Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1868-04-17
Constitutfon-Article 1-Declaration of
Rights.

larly contracted before and since the rebeulCI,
shall be regarded inviolable and never be ques-
toned but the State shall never assume or pay
or authorize the collection OF, any deot or obllga-
ton, express or implied incurred In aid OF lnsuf
rectio1 or rebellion against the United States OF
any claim for the loss or emancipation OF any
slave.
It Is difficult to decide which most to ad-
mire, the ignorance or the injustice of the
| late Infamous Convention. The section
Just quoted has properly no more place IN
q DECLARATION OF RIGHTS than it would
have in ali act incorporating Fire Com
pany or a Masonic Lodge, or than Decla-
ration of Rights has in a Constitution. A
Declaration of Rights and Constitution
are things entirely separate and distinct in
their natures and purposes. The one is an
assertion of the natural, inalienable, in
herent God-given rights Of man-those
rights which man neither gave nor can
! take away. A CONSTITUTION is a grant of
power for the preservation and enforce
mont of those rights. For this we have
the high authority of BLACKSTONE, who says
g the first and primary end of human laws
is to maintain and regulate these absolute
| TlgQIS Oh luuIf1uudlS. IuC 11CSldLt'lAO4 VI
! Rights of North Carolina contains all the
declarations of lagnu ChaYta, Petition of
Right and Bill of Rights, and was adopted
! by our ancestors on the 18th December,
| 1776. prior and without reference to the
formation of the Constitution of the State.
| The Constitution was afterwards adopted
as the best means to compel due regard
for those rights already declared to be in
herent and inalienable. The Declaration
was superior and paramount, as well as
prior to the Constitution. In case OF con-
lict between the two. the Constitution be-
ing the weaker, was obliged to give way.
In this respect the Declaration OF l776 was
different from those that preceded It, The
law Of England being an unWrltten law,
tho Parliament could deny as we'll as affirm
ANYTHING to be a part thereof. Those great
safeguards of the Rights of the people,
Mama Cha1ta, Petition of Right and Bill
of Rights, being all merely statutory enact
ments, could be repealed as readily as they
had been passed by Parliament. In q cOun-
try whose law was unwritten, the only pro
lection against tyranny was the declaration
of the rights of the people by Parliament,
as often as those rights seemed to be III
danger. It was, however, in the nature of
things, impossible for these declarations to
be Of paramount, lasting authority. They
were of necessity only acts of Parliament
under the control and repealable by any
subsequent Parliament. Our forefathers
thought it unwise to rest the liberties of
themselves and their children upon SO frail
tenure They therefore first declared
and defined the rights of the people, and
after having done that proceeded to draw
up such a Constitution or deed or grant of
powers, as experience had shown to be best
fitted to compel observance of those rights.
That Declaration has more than once, and
by more than one eminent man, been truly
said to be entitled to the highest yeneration
and regard next to the Divine commands
Of the Decalogue itself 1t was put forth
| by our wisest and best men OF that day,
after full and free consultation with kindred
spirits from other States. The elder Adams
was especially enthusiastic in bis admira-
ton.
In 1885 WILLIAM CASTOR was entrusted
with writing of the Organic Law Of the
State He altered not word, changed not
line of either that Declaration or the
Preamble to the Constitution. The words
of that Declaration have, from time to
time during six centuries, been coming
down to us. At some time or other OF that
period each word and each sentence has
received judicial construction and judicial
Interpretation. About the true intent
and meaning thereof there can at this
day be no possible doubt. No wonder,
| then, that the GREAT CASTOR dared not
tread upon ground SO holy Not so, how
ever, with these impious ic0n0cLaStS of
everything sacred in the form of liberty.
Nothing is too sacred, nothing too venera-
BILE for their sacrilegious hands In wan
ton disregard of the example of the sages
of 1776, and in utter ignorance Of the rea-
sons therefor, they have ruthlessly shorn
the great DECLARATION Of RIGHTS Of Its
high prerogative power to define the God
given IlSutS OF NOEIu luCS
have declared that the end for which the
Constitution was framed is part and parcel
of that Constitution They have, i'll effect
utterly COMPOUNDED every distinction be
tween the object of all human-laws and
the means adopted to accomplish that OBJ
ject. In a Constitution, so-called, framed
by such people, it is not matter of JUS
surprise to find matters the most important
the most trivial and the most incongruou
jumbled together in one uninteligiblt
mass. 1t is to be expected to find, and w'
do find. side by side with section lie
clarinG that "no man or set Of men or,
entitled to exclusive or separate emoll,
ments or privileges from the community
0 but in consideration of public services"
+ section guaranteeing exclusive privileges
T to q particular set of men" by repudia
+ ting debts due to our own native born PEG
J pie, and paying debts due to Northern
men to the uttermost farthing, and that
foo at a time when both our people ant