Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1841-08-19

being yet bnricd in the profound depth OF ig'
norunce. They made therefore inquiries "a
to "Datursl right" Their object was. iuex.
ercse the legal and constitutional right COZ
terred upon them, for their own particular
benefit. And thus, the "democracie" which
they voted 10 establish. singular one It Is
true, as eyempliied ut the present time, was
distribution Of power aud rights among a
select and favored portion. II was similar 10
'ie religious freedom established IN Massa-
lchnsstls and Connecticut-tfeedoin Tor ono
sect only, to believe their own creed, and to
lnprison, fuo, ond Danish, whip, hang, OF
burn, IN best suited the fancy Of thr Tree, all
who might presume To doubt the iuiaIlibilIiy
of that creed. With all due Difference TO
the Hon. Committee, we do not feel any
way more disposed to consult such authority
for the definition Of "uatnrOl right" than we
should to be tried for life by a jury who had
previously made oulh TO hang Us at all haz-
arda.
| We will now attempt 10 find oul something
about the meaning Of "natnral right" WHICH
the committee treat as worthless and IN
meaning phrase, and as nearly u non entity ;
and which, il 10 believed, nearly every states
man and political writer. except the commit
tce, seem TO acknowledge has being, and il
known by something like distinctive iea.
/ lures
| IL il presumed that. by "absolute inherent
right" 10 extended "nutural right :" because
The committee introduced the phrase, tn show
that, whatever ambiguity or uncertainty may
exist os 10 the "natural right" 10 the enjoy"
mcut of the elective franchise, there can be
noAIc with respect 10 property. Here, per
mIt us Ia observe, II is somewhat singular
that the committee, IN comnen wih others,
OpPo'ed 10 lbe popular exercise OF the cleo
tive franChlse, are always 80 much at n loss
TO understand aud definc "na,ural right" IN
political point of view, while. at "A single
glance, they can take IN the whole field on
the scorc Of property, and assert with so
much seeming confidence, that the "right Of
property" i, absolute, inherent and unqucs-
,lonaby dwells "in ore'y one" Yet, as to
TINS natural right" Of property, in lands.
where did it emanate Whence came it !?
VIII any jnrlsl, statesman or legislator. IN
Rhode Island, point to soIl,nry principle IN
natural law, that substanta,cs II, or that
gives the least shadow of authority for it {?
The first we know of man, we behold him
free dcnizen Of the earth at large, on the
suffice of which, he had been placed by his
creator; and by whom, that earth had been
prepared Us the residence Of the creatures,
and TO whom he gave it as common heri
tage. Who purchased any portion Of this
heritage? No one. Who could sell any
portion Of it? No one. II was the common
inheritance Of the entire family; and the
laws OF nature. ps far ms they teach us any
thing, teach us that, tloagh the original an
cestors Of our race, might if they thought
proper. portion of them, dispose Of their
=. -, - nnrt,
ture gave them no authority to deprive their
posterity of its use, whom they, under God,
had brought into existence, and for whose
benefit, as well as for their own, God had
created It.
Such was the principle originally in the
Jewish polity. The land Of Canaan was par
ceIled ou, among the people; aud though
proprietor might dispose Of his own right
or though it might be- taken for debt, he could
rot ALLEVIATE il from hi, desce ndants, nor could
the authorities of the nation do it. In gene.
ril, where divisions of lands have originally
taken place, and in which n portion have mo-
nopoiZed greater share than ano,lrr por-
ton, they have been effected by violence
and that violence not unfreeG emily accom-
panied by bloodshcd. Such was the case IN
England at the time of the Norman conquest; /;
and in that nation, even to the present day,
no man holds land by virtue of an absolute.
inherent right, or natural right. On the con.
trary, every owner, or rather every posses
sor holds under The crown, bnd his sole right
is the guaranty of the law Of which, more
hereafter. On no prelencs whatever, and by
no mode Of argument, can 1t be shown that
any man possesses a natural, or absolute in
herent right TO a solitary acre Of Gods foot
stool, more than any other individual who has
moi square foot Of it, Where then is the
foundation of the right Of properly i'll the
soil? Let us now inquire.
CONCLUDED sExT WEEK.