Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1863-03-10

,oI - ho-e 10 the power given it to take
the cizen nroperty to sell again and speculate onf
So to take it is emphatcaly the attribute OF des'
potism. .
proyision of the Constitution authority is claimed
for such a bill as this. 1t is presumed, however,
that it had its origin under supposed right OF en-
inent domain, or high domain, as it is sometimes
called, existing in the government A very plauSl'
BILE argument might be urged against any such pre-
tension since the right Of eminent domain is
right incident to inherent sovereignty, which GER
tainly the Confederate government docs not pos
SeSS Ii might be urged too, that the Constitution
conlers no right OF the kind, even to a limited eX
tent The only clause in it FROM which even an
inference favoring such pretenSon could be drawn,
is that which declares that "private property shall
not he taken for public use without Just compenSa-
ton" This is not delegation Of power, but re-
striction. The Constitution no where gives sex-
presSy the power to seize private property for pub
lie uses -.....
But it is my present purpose to show that this
bill exceeds greatly the limit Of the right OF emil
nent domain, surprising it to exist in the govern
meat Chancellor Kent has said, 1.-The right Of
eminent domain, or inherent sovereign power, gives
to the legislature the control Of private property
for public uses, and for public asses only" Now,
mark the limitations comprised in this language
First it gives control; and second, 1T gives tins
control "for public uses only What IS puollc
use II is conversion Of the thing itself 20 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
aS to use 4 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 government uses thing which 1t sells =
The very act of dspoSing of 1t prevents It's use
The planter does not use his cotton-he sells It.
limitation Of power, then, arises from the language
c.l,. I q haf rri-
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 selling it. Ii was left for Cen
greSs to give birth to this idea, perhaps in imta-
ton, perhaps in compliment, of the French Empe-
ror'S monopoly of the eIbrcco 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 Us the government may think proper
to give if it can take it at fifteen cents it can at
five. just as we'll.
Judge Story says this restriction in the Constltu-
ton is an affirmance 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 uristS 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 priVae for
tune OF every citizen. One Of the fundamental Oh
isSatIon Of justice, and how vain would it be to
speak of such an administration when all property
is subject to the will caprice Of the legislature
and the rulers.
Now, may ask, and ask triumphantly, if this
bill DOES not assume for the government ian I'M
comfortable power the private fortune Of every
citizen" if it does not subject all property to the
will or caprice Of the lcgislature:' 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 ac-
tualy necessary insist that there is an additional
limitation to its power; il take nothing with
out making 81 uSt 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 NanhOrn
VS.. Dorance, reported in Dallas. The doctrine Of
the right Of eminent domain then very ably
examined by Judge Patterson, of the Supreme
Court Of the United States who said They (the
legiSlature) can not conStutionafy determine upon
the amount Of compensation or value OF the land.
Public exgencies do not require necessity does not
demand, that the legislature should Of themselves,
without the participation oil the proprietor or in
PREVENTION Of jury, assess the value Of the thing,
paid for it. This can constitutionaly be effected
only in three ways. l. By the parties. 2. By
commissioners mutually elected by the parties. 3.
By the Intervention Of jury" Judge Patterson
also placed this right Of governments on its true
grounds; the actual necessity or exigcncy of the
case, which is the only foundation 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 9uattuEn 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
likes tue amount of compensation, but it provides
that 1t shall be made in bonds, which, however
good they may be, are not. money; they do not
even give the holder light of action. Compersa-
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 which 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 owner to take 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 10 depre
cate the bonds; it has no such purpose in view
It's object is to vindcats great principle of consti
tutional liberty.
But few further remarks as to the question of
inst compensation. The bill requires the planter to
ueiVer his Cotton at such time and place. and under
Snch regulations as the government may Indicate
Inns OF itself is oppression but suppose the planter
should take it to Mobile or Charleston; he there
receives his bonds at fifteen cents per pound. To
Sdd 70 his humiliation he might be spectator to
LUG transfer of the same cotton to purchaser from
Ie government at forty or fifty cents per pound in
gold. Would such transaction be calculated to
THalt MS government in his estimation? Would
ne talnk he bad received just compensation for his
COTTON! 1t IS presumed not. If the government
can aKe cotton, which is denied let it observe the
limitation to the right by giving Just compc psation
III money the value 10 DC ascertained by disinterest