Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1856-12-04

STATE, there Is no power 10 arrest the execution
except the judiciary, and that department Cal
only do it when the law conflicts with the con
titution. 1t cannot run race of opinions
upon points of right, reason, and expediency
with the law -making power.-Herman VS. tn
State, 4 Am. L. Reg. 344. Beebee VS. the State
> Ind. sol.
The great point of difficulty here, therefore
must ever arise in determining the meaning
the extent of operation of the declaratory anC
expressly restrictive provisions of the organic
law-the reservations in the bill of rights-iI
short, the implications of the constitution
Such it was in the case of Beebee, Supra
May the judiciary pronounce law void be
cause of repugnance to the fundamental prin
ciples of the government declared in the con
stitution IS being prohibited by implication
though not In express words Or because o.
repugnance to the clear scope and intention
the spirit, Of express restrictions as being i'm
pliedly embraced by them These are now the
questions. For example, the first section O
the article Of the "Bill Of Rights" declare:
that all men are endowed with unalienablt
rights, among which are life, liberty, &c. Now
how broad meaning is to be given to this sec
ton With what view or object was it insert
ed in the constitution ? What should be it,
Interpretation 7 We shall enter upon no dis
cussion of mans power of alienation, anc
no criticism Of the word unalienable." Sc,
Lieber vol. !, p. 218. We shall not insist upor
the pathological accuracy of its use. We shall
not dispute but that primordial or imprescriPti
bic or unalienated might have been better used
We shall only endeavor to ascertain the mean
ing with which the term unalienable" wa
used And if, TO express that certain rights haC
not been alienated. and ought not to be, a tern
was used which meant that they could not be
il does not weaken the force or clearness Of in
tention in the expression.
We proceed, then. to the work OF interpreta
ton. In Prigg VS. Pennsylvania, l6 Pet. OF
page 6l0, it is said that perhaps the safes
rule of Interpretation (of the constitution) ate
all will be found TO be to look to the nature anC
object of the particular powers, duties, snC
rights, with all the light and aids of contempora
~ history, and to give TO the words Of each jus
such operation and force, consistent with thei
legitimate meaning. as will fairly secure anC
obtain the end proposed" To the same effect
Martin VS. Hunter Cond Rep. on D. 557.
Kent 445. Federalist, No. rs. Smith on Stat
utes, p. AIS, Sec. ZIG. Guided by this rule, lie
us proceed TO seek the true Interpretation o
the first section Of the Bill Of Rights sbov,
quoted. We examine it in the light Of consem
porary history.
The monarchies Of Europe were formerly, i
they are not now, administrated upon the prin
ciple that the people were utterly destitute o
all rights, and entirely at the mercy of govern
ment- In the 18th century the principle wa
not only thus acted upon, but it was maintain.
ed in formal treatises as being in accordanc,
with the will of God. The tyranny exercised
upon the people, under this doctrine, reused
attention, excited inquiry as to, and led to tn,
denial of, its soundness. Men, with minds lib
eralised, enlightened, and invigorated by tn,
perusal of recovered ancient learning, anC
hearts warmed by the eloquenee of ancient free
dom, entered upon the study of the science of tn
rights Of man, and arrived at the conclusion tina
he was possessed of such by nature which it wa
tyranny in government to invade. Such states
men and scholars as Buchanan, Harrington
Milton, Sidney, Fletcher, Vane, and Others
perhaps their equals, among whom IL is not i'm
proper to include the illustrious and excellen
VIM. Penn, ably answered the writings of Fill
mer and other advocates of despotic power
The controversy waxed warm and spread wide
ly. It enlisted the nation. 1t came with til,
colonists TO America, and was prolonged. Grea
Britain practiced upon her maxims Of absolut
ism in governing here, disregarding the rights
of person and property. The people denied tb.
Justice of her administration and made ques
ton upon their natural rights. Histories OF ths
passim. The discussion of the
question extended to France, and there
as it had done in England aud in Ameri
ca, produced q revolution. The French con.
vention, pursuant to suggestion of Lafayette,
Mod. Europe, 166, Mack's. Life of Lafayette
PIG, declared.
"The end of all political associations is the
of the natural and imprescripti
BILE rights Of man; and these rights are liberty
security, and resistance of oppIes-
d. D.1
Lafayette, in that convention every man
is born with rights inalienable and imprescrip-
tible such are the liberty of his opinions, the
care Of bis honor and his life, the right of pro-
psrty, the uncomfortable disposal Of his per-
son, his industry and all his faculties the
of all his thoughts by all posi-.
bic means the pursuit of happiness and the
of oppression"
"The exercise of natural rights has no limits
but such will ensure their enjoyment to 9TH
er members of society" Mack. Supra And
see the same in Cutters, and in Headley's Life
Of Lafayette. This declaration, Burke, who
alarmed at innovation, had abandoned liberal
principles, undertook, in his Reflections, -
&C., to refute; and, as to the British nation,
that if its people ever had any rights
hey had formally alienated them, made g "a
solemn a remuneration of them as could be
made" by declaration to King william, on
MS accession to the throne, that The Lord s
spiritual and temporal, and Commons, do, in
he name of all the people aforesaid, most hum
bly, and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs,
md posterities forever" &c. l Burk's. Works,
Desrb. Lib. Ed, on p. 463
These Reflections OF Burke drew forth re-
them, Paine's Rights of Man,
ind Sir James Mackintosh's powerful Defence
If the French Revolution" in which he vindi-
:ates the declaration of mans natuaral rights.
md proves the unsoundness of Burke's doc
rine. "This doctrine" says he, "thus false
n its principles, absurd in its conclusions, and
.ontradicted by the avowed sense of mankind.
8, lastly, even abandoned by Mr.. Burke him.
'elf. He is betrayed into confession directly
epugnant to his general principle, viz: What
,ver each man can do without trespassing on
'thers. he has right to do for himself" DC.
Again :: "The existence and perfection of
hese rights being proved, the first. duty of law
yivers and magistrates is to assert and protect
hem The moment that. the slightest infrac
ion Of these rights is permitted through mo-
ives of convenience, the bulwork of all up
light politics is lost. If small convenience
will justify a little infraction, greater will
'xpiate . boider violation the Rubicon is
,ast." Mackintosh's Miscel. Works, D. D. $50,
'9l, SOP. Pending this great discussion the
people of the United States came to a decision
lpon the question in Controversy and thus de-
Jared it. 1--WE hold these truths to be self
all men are created equal that
hey are endowed by their Creator with certain
rights; that among these are life
liberty. and the pursuit Of happiness ; that to
ecure these rights governments are instituted
mong men" &c. Dec. of Independence. This
declaration was framed and adopted by men
( no mean judgment and who understood and
Weighed the language used. The States sew
rally, most of them, proceeded to ordain con-
titutions of government IN which they said !;
or example, as in that Of Pennsylvania:
That the general, great, and essential prin-
iples of liberty and free government may be
and unalterably established. we de-
lare:
That all men are born equally free and in
dependent, and have certain independent and
ndefeasible rights, among which are those of
njoying and defending life and liberty, of ac-
uiring, possessing. and protecting property
nd reputation, and of pursuing happiness"
And they declared that everything in the Bill of
Rights was excepted out of the general powers
f government, and to forever remain inviolate.