The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-02-22
THESE 1Aus. ARE uSxrcEssAKY


THESE LAWS ARE USSEcEssARY.
This, of ITSELF ought to be a sufficient rea-
son for removing any law from the statue e
book in free commonwealth. Almost al
laws are, in their nature, restrictions upon
liberty. We submit to them because tney afe
necessary preventiyes of greater evils thah the
partial restriction Of liberty, or are the sour
ces Of more good than the full en]oyme Oh
our natural liberty. Wherever there IS no
evil nor good in question, or wherever these
are not clearly great enough to authorize
surrender of liberty to certain extent ., OF
whenever the evil or good are such that lhdl-
viduals may be relied on, commonly, to pro-
vide for them without the Intervention OF
law, then law, being unnecessary, Is uh"lse
"A burden imposed without sufficient reason
One Of the chief advantages of free govern
ment is, that the people are less liable to DC
oppressed with unnecessary laws, than are Oh
ten imposed by arbitrary governments: IN
necessary laws are not only burden OF them
selves, but they are the source OF great neon
venience especially when they concern the
tenure and conveyance Of property; because
they multiply difficulties and expenses In the
transaction of business and the danger Of de-
tective or doubtful titles, and superinduce
litigation.
The evil of unnecessary laws is magnified
IN proportion to the Importance OF the objects
which are affected by them. Now, property
IS one of the most important objects which
the laws can reach. Next after the security
and freedom for his person, citizen expects
from the State security and freedom in the
enjoyment and disposal of his property; and
he has right, at least in arepublic, that these
should not be interfered with, neither by in
dividuals, nor by government, without clear
necessity.
The clause in the Bill of Rights which
forbids the State to take private proper
ty for public use without necessity, and a
fair compensation, is particular application Of
the same general principle. Now, every re-
strietion on a mans disposal of his property
is in some degree, taking away Of his prop
erty, because it takes away some part of his
dominion over it. Property is, in fact, the
right to exercise dominion over certain things
If then the entire dominion cannot be taken
away without fair compensation, certainly no
part Of it should be taken away without at
least very clear and imperative necessity
greater in proportion to the greatness Of the
restriction.
There is much political wisdom, lesson
deeper than at first appears and of much i'm
port to the public welfare, in the maxim, 'the
world is governed too much" 4 very large
portion of the evils suffered by the people
arise from unnecessary laws instead Of being
left to manage their own affairs, guided by
their own good sense and interests. When
Henry w. of France inquired of the merchants
what act he could perform to encourage COM
merce, they wisely answered "Laisse= nou,
taire''-IIet us alone.
Unnecessary laws, then, being unwise and
burdensome, should be repealed.
The articles in our code referred to- are un,
necessary because there exists no evil suffi
Gent to require them, and no good to he &C
complished by them.
Ehey are, in some sort, an imitation of thu
old English laws against mortmain. But We
are not school-boys, to copy English law!
without clear perception that they are need
ed in our circumstances. In England they
have been modified or repealed, or fallen int
desuetude And it is not consoling to oul
pride to decorate our statute book with thu
cast-off costumes which England finds ar,
useless and out Of fashion, in the nineteenth
century.
1t is questionable whether even in England
these laws ever contributed to, or were in
tended for the welfare of the people. If W,
recur to their origin we find they prohibited
the conveyance Of real estate to corporal,
bodies, because, by CUSTOM whenever real es
tate changed hands, the vendor had to pay
portion of the proceeds to his feudal superior
And since land transferred to corporations is no
so likely to change hands as lands belonging t.
individuals, the proprietorship of real estate il
mortmain, dead hands, or corporations wa!
not palatable to the nobility, who in thos,
days were the chief Lawmakers. Thus, il
fact, these laws, upon which the provisions o
our code are based, were enacted not E.r tn.
benefit of tie people, but fer mercenary aRt
exacting aristocracy.
When afterwards their laws were directed
more particularly against religious corpora
tons, it was through the influence of the samt
aristocracy, who found in these religion!
bodies the only barrier to their spoliations
These religious corporations protected and sup
ported the poor; when they were dissolved
by arbitrary means, and their property confis
Gated, the poor were thrown on the commune
ty, and in England this evil is greater at THU
day than any ever experienced from the reli
gi0us corporations.
But, if the laws were of doubtful utility il
England there is certainly no necessity fol
them here. The evils they professed to abatt
there, do not threaten us. In England, a
that period, the Church was a unit, acknowl
edged by the State possessing great privilege:
and immunities, and exercising powerful in.
fuence over Government and thespeople
Here there are a multitude of denominations
of conflicting views and interests, having nc
privileges or exemptions nor any relations
with government None of them, nor all O
them together, comprise a majority in any
State of the Union, or in any county of &
State. They have no power, even though
they had the will to control our politics OF
monopolize our lands. Is it not unfair to i'm
pose disabilities upon any man or body of men
because there is a remote possibility that they
may do wrong
In England, religious corporations were &C.
cused of locking up real estate, and hence the
mortmain laws. This complaint might more
justly have been alleged against the MOBILES
The lands Of the ecclesiastical bodies were, fol
the most part, better cultivated than any other
in the kingdom, and the products were shar-
ed with the poor The feudal lords kept large
tracts lying waste for game and the sports Of
the field, and they oppressed the poor.
In this country, with few exceptions, re-
ligious bodies have little to lock up. The &C.
emulation and isolation of property in their
hands is not to be dreaded, certainly not so
much as to prohibit requests in their favor
If however, such prohibitions are continued
against them, why not extend the same to
railroad companies and other associations p
Why single out orphan asylums and church.
es? Such legislation, passing by the strong to
assail the weak, is like the act of coward as
saulting women and children, and does not
comport with the lofty and generous charac-
ter of our people.
THESE LAWS ARE INJURIOUS TO THE RIGHTS
OF THE TEsTAToR
Every restriction Of mans power to dis
pose, as he thinks best, of his own property,
unless the restriction be for important objects
of public welfare, is a wrong done to the in
diyidual, and therefore repugnant to natural
right and the first principles of law.
But these laws are the more grievous be-
cause they restrict men in matters of higher
interest and in the exercise of generous and
philanthropic sentiments. If man thinks
that he will confer benefit on his fellow men
by leaving some Of his property for the build
ing of bridge, . free ferry, ship or steam
er, to increase the facilities of trade, who will
Diallie uliu or 50 OOlnS, UT WHAT legislature
would undertake to debar him? Such lega-
cy may enable people to purchase and trans
port their goods, or to travel, at lower rate;
advantages which, in the progress of improve
ment, men enjoy without specific legacies,
since selfinterest continually prompts men to
such enterprises when there is want of them
But if man thinks it better to confer
posthumous benefit on the orphan, the widow.
the infirm or the poor, why should he be him
dered? Is he not doing moro good to human
ity by relieving those who have no means,
than he would be doing by making things
cheaper for those who have means ? And it
is benefit higher than anything connected
with mere commerce. since it concerns human
ity. One of the noblest sentiments of an
tiquity, Il am a man, and nothing that relates
to man is alien to me-" will not surely be
overlooked in this enlightened age, when chris
tianity sheds its refining and ameliorating light
over legislation and Jurisprudence.
Take the other branch of objects which
have been excluded from testamentary benefit
canon Tho r1or,nvkxy ck,.olror, -