The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1840-03-21

Sa'eu a.u limited government; and the sanI-
tary once Of this clause is, IN precise and en-
ph"hc terms, to limit the power Of govern
ment over private property, to its public en-
Pioy'nenf, within the Constitutional sphere. -
Congress IS vested with the power " to rcgu-
ia'e commerce among the several States"
Kentucky has a large and valuable trade in
i've stock with South Carolina, the transit Of
which Is through Tennessee. Suppose this
latter State was, in some freak Of folly, TO
close all her highways. and refuse to the Ken
lucky traders, the right of way through her
territory Congress, in virtue Of that au-
thority, could take so much of the lands Of the
citizens Of Tennessee, and impress SO many
oil their teams OF slaves, as would be neces-
sary 70 open and construct road appropriate
TO ms trade, upon which il might be resumed;
and Il would be the imperative duty Of the Ma
tional Legislature to exert this power actively,
and to take private property for that public
use--making compensation 10 the owners OF
the property thus employed.
But is not the proposition paradox, that
Congress takes private property for public
use, by an act which would withdraw it from
al employment, all application, all use, all ap-
preparation, as property?-whch would be the
effect produced by the emancipation of the
slaves OF the District. Suppose Congress
should be seized with the folly Of abrogaiing
ownership and property in all the cattle within
the ten miles square, and should legislate to
enlarge them from the custody Of man, and
to send them forth to roam free over glen and
this might be constitutionally done. And
where is the difference in principle between
the two cases. The power Of Congress is,
10 use property, and for public constitutional
object, not TO dnnihilate ito Hdnsf.r the
ownership, either temporary or absolute and
permanent, from the individual to the State
not wholly to abrogate ii. demand to know
of gentlemen, whence and how they derive a
power in Congress to "expunge" property
know that a distinction is attempted to be
taken, between property in slaves and other
subjects. There is difference, in the abso-
luteness of the power of the owner, and in
the extent Of the incidents and consequences
Of ownership. A man cannot destroy his
slave, as he may his other property and if
he takes life, or sewers limb, he is guilty of
felony; but he is as much entitled 10 the GUS
tody of the person Of his slave, and to the
proceeds of his labor, as to any property he
may own. The whole system Of individual
property is artificial, and the creature of posi-
tive law. There is no natural principle, that
gives me right to any thing, of which,
have not personally, the present actual use };
and no municipal law assures to me stronger
right, or invests me with a possession to my
lands in Kentucky, different from what have
of my slaves What shall constitute proper
ty, is exclusively the subject Of domestic re-
gulation in all States; though the general
aptitudes of most of its objects, and the iden-
tity of the wants of man, have established al
most uniform general lars of property. But
these laws have no obligation upon any peo-
pie, further than their recognition and adoption
by them; and any, and all Of its principles Of
internal and domestic application, are subject
to be modified and overthrown at will, by its
legislative power Property in slaves, has
been established by the institutions OF more
than half the nations Of Chrisendom, recog-
nized by all, and sanctioned by provisions in
the treaties of the most of them: it is secur-
ed by the constitution Of our country, without
which that glorious instrument would never
have had existence: its seizure has been atom
ed for, and satisfied to our government and ats
owners in the payment of large sums of mo-
new by foreign nations and he, who now
dares TO deny its existence, in the states
whose constitutions and laws ordain it, is
knaye or mailman. have as indeieasible
a right to my slave, as to my horse; my pro-
perry in both rests upon the same solid foun-
daton of constitution and law which throw the
same shield over me, in the possession and
use of both and while they maintain their
empire, | can calmly defy all assaults upon
the one, or the other, here or elsewhere.
Congress may then reject these petitions, be-
cause it has no power to do the act, which the
petitioners ask to be done. The ground is
stronger than that My slave is my property,
and my property is guaranteed to me by the con-
st,ution. have a constitutional right, to the
possession and use of my slave in tranquility
and security The avowed object, and the in
tate and disturb the shareholders in that possess
sion; to question his right of property, and
ultimately to deny it wholly, and by lawess
force to wrest it from him. These petitions
mediate an infraction Of The constitution, are
of themselves violative of its spirit; and Con-
press, is under the highest obligation of duty
10 reject them.
But conceding the power over the subject
if the reception Of these petitions would ex-
cite and alarm large portions of the country
foster and invigorate spirit, in one great Sec
ton, to interfere in the concerns, and trample
upon the rights Of another, and would be sub
versive Of the union and the peace Of the
whole nation, where is the true patriot who
would, not only justify, but require US TO re-
iect tleml There is no constitutional injunc-
ton on Congress to receive all petitions, III
relation to subjects over which its power is
undoubted and the moral political oblIga-
ton to do so, depends upon the condition and
fitness of things at the time. Congress has