Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1863-03-11

First it gives eontrolj and second, it gives this
control "for, public uses only" What is public
user 1t is conversion Of the thing itself 70 the
use, as, for instance highway. The word use"
is not technical and therefore, mus: be understood
in its common acceptation. Webster informs US 1t
signifies the handling or employing in any manner,
rs to use pen in writing or spade in digging
Does the merchant use his wares or the butcher his
meat? And is it not perversion of language to
say the ssvernment uses thing which it sells p
The very act of disposing of it prevents Its USE
The planter does not use his cotton-he sells it "A
Limitation of power, then, arises from the language
of the Constitution. venture to say that no wri-
ter of respectable authority has ever ventured to
put forth the idea that under the right Of eminent
domain government could take private property
for the purpose of selngi it. 1t was left for Con-
gress to give birth to this idea, perhaps in imita-
ton, perhaps in compliment, of the French Empe-
ror's monopoly of the tobacco trade; though We
have improved upon the French system. France
buys tobacco at the market price, even from her
colonies We, however, are about to take cotton
at such price as the government may think proper
to give; if it take it at fifteen cents, it can at
five. just as well.
Judge Story says this restriction in the Constitu
ton is an afirmance Of great doctrine established
by the common law Cor the protection Of private
property. 1t is founded on natural equity, and is
laid down by jursts as principle of universal law.
Indeed in free government almost all other rights
would become worthless, if the government pos
sessed an uncomfortable power over the prvae for
tune of every citizen. One of the fundamental ob-
jects of a good government must be the due admin
istration Of justice, and how vain would it be to
speak of such an administration when all property
is subject to the will or caprice of the legislature
and the rulers.
Now, may ask, and ask trumphantly, if this
bill does not assume for the government an un-
comfortable power over the private fortune Of every
Citizen" if it does not subject all property to the
Twill or caprice of the legislature |" And may
ask too, If any law which does this is in harmony
with just government to say nothing Of constitu-
tional government?
Denying that the government can take property
for any other purpose than the appropriation of the
identical thing taken to some public use, and that
even then it can only take so much as may be
tuay necessary, insist that there is an additional
limitation to its power; it can take nothing with
out making 'just compensation" And no legisla-
tive body, so far as know, has ever contrived to
fix the compensation. The nearest approach to
such an assumption Of power was IN Pennsylvania,
out Of which grew the celebrated case of Vanhorn
vs.. Dorance, reported in Dallas. The doctrine of
the right of eminent domain was then very ably
examined by Judge Patterson, of the Supreme
Court of the United States, who said: "They (the
legisature) not constitutonally determine upon
the amount of compensation or value of the land.
Public exigencies do not require necessity does not
demand that the legislature should of themselves,
without the participation Of the proprietor or in
Prevention of jury, assess the value Of the thing,
or ascertain the amount of the compensation to be
paid for it. This can coDstitutionally be effected
only in three ways. /. By the parties. 2. By
commissioners mutually elected by the parties. 8.
By the Intervention of jury" Judge Patterson
N1cn n1acod fhis ri0ht Of ifc
grounds; the actual necessity or exigency Of the
case, which is the only foundation on which it can
rest BY the necessity Of the case, then, it is
necessarily limited, and beyond that it cannot be
extended. 1t IS worthy Of remark, too, that the
legislature of Pennsylvania did not undertake to
say what the guantuns of compensation should be;
but it did prescribe the thing in which compensa-
ton should be made, and on that account the act
was declared unconstitutional. Judge Patterson
held that the compensation must always be in
money. The act reported to Congress not only
fixes the amount of compensation, but it provides
that 1t shall be made in bonds, which, however
good they may be, are no: money; they do not
even give the holder right of action. Colnpepsa-
ton, to be just must come up to the market price
of all marketable commodities. That is the stand
ard, and it is the only standard-and to this stand
ard the government must come. And it must be
in money Rhieh is the universal criterion of value
and in that sense the trainers of the Constitution
used the word compensation" If the legislature
may NOT only, fix the amount Of compensation, but
may also say in what it shall be made, it may force
the owger TO- take sne thing as well as another it
may force him to take thing which would not only
be useless, but an expense to him. Perhaps, in
imitation of the great Spartan lawyer shall have
iron money coined and be forced to take it. And
let it not be said this article is an effort to depre.
ciate the bonds; it has no such purpose in view !;
its object to vindicate great principle of const-
tutional liberty.
But few further remarks as to. the question of
just compensation The DILL requires the planter to
deliver hls cotton atsuch time and place. and under
such regulations as the government may injicate.-
This OF itself oppression but suppose the planter
should take it to Mobile or Charleston; be there
receives bis bonds at fifteen cents per bound. To
add to his humiliation he might be Spectator to
the transfer of the same cotton to purchaser ross
the government at forty or fifty cents per poura n
gold. Would such q transaction be calculated to
exalt his government in his estimationy Wonld
be think he bad received just compensation for bis
cottonf 1t is presumed not If the government
can take cotton which is denied let it observe the
Limitation to the right BY giving just compensation
in money the value to be ascertaned by dsinterest
ed persons w. ?.
So much for the leading feature Of this bill, but
it contains other provisions as incidents which are
worthy Of notice. It provides that the sale, pur-
chase or concealment Of cotton for the purpose of
frustrating the act shall be felony, and shall cause
forfeiture of all claim to compensation. To say
the least this is harsh it fixes the price of cotton
in the acts of the owner. For doing that which has
no moral turpitude 10 it. he forfets all his cotton
For several acts which it makes offences It pre-.
scsibes the penalty of death. Perhaps the most
striking feature in this criminal calendar is the last
TINS prohibits the expectation Of cotton from the
Confederate States, except by the government, un-
der the penalty Of DEATH Freemen, hearken to the
denunciations of your Legislature. Ior trivial mat
ters you are declared sons and for doing that which
your government was designed to encourage-fol
oo!ng that which you lave regarded as the end and
oc!ect Of your planting p rsuts exporting you1
so.ton beyond the limih' of the Confederacy, t
ty Of deashl Is bard 70 3. leve that the bill is