The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1868-02-12
tants Of North Carolina and mus. be,so re-

Its power to do so. 1t no provision Is put
in the Constitution to Danish pauperism
from new North Carolina, our borders may
enclose thousands and thousands of such
people, who ale burdens to any community.
Why did lie say this2 Because it is cheap
er for man to feed himself, than for the
State to do it. What then should be done
Give the people homesteads? Yes, give
them liberal homestead, retrospective in
its character. That will be relief of the
most substantial and equitable-nature. Yet
the learned delegate from Beaufort may con-
slider this y legal heresy.
Mr.. Rodman-I agree with you.
MIR. Tuurgce Il am glad to hear it. am
glad 70 know that the gentleman admits the
principle OF retrospective homestead. IL
deed the right is clear For the public in
terest, this Convention can provide good
and sufficient exemption from all debts to
prevent pauperism, educate the youth Of the
country and support the laboring men Of the
nation. No one Believed more religiously
in the payment Of debts than he did
Though some of the honorable members
OF the press had announced him as defaul-
ter, he paid all the debts that he could and
would continue to do SO. 1t is right for Il
man to coin his life to discharge his honest
obligations. There is an inviolable sanctity
about such contracts that demand the sacrl-
flee of every good citizen to liquidate them.
But give the people homestead, exempted
from all debts old and new, not transferable
unless by the permission of his wife and also
fasten it upon the minor children. This is
an enlightened idea, a principle which he
hoped all would admit as cheerfully as the
delegate from Beaufort had Gone.
% In the caseof the West Bridge Company,
os. Dix and others, there was a decision of
the Supreme Court which bore directly upon
this subject. This company had been 7u-
. thorized and empowered to. build bridge
over a river. 1t seemed that one of the abut
nlents was constructed on one side Of the
river, which was private property. n snt
was brought against the company, on the
ground that the State could not give the
land to private corporation. The defence
was argued hy Daniel Webster, and the fol-
lowing was q portion of the decision in the
case: -.
No State it is declared, gshall pass a law
impairing the obligation of contract; YET,
with this concession constantly yielded. it
cannot be justly disputed, that in every pO-
litical sovereign community there inhercs
necessarily the right and the duty of guard
ing its own existence, and of protecting anil
promoting the interests and welfare OF the
community at large. This power and this
duty are TO be exerted not only in the hi IL
est acts of sovereignty. and in the external
relations of governments; they reach and
comprehend likewise the interior polity and
relations of social life, which should be reg
ulated with reference to'the advantage of tie
whole society. This power, denominated tile
eminent domain of the State, is as its name
imports paramount to all private rights YES
ted under the government, and these last
are by necessary Implication, held in subor
dination to this power, and must yield in
every instance to its proper exercise.
The Constitution of the United States.
although adopted by the sovereign States of
this Union, and proclaimed in its own Ian
guage to be the supreme law for their gov
eminent, can, by no rational Interpretation,
be brought to conflict with this attribute in
the States there is no express delegation Of
it by the Constitution and it would. imply
an incredible faulty in the States, to ascribe
TO them the intention to relInquish the pow
er of self-government and selfpreservaton.
\ correct view of this matter must demon
strate. moreover, that the right of eminent
domain in government in no wise interferes
with the inyiolability of contracts; that the
most sanctimonious regard for the one is
perfectly consistent with the possession and
exercise of the other
Under every established government, the
tenure of property is derived medateiy or
MI 4nl,- i.N,,, 2
the political body, organized in such mode
OF exerted in such way as the community or
State may have thought proper to ordain.
1t can rest on no other foundation, can have
no other guarantee"
Mr.. Graham, Of Orange. Is not the de-
cision in that case. that the State can take
my property! But can the State take my
property and give it to another?
MIR. Tourgee said that this question had
been farther discussed in the celebrated
Wisconsin case, by Caleb Cushing; but he
would read on from the present report:
1t is owing to these characteristics only.
IN the original nature of tenure that appeals
can be made to the laws either for the pro-
lection or assertion of the rights of property.
Upon any other hypothesis, the law of prop
erty would be simply the law of force Now
1t IS undenlable, that the investment of prop
erty in the citizen by the government, wheth-
er made for pccunlary consideration or
founded on conditions of civil or political
duty, Is contract between the State or the
government acting as its agent. and the
grantee; and both the parties thereto arc
bound IN good faith to fulfil it. But into all
! contracts, whether made between States and
individuals or between individuals only,
there enter conditions which arise not out of
/ the literal terms of the contract itself; they
are superinduced by the preexisting and
higher authority of the laws of nature, of ma
tons, or OF the communityto which the par
ties belong; they are always presumed, and
must be presumed, to be known and recog-
nized by all, are binding upon all, and need
never, therefore, be carried into express stip-
ulation, for this could add nothing to their
force. Every contract is made in subordina-
ton to them, and must yield to their CONTROL
as conditionsinherent and paramount, where
ever a necessity for their execution shall oc-
cur. Such condition is the right of cmi-
nent domain. This right does not operate
to impair the contract effected by it, but re-
cognlzes its obligation in the fullest extent,
| claiming only the sful6lment of an essential
| and inseparable condition. Thus, in claim
ing the resumption or qualification of an in
vestiture, it insists merely on the true nature
| and character Of the right invested. Tho
/ imparing of contracts inhibited by the Con-
:: etitution can scarcely, by the greatest vio-
-ence of construction, be made applicable to
the enforcing Of the terms or necessary i'm
port of contract the language and mean
ing, of the inhibition were designed to en-
brace proceedings attempting the interpola-
ton OF some new term or condition foreign
to the original agreement, and therefore in