Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1862-1865, 1864-03-29

oessary to resort to impressments Why cannot we
alsop That the proposed measures unnecessary
Is proved also by the fact that the States Of Georgia.
Tennessee North Carolina and Alabama are all supply
ing their people with salt from these sanes by contract
II all these governments do IL why cannot we p
Salt is equally necessity for them for usYet they
have obtained 1t without impressment OF furnsces-of
wells-of dwelling houses-of meadows or OF wood
All these are as necessary to them as to u.s. But they
ali get these things by contract and demonstrate the
absence of the pretended necessity for mpresment-
II Il were necessary indeed to the supply Of their peo
pie With salt that force should be resorted to- II would
undoubtedly be resorted to. Those States nor their
people, would consent quietly to perish rather than take
BY force what was needed for self preserva ion. Let
US be careful how We carry this doctrine of necessity
beyond It's just limits There is none which, abused Ia
more fruitful Of danger to those who teach 1t.
But admitting il were necessary TO seize this
property to supply the people OF the State with
salt, what justification can there be for going
federate Government Where Is the powerS At 3
Constitution Of Virginia limits the power OF taking opr
yate property to publC uses" What public except the
public of Virginia II for public uses beyond this, then
we may seize private property equally for the uses Of
Great Britain Of Mexico. IL limits the taking Of pr
vac property to of necessity; and yeu propose
selling it without necessity IL limits il to the public
uses OF Virginia. and you extend it 10 the public
of TIE Oonfederacyand of all the States Of the world
for the principle would equally embrace ALL Such
10 alike arbitrary, Unjust ana UNCONSTITUTIONAL
IL breaks down all the barriers which, for the proec
ton of the rights of the citizen to bis property which
derived from Magma 0harta have been heretofore cup
posed to be immoveably secured by all our Constu-
tIons
On another Bill, day or two afterwards (the Salt
Bill being sti not disposed OIL Mr. Robertson, in fur
Their explanation Of his views of the constitutional
question, spoke substantially as follows
The legal involability of propery-the right 10 hold
inv fr1ita nf
the feature which peculiarly distinguishes civilization
from barbarsm. From it spring order and progress
moral and mental cuture-enlg htened religioD-snd
individual wealth, which, in large degree, is national
power. Where il is wanting, you find want ignorance
and violence Cast your eyes over the map of the
world and you will see the evidence Of it. You will
fad the various countries of it 4ee prosperous and
EgiteneG-or debased, impoverished and ignorant just
in the ratio that the rights OF property protected
| adduce In proof England, France and the United
States as IL Ods the hand, aud Turkey, Russia
and the United Slates IL u.s. (beeome birbarOus al
most in an hour by The disregard mainly Of this very
right of property on the other.
This right is the same for ALL Labour Ond skill
equally with land or houses, are property Its protec
ton Is quay important for poor aud rich. The
violence which reduces the rich man TO poverty reduces
the poor man to want for wealth is and can be, used
blu. 10 give employment to labor ald where you des-
troy t. as you will have done when you have destroyed
the motive to acquire it, you lake away the vital ali
ment of labor also
But il Is said there is claimed for property protec
ton greater than s claimed for life liberty That
NJ least ia not my opinion The public good demands
full and similar protection for EACH The difference,
indeed in point OF importance between them, is not
great az al first il would seem to be- Lift is the right
10 breathe bsrty the right to breathe freely property
in the sense of food, clothing and shele ntn which
property however used Ia always resolving itsel the
breath of life But grade them as you may, each o!
IL. Al. ha nrntcpad mr. ia I'm a
Are then, these rights sacred that they must not
he launched? Certainly not. The public safety the
presefyation Of social order by which alone all rights
exist aud can be protected, are higher STILL and 10 these
the life, liberty and property OF individuals are
all held, aud properly, and have been held always
to be, subordinate. Ia respect 10 property, this
superior right OF the State Is known the right
of Eminent DOMAIN. This right as between States
and their cit zers is defined by Wheaton TO be the
right of the State to dispose of all property
within liz mits In cases where demanded by Tie public
safetv or public Hecsssy-not AZ this version is
where useful or convenient but only where public neoe
sty requires The practice Of all Statep Free we'll
AZ Despoc to take private property n such cases. has
been uriVersal-but the practice varied in this, tia
sometimes compet satioa was allowed, and sometimes
not 1t is in this connection we are to examine, and
oonsrue the language of Constitution, providing
that "private property shall not be taken Tor public
uses except for just compensation" The right
of taking private property for public usei by
the State that is, its right of Eminent Domain as
established by the highes authorities viz: in of
necessity or Of the public safety not questioned at
the date of our Constuon-and was not we may fairly
presume, in the thoughts Of its framersbu the right
20 compensation not so universally observed aud
the object of the provision was plainly therefore,
conceive, not to declare what not controvsrled
but to settle what Wasnot to enlarge the power OF the
State to take-but eularge rather the rights Of the
cit gen. and put beyond doubt bis title to compensation
When il shall come TO be understood, and submitted to-
that not manifest public danger imperous necessity
but mere pubic convenience and expsdiency, are sui
cent grounds for the seizure by the State of the
Der of its cit ns industry must anguish and decline
begin II you single out the rich for sacrifice, and
compel him to dgorge, as has been suggested wealth
lawfully come by, mere arbitrary principle of spo
liaton, general impoyershment must soon ensue And
in an era like this where money is necessary in war;
the wealth Of people, in degree, measures the
power of State and when you destroy that resource,
"a YOU do when you render properly insecure you
cassa,;v ctinnla and weaken the ate itself