FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   638   639   640   641   642   643   644   645   646   647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662  
663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670   671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679   680   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   >>   >|  
s right to his own body shall be protected." True, Congress may not arbitrarily take property, _as_ property, from one man and give it to another--and in the abolition of slavery no such thing is done. A legislative act changes the _condition_ of the slave--makes him his own _proprietor_, instead of the property of another. It determines a question of _original right_ between two classes of persons--doing an act of justice to one, and restraining the other from acts of injustice; or, in other words, preventing one from robbing the other, by granting to the injured party the protection of just and equitable laws. Congress, by an act of abolition, would change the condition of seven thousand "persons" in the District, but would "take" nothing. To construe this provision so as to enable the citizens of the District to hold as property, and in perpetuity, whatever they please, or to hold it as property in all circumstances--all necessity, public welfare, and the will and power of the government to the contrary notwithstanding--is a total perversion of its whole _intent_. The _design_ of the provision, was to throw up a barrier against Governmental aggrandizement. The right to "take property" for _State uses_ is one thing;--the right so to adjust the _tenures_ by which property is held, that _each may have his own secured to him_, is another thing, and clearly within the scope of legislation. Besides, if Congress were to "take" the slaves in the District, it would be _adopting_, not abolishing slavery--becoming a slaveholder itself, instead of requiring others to be such no longer. The clause in question, prohibits the "taking" of individual property for public use, to be employed or disposed of _as_ property for governmental purposes. Congress, by abolishing slavery in the District, would do no such thing. It would merely change the _condition_ of that which has been recognized as a qualified property by congressional acts, though previously declared "persons" by the constitution. More than this is done continually by Congress and every other Legislature. Property the most absolute and unqualified, is annihilated by legislative acts. The embargo and non-intercourse act, levelled at a stroke a forest of shipping, and sunk millions of capital. To say nothing of the power of Congress to take hundreds of millions from the people by direct taxation, who doubts its power to abolish at once the whole tariff system, change the sea
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   638   639   640   641   642   643   644   645   646   647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662  
663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670   671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679   680   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
property
 

Congress

 

District

 

condition

 

slavery

 

persons

 
change
 

question

 

millions

 

public


legislative
 

provision

 

abolition

 
abolishing
 
disposed
 
governmental
 

employed

 
purposes
 

slaves

 

adopting


Besides

 

legislation

 

recognized

 

slaveholder

 

prohibits

 
taking
 

individual

 
clause
 

longer

 

requiring


embargo

 

hundreds

 

people

 

capital

 
stroke
 

forest

 
shipping
 

direct

 

taxation

 

tariff


system

 

abolish

 

doubts

 
levelled
 

intercourse

 
continually
 
constitution
 

declared

 
congressional
 
previously