Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.”