The Washington union., 1857-11-17


compact, were originally the property of the old
Thirteen States, the government Of Great Britain
having by treaty, rcimquished all claim, and were
ceded to the United States previous to the adoption
of the constitution, as they were subsequently ac-
quired by conquest or purchase
In the former case they unquestionably became an
integral portion Of the United States and when set
tied and arrived maturity entitled to partake
equally in the common rights and privileges secured
by the constitution 10 the States already existing
They became the common property OF the people OF
the United States, and when thrown open to emgra-
ton every free citizen had an equal right to pur
chase and settle on the land, taking with him that
which is recognised as property by the constitution
of the United States
In the latter case where territory was subse-
quently acquired by conquest or purchase, the argu
ment is if possible, still stronger against the distnc
ton set up by the freesolers. Territory acquired
by conquest is gained at the expense of the blood
and treasure of all the citizens of the United States
whether shareholders free-soilers it matters not
War ia the act of the whole people, and there is not
a man of them who is not, directly indirectly,
party If acquired by purchase, it is paid for out
''''NN'
every man who oats and drinks, and wears clothes,
contributes his full proportion. Setting aside all
laws and constitutions, and simply applying the
great principles of natural justice and equity to the
case we would ask if those who equal parties to
the attainment of good not entitled to equal
share of it's benefits This is universal law equal
ly recognised by the ignorant and the wise the
savage and the civilized man. 1t is OF those great
principles implanted in the heart of every rational
being without which he never would have become
anything more than an isolated savage utterly unfit
ted for acting in concert with his fellowmen in the
attainment of common object. community of
men--nay, two men--could not associate together
day without respecting the rights of each other.
This is the basis of the social compact; and without
it men would be compelled to become hermts to
avoid the necessity of exterminating each other.
The government of the United States is in the
habit of expendng millions ont of the common fund,
contributed by the whole people of the United
States in the purchase of territory from the Indians.
Yet the free-soiers say to nearly onehalf of those
who paid for this land "You shall not share in its
benefits. You shall not go thero-at least you shall
not take your property with you (which equivalent
to prohibiton.) The ground is tabooed to you,
1t is to be kept sacred the elect, to the privileged
order, to those who governed by the higher law
and the scrupe of conscience; and, though expect
you to pay your full share of the reckoning, can
not in conscience allow you to partake of the FEAST
Would not-the people OF the South be perfectly JUS
tifiaDle in retorting these exc'usonists, 'Wel
if we cannot sit down at the feast, we will pay no
part of the reckoning" and oppose appropriations
for the purchase of new territory?
The protection of property being next to that of
person, the most important object of all good gov
crnment, and property III slaves being recognised by
the constitution of the United States, well as orig
inally by all the old thirteen States, have
doubted that the emancipation of slaves in those
States where it previously existed, by an arbitrary
act of the legislature, gross violation of the
rights of property That slave property had become
less valuable in these States, that their emancipa-
ton was in accordance with the spirit of the age
and all that sort of can-is sufficient ground for
deprving one single man of his property without
due process of law due compensation. The
will of the majority is not supreme in the United
States, except within constitutional limits. No
ten men ten thousand men, whether private citi-
zens or Legislators, have right to deprive single
citizen of his property except be absolutely neces
sary to the defence Of his country to the attain
ment of some great public good--not mere specu-
lative abstraction, but visible, tangible benefit
which all feel and comprehend. Even in such cases
the rights of property far respected that ade
quate compensation is always allowed, In all other
cases citizen can only be divested of his property
'by due process of law"
| And what is this duo process of law? Is it amere
arbitrary dctum of legislative body is it trial,
| Judgment, and execution according to the pre-
scribed forms of law, where there two parties,
and both are heard before Judgment is given. 1t
certainly does not mean lynch law, mob law, nor
! the higher law, nor the law Garrisonian, nor
the Abby Foster Theodore Parker w l-Phps-
Ward-Beecher law. 1t means that law which is
aptly called the perfection of reason" and deserved
that name until from blessing it perverted into
curse by the qnihhline of lawyers and tho reynss
Of fanatics. aa s..4..s ..s.s. sar.a# .s
The emancipation OF the slaves of the northern
States was then, as previously stated gross out
rage the rights of property, inasmuch as it was
not voluntary accomplishment on the part of the
owners. 1t was an act Of coercve legislation. We
have distinct recollection of conversations with aged
persons who owned family of slaves in the State of
~ II n : l. 4