Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1839-05-16
POLITICAL.
REMARKS

zens of the District Of Columbia against
the reception of abolition petitions, &c.
(Concluded.)
Let Congress promptly reject all petit
tions, emanating from cilizeus of the Sta
tes, praying for the abolition of slavery IN
the District of Columbia, and this corro-
ding and wide-spreading evil will be spec
div arrested. The halls of Congress, sir,
have been converted into abolition labora-
tories, where this accumulatne mischief
is compounded and refined, where il re-
ceives its point and potency, and whence
it is Illuminated upon the country.
But, again, sir, Congress have no constl-
tutional authority 10 abolish slavery in the
| District of Columbia, without The consent
of the slave owners. The Constitution
declares that ''no psrson shall be deprived
of his property without due process OF law;
and that private property shall not be la
ken. for public use without compensa-
ton" An attempt to reader this language
of the constitution more explicit or more
emphatic by any comments ofmine,could
but be regarded as reflection upon the
intelligence of this House. If Congress
cannot constitulionally take private prop
erty except it be for public use. and only
then by making compensation TO The own
ers thereof, and this is the only true and
legitimate construction, by what authority
can they wrest from citizens of this Dis
lrict their private property? Such acts
unqucstonabIy would be without The
shadow Of Constitutional warrant. The
advocates of abolitionism, therefore in Or
der 10 surmount this constitutional impedi-
ment to their schemes, must show in tue
first place, that the citizens of the District
of Columbia constitute no part Of the cili-
zens Of the United States; and, in the Sec
ond place, that slave property is not pri-
vate property. Whenever they shall sue
ces>fuly do this, l will admit that the A
merican Constitution af1nrds no guarantee
against The violation of the rights Of prop
erty, and that Congress may constitutions
ally, abolish slavery in the District of Co
lumbia, without the consent Of the slave
owners; but not till then.
lIthe citizens of this District may have
QUE species Of property wrested from them
by the high hand Of power, what security
have they that their property of whatsoev-
| er kind will no, share similar fate? But
sir, this supposition cannot be tolerated for
moment. The doctrine strikes at the
very root of all free Government, and is.
to all intents and purposes, suhy ersive oil
the social compact. In the language Of
the Supreme Court "There are acls
which the Federal or State Legislatures
cannot do, without exceeding their author
i'y. There are certain vital principles in
our free Republican Government, which
will determine and overrue an apparent
aud fragrant abuse of legislative power;
as 10 authorize manifest injustice by posi-
tive law, or to take away that security for
personal liberty or private property, for
the protection whereof the Government
was established. An ac, of the Lesisla-
ture contrary to the great first principles
Of the social compact cannot be considered
a rightfut exercise ofiegislatiue authority.
The obligation Of law, in governments.
established on express compact, and on
republican principles, must be determined
by the nature of the power on which il is
founded. A few instances will suffice to
explain. A law that punished citizen
for all innocent action, or that was in vio
lation of an existing law; law that des-
troys or lmpairs the obligation Of the law
full 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 a people to intrust Legislature
with such powers, and therefore it cannot
be presumed that 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 innocence as crime,
or violate the rights of an antecedent law
full private contract or the rights Of pri-
vate property. To maintain that our
Federal or State Legislatures possess such
powers, even if they had not enrestrain-
ed, ,vould be political heresy, altogether
inadmissibls in our free Republican Co..
ernn,ent." 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. Congress. therefore, can do no
act affecting the rights of property in this
District, that they are prohibited to do in
the States. With what proprie,y then,
can it be contended that Congress arc
bound to receive petitions on subjecl
upon which they have no constitutional
right 10 act! Suppose individuals should
petition Congress 10 pass "aw respect
ing an establishment of religion, or pro.
hibiting the free exercise thereof" or, to
'abridge the freedom of speech, or of the
press,,' would it, or could it he regarded
as denial ofthe right of petition for Con-
gress to reject such petitions? : No sane
man will SO aver, because the petitioners