The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1849-08-04

1 S"S ''<hs' - 9iiVaotAS Tue Diner KIM
of property, and .Iall the will Of men scr
,ng III any capacity or by any, oombisatio,
contravene the viii Of the Supreme Rule
OF all, and wantonF dispossess man o
that which is emphsti,slIy his by the mos
indeleasible of all telnresi The orioina
OF the right 10 the one kiad is derived from
human law; to the otlpI, from the law o
nature. So that the analogy between III,
Two species Of property fails entirely Jus
where il should hold most strong in ordel
to subject them both righihlly, equally &c
the control of human Legislation, and there
oy give color and strength % this objection
urged by our opponents. ~
We are therefore not shargeable with
an Inconsistency when we aliese the pow
or and right of majority to take away, OF
rather to discontinas the tight TO hold pro.
perry in negroes. and ys, deny its right 70
destroy private interest in the usual OBJ
lects ot property, unless for the public
benefit end when a reasonable compensa.
lion is made for it. Tae warrant Cor hold
ing the one kind of property, is an emana.
ton ofhuman law, TAl3 vRa, Cor holding
the other kind Is on erlIanalion of tlru low
oil nature. The revocation Of the rigt, 10
the two species, lies moi therefore equslly
within the powers Of human legislation.
The title TO the one kino is natural and in.
allenable-the title 10 The other kind is ar.
iiheial, created by the municipal law, and
therefore alienable, whenever the snme
power that bestowed il. acting in pursuit of
what it esteems best for the community at
large elects TO revoke il, A palmer pro.
position could hardly be- addressed to a per-
son having any adequate conception Of the
power and right OF majority in relation
to all matters connected with the institution
OF popular government
And yet the force OF this reasoning so
clear and palpable, is eysded by one bold
assumption, which has not one single ace
Of evidence drawn from the facts of the
case to sustain it, viz: .'tiat the original Of
the right property in negDes is idsntically
the same with The original Of the right o.
property in onH Thing else" Pleased with
the dominion which he exercises over his
menials, and physically comfortable in
the enj ymen. Of other mems labor, it is
not wonderful that the master yields his
reason up to such strong decisions; and in
his eegerness to exonerste his title from all
ieproach, that he should avail himself of
the alienation and defense afforded him
BY the idea of sanctity associated with that
Of private property. Ii is not strange that
be seeks to lodge his rigAt TO his negroes.
just where he rests his right to property of
any Kind, although in dong so he asserts
principle under which ~ an unlucky turn
Of the wheel Of fortune be and his pro.
geny may be reduced to a state OF eternal
which he has an,ecedenlly sane
toned. For he aflims a principle ab-
stractly; practising under which all things
may be reckoned properly which are cspa-
Die OF being appropriated to his wants;
and that he is under 10 obligation to inquire,
whether there DC any limits as 10 what OBJ.
jecs he may appropriate. Whatever be
can mould into the character Of pecunia-
ny possession by making it sutservient to
bis inclinations, becomes ipso facto proper
"! And he having appropriated it, has a
right TO demand for it the security Of the
laws, aud the contenance Of that public
sentiment, which forti6es and secures pri-
vate property. Furthermore every man
would have the right to reduce his fellow
men to seGvitude and 10 the condition OF
to the extent Of his power whether
physical or adyentitious. These are the in
ivitable consequences il the assumption is
true that the original of the right to proper.
ly in slaves, is technically the same with
that to property in anything else.
But this assumption is not true. There
is limit to The objects which may be re-.
duced to property, and the voice Of nature
proclaims that that limit is confined to OBJ
ects which descend from man downward in
The scale Of being, while reason declares
hat one man has no righs to have an abso
lutte property in his fellow man. If he does
acquire such propertyit is by law OF
human devisement, framed in contrsven-
ton Of the law OF nature, and founded in
rspine, violence, and oppression. II is
Just such law, tba, is the oripinal of the
right Of holding property in negroes.
But let US refer to few historical facts,
relating to the original Of negro slavery in
America.
The traffic in slaves between Africa and
the West India colonies was first authorised
and encouraged by royal ordinance OF
Spain in 1901. The importation was for
a time discontinued by the entreaty OF
0vander, until the culture OF sugar began
to occupy the attention Of tine colonists,
when the traffic between Guinea and His.
PAMELA was again enjoined by royal or.
dinance and sanctioned by repeated DEGREES.
This was in 1911. in 1916 Charles the
Fifth granted liberty to his German subjects
to carry on the slave trade. In 1867
Elizabeth Queen Of England authorised
The traffic, and shared the profits. Under
this edict the Virginia Company which en-
ioyed monopoly Of the commerce Of that
colony was at liberty to engage in this
trade, but being diverted by sources Of
wealth more lucrative, did not turn It's at
tention to this. In 1920 the corporate ex-
istence of the Virginia Company was ter
and the commerce Of that colony
laid open for short period TO free compe-
tition. It was under this privilege and
a bout this date that Dutch ship entered
James river and disposed Of part Of her
cargo Of slaves. Thus the slave trade was
by two edicis OF Ferdinand and Is
sbella, by one Of Charles the Fifth, and by
ooa or O,saen El;zaheth To these sever-