The native American., 1839-03-02

Bur again, sir. Congress have no constitutional
authority to abolish slavery in the District ef Co
lnsnbia, without the consent of the slave owners.
The Constitution declares that '.no person shall
be deprived Of his property without dnesRreeess
OF law; and that private property shall not DO Ia
ken for public use without compensation An
attemptto render this language Of the Coussitu-
ton more explicit or more emphatic, by anycoFN-
ments of mine, could but be regarded as rsfIeo-
ton upon the intelligence of this House. If gos,,-
gress cannot constituionally take private proYcn-.
ty. except il be for public use, and only then by
making compensation TO the owners thereof ana
this is the only true and legitimate construction
by what authority can they wrest from citizens or
this District their private property! Such acts un-
|questonably would be without the shadow Of con-
stilutional warrant The advocates Of Abolition
ism, therefore, in order TO surmount This constu-
tonal impeachment 10 their schemes, must show
in the first place, that the citizens Of the District
]ol Columbia constitute part of the citizens of
the United States; and, in the second place, that
slave property is not private property. When
ever they shall successfully do this, will admit
that the American Constitution affords no guaran-
tee against the violation Of the rights of property,
and that Congress may, constitutionally, abolish
slavery in the District of Columbia, without the
consent of the slave owners; but not till them
| II the citizens OF this District may have one
species of property wrested from them BY the
high hand Of power, what security have they that
their property Of whatsoever kind will not share
a similar fate! But, sir, this suppostion cannot
| be tolerated for moment. The doctrine strikes
at the very root of all free governments and is, to
all intents and purposes, subyersive of the social
compact In the language Of the Supreme Court,
l..Thereare acts which the Federal or State Le-
gislafatres cannot do, without exceeding their au-
INhcrn nit al
free Republican Government, which will deter
mine and override an apparent and fragrant abuse
Of legislative power; as to authorize manifest in
Justice by positive law, or to take away that Sc
cnrity for personal liberty or private property.
for the protection whereof the Government was
established. An act Of the Legislature, contrary
to the great first principles Of The social conpact
cannot be considered righiful exercise Of feg;s-
lathe authority. The obligation ofalaw, in 90
vernmcnts established on express compact, and
on Republican principles, must be determinedby
the nature Of the power on which it is founded.
A few instances will suffice 10 explain. law
that punished citizen for an innocent action or
that was in violation Of an existing law; law that
destroys or impairs the obligation of the lawful
private contracts Of citizens; law that makes
man Judge IN his own case; or law that takes
property from A. and gives it to B. II is against
all reason and justice for people to entrust Lee
gisature with such powers. and therefore it can
not be presumed that they have done it. The
Legislature may enjoin or permit, forbid or pun
ish; they may declare new crimes, and establish
rules Of conduct for future cases. but they cannot
change innocence into guilt, or punish innocence
as crime, or violate the rights Of an anecetlent
Las FIJI private contract, or the rights Of private
property. 10 maintain that our Federal or State
legislatures possess such powers, even if they
bad. hna,, y
iicm heresy, al,ogeiher inadnaissible IN our free
Republican Government" The principles here
affirmed by the Supreme Court are unquestiona-
bly, sound. and they apply as well to the citizens
OF this District, as to those Of the States. Con-
gress, therefore, can do no act affecting the tights
of property in the District, that they are prohib-
ted to do in the States. With what propriety.
then, can it be conended that Congress are bound
to receive petitions on subject upon which they
have no constitutional right to act Suppose in
dividuals should petition Congress to pass sslaw
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohi-
biting the free exercise thereof, or, to ssabridge
the freedom of speech, or Of the press" would
it. or could it be regarded as denial of the right
Of petition for Congress 10 reject such pettionsi
No sane man will so aver; because the petitioners
would, in effect, require Congress to violate the
Constitution. And would it not be equally
violation OF the Constitution for Congress "a nass
an act depriving individuals of their property
without educ process Of law" or to take s.pri-
vate property without 'just compensatory
Most unquestionably it would. Let us consider.
then. for moment, the nature Of the demand
made upon us by the Abolitionists. And let us
see whether that demand be in accordance with
their sturdy pretensions TO piety and patriotism
or not. They petition, besiege, and implore us
TO DO what! Why, sir, TO repudiate the prin-
ciples of the Federal compact--to violate the ma
tional faith-to violate the rights Of private pro-
pertv--to trample upon the Constitution which
we have sworn to support, and consequently to
poute and hlacken our souls with the terrific
crime Of perjury! Yes, Sir, all this do the Abo-
litionisis require at our hands, when they ask us
to abolish slavery--''as a great moral euil'-
in the District of Columbia.
But this is not all. The Aboltionists DESIGN
to effect the abolition of slavery in the States. al
so; and it is worse than dle--it is dishonest and
insolently hypocritical in, them to pretend that
their schemes and efforts are limited 10 the Dis
trict of Columbia and the Territories. Every boz
dy knows, and many Of the Abolitonists them