Newspaper Page Text
86
TURNWOLD, GA., DECEMBER 8, 1862.
Seizure.
In the Declaration of Fundamental Prin
ciples prefixed to our state constitution, oc
cur the following explicit propositions :
“No citizen shall be deprived of life, lib
erty, or property, except by due process of
law
“ The right of the people to appeal to
the courts shall never be impaired
“ For every right, there should he provi
ded a remedy ; and every citizen ought to
obtain justice, without purchase, without
denial, and without delay—conformably to
the laws of the land.”
“ Legislative Acts in violation of the fun
damental law are. void, and the Judiciary
shall so declare them
“ Laws impairing the obligation of con
tracts are prohibited f”
“ The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not he violated
*
“ This Declaration is a part of tfiis Con
stitution, and shall never be violated on
any pretence whatever.”
The Confederate Constitution says, “The
right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated.”
Yet, in the teeth of these explicit consti
tutional provisions, Georgia legislators, who
have taken an oath to support the consti
tution, have passed a resolution assuming
to authorize Gov. Brown to seize all facto
ries, tanneries, and manufactured articles in
the state. They have just as much author
ity to confer this power upon tin', governor
as the editor of this paper has, and no moie :
and the governor has just the same right to
seize private property, now, that he had be
fore the passage o f the resolution, and no
more. ^
It is true that the legislature bases its
action upon the following clause of the con
stitution :—“ Private property shall not be
taken except tor public use, and then only
upon jirst compensation.”
The right, under authority of legislative
enactment, to take a man’s land for making
a public road, is one of the most common
instances of seizing private property for
public use. But in that case, compensa
tion must first be made, or tendered the
owner of ,tlie land, and, in the last resort, he
has the right to call in a jury to determine
what is “just compensation.” This is what
is contemplated in our constitution by the
words “ due process of law ;” “ the right of
THE COUNTRY-MAN.
the people to appeal to the courls ;” “ the
right of the people to be secure against un
reasonable searches and seizures,” &c.
Now, in claiming the right to seize pri
vate property for public use, upon “ just
compensation,” the legislature must exer
cise that power with reference to all the
other clauses of the constitution. They
mast provide a means for ascertaining what
is a “just compensation.”—This,I shall more
fully consider, presently.
In seizing private property for public'
uses, there must be 1st, a necessity for the
seizure, and 2ndly, there must he “just
compensation” for the seizure. The legis
lature is generally the proper judge of the
necessity of seizure. “ The legislature, as
a general rule, have the sole right of judg
ment ; but if it is grossly abused, the courts
may review it.” (Parham vs. the Justices,
&c., 9 Geo. Hep., 3o4.) In the present
instance, there is no doubt in my mind that
tlie legislature lias “grossly abused” its
power, and that the courls ought to annul
the assumed gi ant of power to Gov. Brown.
The exercise of the power, at tins time, is
unwise, impolitic, and destructive of the
best interests of the country.
I say the courts ought to annul this ex
ercise of power, even admitting that a pro
vision had been made for “ just compensa
tion.” But no such provision lias been
made. And there is no way in which such
provision can be made, except in a most
scrupulous regard for all the items o the
constitution quoted in the beginning of this
article. There must be provision made
for “ due process of law ;” for “ appeal to
the courts,” if desired ; for means of “ ob
taining justice conformably to the
laws of the land and for means 'to pre
vent “ unreasonable searches and seizures.”
But this resolution denies “ due process
of law ;” denies an “ appeal to the coarts
denies the means of “ obtaining justice....
conformably to Hie laws of the land ;” “ im
pairs the obligation of contracts” by prevent
ing the filling of contracts already entered
into to furnish manufactured articles; denies
“ just compensation” by failing to make ad
equate provision for obtaining it; and in ev
ery way encourages “unreasonable searches
and seizures.”
The constitution not on ly requires “com
pensation” to be made, but it requires “just
compensation,” And who is to be the
judge of what “just compensation” is?
There is no other way to arrive at it, but
by construing the clause authorizing the
taking of “ private pioperty” for “public
use,” in connection with the other clauses
of the constitution. What “just compen
sation” is, can be, in no other way fairly
legally and constitutionally determined,
than by “ appeals to the courts,” and to the
verdicts of juries. This is-“ obtaining jus
tice” “conformably to the laws of the land,”
and the institutions of the country.
But the resolution under consideration
contemplates no “appeal to the courts,”
nor to juries, but either sets an inadequate
price upon the articles seized, or leaves the
price to the discretion of one man—the gov
ernor.
Our Declaration of Rights is certainly
“violated” by the' resolution before me,
and “Legislative Acts in violation of the
fundamental law are void, and the Judici-
ciary shall so declare them.”
Our Supreme Court has declared 2
Acts of the Georgia legislature unconsti
tutional, which seized private property
without “just compensation.” (See Brew
er vs. Bowman,9 Geo. Rep. 37 : Parham vs.
the Justices, &c., Ib. 341.) And it is the
duty of the same court to decide the reso
lutions before me unconstitutional, because
it does not provide for “just compensation,”
•‘conformably to the laws of the land.”
I grant that in the language of our Su
preme Court, as to the seizure of private
propeity lor public use, “The legislature,
as a general rule, have the sole light of
judgment.” But in exercising that judg
ment, they must keep steadily in view cer
tain fundamental principles which lie at the
base of all government, from that whose
constitution gives its subjects magna char-
la, and habeas coryus, down to that of the
sultan of Turkey. Nothing but extreme
necessity—a disability to accomplish its
purpose in any other way — can justify a
legislature in seizing private property, ev
en with “just compensation and to this
effect is the tf-stinumy of Grotius, Pufien-
dorf, Yattel, Blackstone, Kent, Story, and
the whole current of judicial decisions. And
if the legislature abuse the power confi
ded in it, it is the duty of the constitution
al expounders of the law to declare its
acts void. More especially is this the case
when the legislature violates the plain let
ter of the constitution.
It is to be hoped, therefore, that every
man whose property is seized by Gov.
Brown under the unconstitutional resolu
tion before me, will take proper steps to
contest his rights before the judicial tribu
nals of the Countiy, and that these will re-
men her that “Legislative Acts in violation
of the fundamental law are void, and the
Judiciary shall so declare them.”