Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1843-02-28
COMMUNICATIONS.
NO. III.
THE UNCONSTITUTlONALlT4 OF
THE LAW RELATING TO MILLS
AND M[II-DAMS.
NO. Ill.

wrong. For the mutual benefit Of the
whole. individual rights are abridged to a
certain extent, in order that society, under
certain conventional rules, may become
unitedin one common interest in sustaining
all the various relations Of domestic, So
cial, and religions enjoyment. The COM
mon law, coming down to us as II does
with the accumulated wisdom Of ages, de-
fines the rights Of every citizen with &C
curate nicety--hence the circumstances OF
the case must be Of a peculiar character to
warrant the passage OF statute law
abridging the rights of citizen where
there is no precedent found in the common
law. The English system Of Jurisprudence
admitted to be the most profound IN the
world, is the fountain from which we de-
rive all our legal erudlton and by which
we are governed principally in making
judicial decisions. ELIMINATING as 1t does,
however, from a country where the govern
ment is monarchicaI, it bears the impress
a S it naturally would, Of a consolidation Of
power in the hands Of the few instead of
the many. Now by the English common
law, favorable as 1t is to the concentration
of the power in tie hands OF the few, can
there be a precedent found that Lears any
comparison TO the one under consderatio
for favori,sm and partial legislaiion!-
There is none. 1t goes upon the broad
principle that every mans rights are pro-
tected, and that the property Of no one
shall be wresed from him and given to
another. These principles were borrowed
from the Roman law, and by the English
transmitted, and now form the basis Of the
American common law. All the American
decisions upon this point, are.more watch
| full Of ihe'rights Of every citizen Of the Re-
| public and Jealous Of the least innovation
upon his privileges.
But the constitution of the United States
is paramount to all other laws. The States
themselves agreed in their solemn cons
pact upon certain rights to be guaranteed
to every citizen, the justice Of which was
sclr-evident: among these was the follow
ing: "Nor shall private property be taken
for public use without just compensation"
This among others Of equal Importance,
was considered an axiom, and all the
states readily consented, while at ;he.same
time they reserved unto themselves the
|
, applicable more generally to the locality Of
each Of the States respectively. Now does
this law come within the purview Of the
constitution? contend that it does not.
The lands arc h'wed by dams erected By
individuals, and this law protects those that
erect them, dcbarring the injured from
redress at the common law. Now where
is the compensation given by the statute;
for the;s,atute itself in extending protection
recognizes the property as taken for pub
| lie use! Are there any commissioners APP
pointed tor the purpose, or magistrates au-
thorized to administer oaths to a certain
number Of freeholders Of the county, being
authorized to go on and view the land and
apprase the damages? Is there any pro-
vision for the amount Of damages being
paid to the aggrieved, when such apprai-
sal is had? Neither of these important
points is found in the act, but instead
thereof, there are certain ways and means
pointed out whereby person may COM
mence lawsuit. and if he is defeated be-
fore the District Court, he may appeal 10
the Supreme Court-( he succeed in the
suit. an annual compensation is fixed by
to commence another suit TO obtain that.
This act extending through nearly eight
pages Of the statute, as it does, incompre-
hensble from its stupid construction, in
explicable from its obscurity and contra
dctions. is tantamou3t in itself to the de-
NAL and exclusion Of every person from a
recovery Of his rights where property is
impaired by being flowed.
The constitution acknowledges but one
kind Of payment for Indebtedness, and that
is forthwith in legal currrncy as soon as
the amount is ascertaned. 1t otiiges no
person to go into the uncertainties Of the
law Cor Obtaining just claim which can
{ be known by the oaths Of diSnterested
witnesses. Few are able and none willing
to do it. 1t was long a question in the
| State Of New York whether the State had
right to gran: exclusive privileges TO a
certain class Of individuals, or themselves
take the property Of citizens without their
consent for public purposes.
But none had the temerity or audac,y
TO assert that that property might be taken
without payment being made to the owner
forthwith. This is the case in widening
canals, laying out new highways and turn
pixies, the construction of railways. and
other improvements Of the kind. No man
can be compelled to part with his property
unless there is an equivalent paid him. 1t
is an easy matter to ascertain the amount,
and provisions are always made TO ascer-
tain that amount, in laws Of this kind. 1t
is so in every state and country. Facts
are stubborn things. Suppose farmer,
after enduring every hardship in seeking
new home in the west, at last finds
beautiful spot upon the Fox river. as
charming as the celebrated Island Of Ban-
nerhasset in the Ohio, and settles down
| IL l. e l. { L L