSONS no other could be cfcc
tual. In such cases Il remedy FOR the satisfaction
Ola permitted injury would be the mcreYt mocke
| nv of protection. The in airy which might ha 70
been restrained, if allowed to be pcrpetrated
might be such, that no human remedy could reach
it-such' that no degree or accumulation of pain
upon the offender would be productive o: any mi
tigation 10 his act. The idea of personal security
from law which is not preventive in it's opera.
ton is wholly dolusve-a fallacy which no
man would rely, as no man would DO safe who
could never look to his government but in the mo-
ment of assault--could never call upon il for help,
but when the dagger was plying at his bosom.
Sir, this defensive power of the government is
not passive gentlemen would make it's not
held up for occasional cxerlion-for emergencies of
state which may call it into use but to become
the real and bcnchccnt safeguard which it is quail
fled and intended 10 be, il must be habtually di.
rectcd to the prevention Of every danger. where
ever and whenever it appears which can threaten
the general security.
applied to the before us-tho case of slavery?
Unqucstionably, 1 answer, in other way than
by decisive and timely prevention of it's dangers
Hut what 1t is further asked, is the mode of pre-.
Vcntlon! answer as frankly, that there can be
no other mode than that of keeping down or di.
minishing the increase of the slaves bv a gradua
liberation and removal of them. | would not ap.
ply this mode, except at the private election of the
| owners, to the slaves noU IN existence, but ONLY
tn those hereafter born These, and these only should
| law ( Inc hpli rr
| OF these decline voluntary surrender of their
claim to them, then, in the first place. this claim
should be purchased out by the State, but if the
State have not the means of making the purchase
then this claim should be forfeited to the State in
such manner as shall best preserve the interests OF
individuals without hazarding too much the inter
| csts and the safety of the Commonwealth.
put SIR here Is the tender point: here it is that
we have been called upon to stop, to desst, tc
touch not, to handle not-that the property VIC
would rcmovc-the property we would purchase
the property we would forfeit, both tho born anC
unborn is private property and perfectly sacred il
that character, from the action of every power but
the power of arbitrary and lawess force Is thi:
| eternity to the private right to be admitted
Admit that this right of private property in the
slave is perpetual and ndcfeasibe, and how stands
the question OF relative rights between the Go
Vcrnmcnt and its citizcns2 On the one side tn,
sanctlty and inviolability of private property il
plead Tor the preservation of the total number o
our slaves present and to come the other side
Iherc is Plead the increasing danger of this slave
population to the public security, and the conse
quent necessity of arrcsting it by gradual reduc
ton OF its numbers. Allow the private claim o
property to prevail, and you authorize a progress
slvc and indefinite increase Of the slavc:-Alow
the public claim to security to prevail, and YOU au
thorizc an immediate restriction of that increase
How sir, are these opposite claims, both of then
OF acknowledged legitmacy-thc one resulting
from the operation of law, the other as resulting
from the very purpose of Recommendation ar,
they to be rcconced with each other in their prac
| tical effects? If a limitation is imposed on the
right to this property its increase, an abridgc
lnent OF private lights is complained of if no limi
tation is imposed, an abrdgmcnt of personal an,
PuDlc security is complained Of Upon this oppo
| sltion now are we to decide? How can VIC decide
but against the inferior right? The rights of pri
Vatc property and of personal security exist under
every Government, but they are not equal Sccu
rlty is the primary purpose for which men ente1
INTO Government; property, beyond a sufiicicnc,
| ior natural wants, is only secondary purpose ii
Is because private property ministers to the uses
ana comforts and enjoyments of persons that it il
sanctioned by law, and it is for these ends and these
only that 1t is sanctioned To these ends there
lore, must 1T be kept constantly subordinate, con
stanty contormed. When it loses its utility-wher
no longer contributes to the personal bene fits ant
wants OF its holder in any equal degree with th,
expense or the risk or the danger of keeping it
much morc-when it ieOpards the security of tn,
Publlc-whcn this is the case, then the origina
purpose for which it is authorized is lost; its cha
ractcr of property, in the lust and beneficial sens
OF 1t, is gone, and it may be regulated without pri
vate injustice, in any manner which the genera
good OF the community, by whose laws it was Ii
censed, may require.
| fTo BE CONTINUED