gre Casas ruled and adjudged in the
- 79;. Having made thefe preliminary obfervations, we {hall proceed
bw`! to contemplate the quieting and confirming a€t, and to bring its l validit to the tell of_the Conltitution. In the eourfe of argument, the counfel on both lides relied ¤ n certain parts of the late Bill of Rights and Conllitution of Jgwyvlwniu, which I {hall now read, and then refer to them bcca ronally inthe fequel of the charge. (The judge then read the tli. 8th. and r rth articles of the ‘ Declaration of Rights; and the gth. and 46th feélions of the Conftitution of Pemyjivaniu. See r Ve!. Dall. Edit. Penn. Law: y. gg. 6. 60. in tbz Appendix.) ` From thefe palfages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and polfelling property, and having it proteéled, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have ` a fenfe of property: Property is neocifary to their fublifience, and correfpondent to their natural wants and deiires; its fecu- rity wa one of the obje&s, that induced them to unite in foci- ety. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honeft labour and iu- _ dultry. The prefervation of propert then is a primary objeét of ‘ the focial compa&, and, by the late gonftitution of Pemgfylvnnia, was made a fundamental law. Every perfon ought to cortri- i Bute his proportion`for public purpofes and public exigencies; but no one can be called upon to furrender or facrifice his whole property, real and perfonal, for the good of the commu- _ nity, without receiving a recompence in value. '.[`his would bc laying a burden upon an individual, which ought to be fufiained ` by the fociety at large. The Engh/lv hillory does not furnilh an . inflance of the kind; the Parliament, with all their boalted om- nipotence, never committed fuch an outrage on private property; and if they had, it would have ferved only to difpl the danger- ous nature of unlimited authority; it would haveaheen an exer- cife of power and not of right. Such an aft would be a mon- fter in legiilation, and ihock all mankind. The legiilature, there- fore, had no authority to make an a& divelting one citizen of his freehold, and veliing it in another, without a juli compen- fation. It is inconiiiient with the principles of reafon, jultice, and moral re£l:itude; it is incompatible with the comfort, peace, and happinefs of mankind; it is contrary to the principles of fo- cial alliance in every free government; and laflly, it is contra- ry both to the letter and fpirit of the Conllitutidh. In fhort, it is what every one would think unreafonable and unjuii in his own cafe, The next flep in the line of ptogrellion is, whether ` the Legillaturc had authority to make an aét, diveltin one citi. zen of his freehold and veltiug it in another, even with compen- ii.tion. That the Legillature, on certain emergencies, had au. thority to exercife this high power, has been urged from the nature
�
