Martinsburg gazette and public advertiser. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1826-1833, 1832-05-31
grGIG aA1GTT@0
MAKrlNsBURG. MArsI. ls3s.

course oil our review % WI
ICE come now to examine the constitutional
question. As we are not lawyers we enter
into this mart Of the discussion with great diff
fdence, especially as we have heard this ar
eumcnt pronounced unanswerabIe. II we
display no great legal accumen, or should
NOT be very technical, we pray forgiveness;
hut we feel a strong conviction that we see
through this difficulty if we can only succeed
in conveying our impressions to the under
standings of others. Mr.. b. is here so diifu
sive that se cannot quote him; we shall there
ore content ourselves with making a short.
though we hope a fair statesnent of the ar
eument as we understand it. We shall con
tent ourselves, with referring to the state con
~stitution alone, for although a similar Prov
sion exists in the federal constitution, it can
only protect the citizen from the operations
of that government on his property; but
cannot offset the state laws, unless they vic
late some other provision Of that constitution.
The constitution of Virginia provides, that
private property shall not be taken for public
oses without just compensation. Slaves and
their increase were recognized by law as pro
perry before the constitution, which makes
no exception with regard to them, wherefore
they and their increase are like all other pro
perry and neither can be taken for public uses
without compensation. ANY law for emanci
patton on the post nati principles effects the
right of property in the increase, and is IN
constitutional unless it gives a just compen-
s%ation, which is universally admitted to be
beyond the means of the state, therefore such
a law would be unconstitutional This we
think is a full and fair statement of the argu.
ment, and on these grounds we proceed to
examine it. We will not enter upon the CUES
ton what right of property can exist, TO that
which is not in being. This question has
been fully discussed by others, and we will
refer again TO the authority Of the learned
judge quoted in the early part of this review.
For our own parts we might be contented
with that argument, but our object is to sa
tisfy others. In the first place then we total
iy deny that emancipation upon the post natl
principles, is such a taking to public uses, as
IN the view Of the constitution would entitle
TO compensation, admitting in its fullest ex
tent the right of property in unborn slaves
we believe it is not sufficient to entitle the
citizen to compensation under this clause of
the constitution. that he loses his property by
the operations a law which promotes The pub
lie interests, but the taking to public uses,
must be such an application of the property
to the service Of the state, in its corporate, or
If we may so speak, personal capacity. as in
The case of an individual would amount, to
what we believe the lawy ers cali conversion.
To illustrate Our idea. In the view of the
constitution, all general laws, are for the
public benefit. by promoting the general wei
fare or convenience, yet there are few which
do not operate particular loss. Suppose for
instance the legislature were to reduce the
rate of interest, it would necessarily produce
loss upon a considerable portion of the CAPT
tai of the state, although the public might be
greatly benefited; or suppose the legislature
were TO reduce the limitation of actions in
cases of real estate to seven years, and allow
! but six months to mme actions. where
] there had already been an adverse possess
4 sion for seven years; "a modification by the
way Of the law passed at the session before
the last;) this must necessarily produce loss
to many individuals, and deprive them of
\ property to which they would legally have
been entitled, although perhaps of great be
I neft to the public. Now will any man say
that in either case they woald be entitled to
/ compensation under this clause of the consti.
tutionp We have stated these cases merely
10 shew, that where a citizen is deprived of
property by operation of law, public benefit
is a distinct thing from that taking TO public
asses for which he is entitled to compensation.
We are not aware of any law emitting the
owner OF a slave condemned and executed TO
compensation previous to the year 1856, al
though evidently the punishment of crimes
in slaves is for the public security and bene-
FIT, Although this depriyes the master of his
property. could he receive compensation for
II without this statute? Clearly not. Else