Cheraw gazette and Pee Dee farmer. [volume] (Cheraw S.C.) 1838-1839, 1839-04-12

e.s, Injustice by positive law. or to take
,wav ,t,a, security for personal liberty or
private property, ior the protec'nn wnescol
r.. G,vernmpnt was establish d. An act
of,he Legisla,urc, contrary to the great hrs'
PRINCIPLES OF the social compact, cannot be
considered righiul exercise OF legislative
authority. The obligation OF a law, IN
governments established on express COM
pact, and on republican principles. must be
Determined by the nature Of :he power on
winch it is founded. A few instances %lii
suffice to explain. a law that pan'she' a
citizen for on innocen, action, or that was 10
violation of an existing law law that de-
s,roys or impairs the obligation OF the Jaw
.ful private contracts of citizens: law that
makes man judge in his own case; or
a law tha, takes property from a. and gives
i, lob. Il, is against all reason and justice
ior a peoplo to inrust Legislature with
such mowers, and therefore it cannot be
prcsumed ,ha, they have done It. The
Legislature may enjoin or permit, forbid
Or punish; they may declare new crimes,
and establish rules of conduct for future
cases but they cannot change innocence
into guilt, or punish inuocencence as a
crime, or violate the rights ofan an,ecedent
lawful private contract, or the rights OF prI'
va,e property. To. maintain that our Fed
eral or State Legislatures possess such
powers, even fthey had not been expressly
restrained, would be a political heresy, al.
together iaadmissible 10 our free Republican
Government. The principles here affirmed
by The Supreme Court are unquestlonaby
sound, and they apply as vel! to the cilizens
OF this District, as to those OF the States.
Congress, therefore, can do no act affecting
the rights of properly IN this District, that
they are prohibited TO do in The States.-
With what propriety, then, can i. be con.
:tcnded that Congress are bound to receive
tpeti,ions on subject upon which they have
no cons itu;ional right to act? Suppose in.
Gviduals should petition Congress 10 pass
q "law, respecting, an establishment of rcli.
gion, or Frohibiling the free exercise there.
o." or, to ''abridge The freedom of speech,
or of the PRESS" would it, or could !, be re.
garded as denial Of the right of petition
for Cong ess to reject such peti'ions2 No
same man will so aver because The peti-
TONERS would, in effec, require Congress 10
violate the constitution. And would it not
be equally violation ofthe constitution for
Congress to pass an act deprivirg individ-
uals Of their property with quite "due pro.
cess Of law 7" or 10 take ''private property
without '.just compensation" Most un.
questIonabIy it would. Let US consider,
;,hen, for moment, the nature Of the de.
mand made upon US by the aboilion!sts
And lot Us sec whether tha, demand be IN
accordance with their sturdy pre,enions to
pisiy and patriotism or not. They petition,
besiege, and impore US to do what Why.
sir, to repuliaie The principles of the Federal
conpact--,o violate the national fath-to
violate the rights of private property--to
trample upon the constitution, which we
have sworn 10 support, and consequently
to pollus and bla ken our souls with the
terrific crime OF perjury! Yes, sir all this
do the abo!ionsts require at our hands,
when they ask US to abolish s.uvery-"as
grca, mora! cyi!"-.n tic Dis:r;c; c. Colun.
tbia.
But this is not all. The abolitionists de
sign 10 effect the abolition of slavery in the
.Sia:es. also and it is worse than idle-it is
dishonest and insoleniy hypocritical IN them
to pretend that their schemes and efforts are
liuited to tho Distric, of Columbia and the
Territories. Every body knows, and many
Of the a5olit!onists themselves confess, that
such is moi the fact. 1t is as much their in
,cn,lon 10 accomplish the abolition Of slavery
in the States. as in the Territories, or in this
District.-Such being e case, then, lc. US
examine, for moment the nature and ten~
dency ofthe abolition movement. II will
be acknowledged by all, that, prior 10 the or
ganizl alton Of the Federal Government, the
States were, in all respects, and 10 all iutenss
and purpose, sovereign and independent
States or nations, aud. as such, no one State
Of course interfere with ,herighls or in'ernal
police Of another S a,c, without violation
ofinterua.ioaal law. An attempt therefore.
On the par, OF Massachusetts, for instance to
abolish slavery in Georgia, would have been
truly and properly regarded by Georgia as
an aggression upon her national rights, an
assault upon her State sovereignty, and as
a virtual denial Of her indeprndency as a
State or nation. What would have been
true then, would be equally true now. Any
interference on The part Of Massachusetts
with the subjec. Of slavery in Georgia, is as
clearly wrong--as much an infracion ofin.
,erna,ional law--siuce the formation Of the
Federal Government, as it would have been
prior TO that event. The States. under the
constitution, are as ESSENTIALLY and as a5so.