Western sentinel. [volume] (Winston [i.e. Winston-Salem], N.C.) 1856-1886, 1859-11-04
APPENDIX.

Another edition of the Observations
ling called for, an opportunity is afford
tor adding some thoughts suggested by
G attempted reply of Mr.. Douglas, and
some criticisms OF a different kind
,hich have appeared in other quarters.
Mr.. Douglas charges us with entertain
ing the opinion that ''all the States OF the
Union" may confiscate private property
"a doctrine which he denounces as a
most ''wicked and dangerous hcresy."-
He champion;zes the inviolablity Of prop
ertv, ant, invokes the fiery indignation Of
the public upon us for ascribing to the
States any power of taking it away. Now
mark how plain tale will pnt him down.
There is no such t!li2S and nothing like
it on all these pages, from the first to the
last Mr.. Douglas was merely ffonrislling
his lance in tie empty, air. lie had 10
ground for his assertion, except a most
unauthorized IiTTeTeI1cG OF MS fTaSIT
NAL that the power existed in the Terrific
ries The Territories must wait till they
become sovereign States before they can
confiscate property: that was our position.
Therefore, says the logic Of Mr.. Douglas
all the states i'll the Union may do it now.
What right had he to make imputations
Of heresy founded upon mere inference,
when our opinion Oh the very point was
directly expressed in words so plain that
mistake WAS impossible! The following
sentences occur on page y:
Cali free people know, that if they
would remain free, tl-ey must compel the
government to keep its hand off their pri
,vate property and this can be done only
by tying them up with careful restrictions
Accordingly onr Federal Constitution de-
clares that no person shall be deprived
of his property except by due process Of
law" and that 'plivate property shall
not be taken for public use without just
compensation 1t is universally agreed
that this applies only to the exercise of
the power by the government Of the Unit
ed States. We are also protected against
the State governments by a similar pro-
vision in the State constitutions. Legis-
lative robbery is, therefore, a crime which
cannot be committed either by Congress
or by any State legislature, unless it be
done in flat rebellion to the fundamental
law Of the land"
The close Of the same paragraph shows
| why it was important that attempt
should be made to exercise such power by
Territory:
'sIs it not every way better to wait until
| tuG H0W luudDlldllto klloW tu0IlIS0INtS dlid
one another; until the policy of the Terri
tory is settled by some experience ands
above all, until the great powers of a SOW
ereign State are regularly conferred upon,
them and properly limited, SO as to pre-
| vent the gross abuses which always &C.
company unrestricted power in human
! hands !''
Mr.. Douglas certainly read these passa-
ges, for he borrowed phrase from them
and put it into his own speech. He ought
to have understood them. IF he both read
! and understood them, why did he allege
that this pamphlet favored the dangerous
heresy referred to-? Let the charity
which "thinketh no eviP' find the best ex-
cuse for him it can.
That the government of a sovereign
State, unrestricted and unchecked by any
constitutional prohibition, would have
power to confscate private property, even
without comp pensation to the owner, is q
proposition which will scarcely be denied
by any one who has mastered the primer
Of political science. Sovereignty, which
is the supreme authority of an indepen-
dent State or government, is in its nature
irresponsible and absolute. It cannot be
otherwise, since it has no superior by
whom it can be called to account. Mere
moral distractions or theoretic principles
/ Of natural Justice do not limit the legal au,