Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1840-05-28

conservative destiny, they are one and inadvi
sible.
To regulate Tie use of property, great anC
ample powers are conferred upon the Legisla
ture. For such conservative purposes it is bu
!, little restricted. A mans house may be de
moished TO save city from conhagraton; hi
private property may be destroyed to proven
It's giving succor 10 hostile army; he may bt
!, forbidden to wear concealed weapons, or tC
permit his OK or dog to roam at large on the
public highway. But suppose the Legislature
pass law that all the cattle and horses owned
by the citizens shall cease to be property, the
right of ownership therein abolished, and the
animals turned out to the enjoyment of brute
freedom, would such law be valid! answer
without hesitation, it would not.
II Now the rule in regard TO the polcer Of the
Legislature will be the same, whether it at,
tempts to abolish the citizens right of property
in lands, houses, furniture, or slaves. There
is no power in the Legislature to abolish either
Were such law enacted, the People, by com.
mon consent, might defer to its provisions, and
forbear to contest its validity. But advance
the opinion with much confidence, that if such
a law be ever passed, under existing powers OF
Government, and its validity shall be contested
by the citizens, the judiciary will pronounce it
void.
Then, how stands the case with this Dis
trict? The Constitution has invested Con-
gress with the power Of "erclusiue Legislation
In all cases whatsoever over such District"
Now what may Congress do? They may
"legislate in all cases." but can they do what
IL nj oil
| Can Congress, for the capricous reasons of So
cial proprety, take away by law the lands or
goods OF the citizen, or abolish his right Of pro.
perty in either? Can Congress, from consider
atoms of promoting public or retributve JUS
tce, require by law that the owners Of slaves
shall exchange their relative condition, and
the servant, in turn, become the master?--
conclude all will admit Congress posses.
Ses no such powers as the questions contem.
plate.
1t is readily perceived, then, that the power
given to Congress, to "legiSlate in all cases what-
soccer oUer such District" will not authorize it
to do all things by its legislation. There are,
perhaps, few aboIitonsts so perfectly frantic
on this subject as to contend that the exclusive
legislative powers of Congress here would au-
thorize the passage Of law to sell the District
out at auction. All will perceive that the ge-
Mus and spirit of our Government impose some
limitations to its powers, We then arrive att
the important question, can Congress abolish
slavery in this District, and deprive the citizen
of his right and property therein, without COM
pensation?
To solve this question, | consider the Con,
stitution itself a sufficient and affirmative expo
sition.
Article five Of the amendments prescribes
that ''no person shall be deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private properly be taken for
publc.use, without just compensation"
By the frstIpart of this article, life, H6erty,I
and property are secured to the citizens on the
same terms; and by the same means appointed
to deprive him of either, he may be deprived
of all. The second part is equally explicit,
and easy of comprehension; and both are
remarkable for the prompt morality they ncul-
cate.
The Government, as representing the public
in its authority of eminent domain, may take
private property for public use by rendering
just compensation. Blu. the Congress Of the
United States, in all its omnpotcnce of power
cannot, by the enactment of direct law for
that purpose, and without pretence Of its being
for the public use, as authorized by the Consti-
tuition, deprive the citizen of either State or
District of his property, or right of property, to
the value of shling and will add, also, it
would be the highest prerogative Of despolism
were it otherwise.
As to the power of the General Government
TO regulate the use of property in this District, |
readily acknowledge it is possessed in the most
ample extent. But its exercise would be an
irresponsible and odious tyranny, if instgated
and prescribed by foreign influence, and cnfor-
ced by mere power on the People ofthe District
agains. their will.
With these views, maintain that the want
Of jurisdiction, the absence of adequate power
TO grant petition to abolish slavery in this
District, exhibits our rights and duties to be
no more or less than pertains to US on petitions
to abolish slavery in the States.
have no object or intention TO derogate from
the right Of petition, and would not, here or
elsewhere, abridge that right in single hairs
breadth, in its legitimate exercise. Ii furnish.
es ii convenient means to the minority, essen
tally useful and proper, by which to urge their
complaints, and ask redress Of such grievances
as the measures Of the majority may inhct up.
on them. But contend the right Of petition
can never confer upon US any dominion what
ever over subjects not delegated in The Consti-
tuition. Il cannot require ofus, whose powers
and duties are circumscribed and appointed by
the Constitution, that we shall be invoked or
rather goaded to action, and required to at
tempt, and partially progress, TO do that which