was the case at present; and the legislature should be restrained from invading the rights, and perpetrating, by these acts of incorporation, such serious and disastrous evils upon the welfare and prosperity of the industrious farmer.

He recollected one instance, particularly, of a farmer, who had about forty acres of land, and the company ran their rail-road, near to his farm house, and they were remonstrated with, and every means were tried by the farmer, to induce them not to run the road so close to it, as the consequence must be, the destruction of his property. The request, however, was not listened to; it was treated with disregard, if not contempt, for the company went on with their work, and the result was, that the man's farm was destroyed. And now he had no opportunity whatever of obtaining any remuneration for the great losses and sacrifices he had sustained. Now, if the legislature really did possess the power, and which he very much questioned, to grant acts to companies, so fruitful of evil and destitute of a just regard for private rights, it was high time that some provision should be inserted in the constitution that would prevent, for the future, a repetition of these grievances.

If a public improvement should prove a benefit to a man's property and he an honest man, he would not think of asking for any compensation. But, in those cases, where a mans property was injured, and he compelled to submit to the inconvenience and loss of having a rail-road run through his farm, he ought to be compensated for every acre of land destroyed by the company. Doubtless, a rail-road was rather an advantage to those not living in the immediate vicinity of the road, and whose property was not close to it, and therefore free from all the inconveniences which it occasioned.

What he now said on this subject was dictated by his own feelings, and was the result of his own experience, for he had suffered a good deal of inconvenience as well as loss by the incorporation of rail-road and canal companies. He had recently lost property by the construction of a canal leading to Port Deposit. And, the company had not yet condescended to ask him what satisfaction he required for the destruction of his property. They had never counselled him in regard to it, but went to work and destroyed it.

He begged to call the attention of the convention to one or two other acts passed by the legislature, antecedent to those he had already noticed and commented upon.

An act of incorporation was granted to a company by our legislature at the session of 1831-2 to make a rail road from York to the Maryland line. This act says that "it shall be lawful for the president, directors and company of the said rail road company and their agents and all persons employed by or under them for the purposes contemplated in the act, to enter upon any land which they shall deem necessary for laying out said road. And also, for the purpose of searching for stones and gravel or wood for constructing said road. But no stone, sand, gravel or wood shall be taken away from any land without the consent of the Owner thereof until compensation be ascertained and paid," &c.

In this act no injustice that I have ever heard has been complained of. But subsequent legislatures have gone further and assumed a right, that,

in my humble opinion, did not belong to them. They passed laws. incorporating private companies, with authority to enter upon, and apply private property to their own use without obliging them, as they in jus tice and right should have done, and as was done in the act of incorporation of the York and Maryland line rail-road company, to first pay for the property so applied, or securing payment for the same, as soon as the damages could be ascertained, and that before the property should bedestroyed. Such acts of our legislature I have always considered unjust, unrightous, and unconstitutional.

An act was passed at the session of 1835-6, to incorporate a company to construct a canal from Wrightsville, in York county, to Havre de Grace, in Maryland, with the privilege of entering upon and converting private property to their own use, without first making satis faction.

Having expressed his sentiments fully and undisguisedly on this important subject, he would conclude by reiterating his opinion that some provsion ought to be inserted in the constitution that would prevent hereafter a repetition of all those evils and grievances originating from a disregard of the rights of private property. He would with pleasure vote for the amendment of the delegate from Luzerne.

Mr. REIGART, of Lancaster, said that when he offered the amendment he had the honor to submit this morning, he did it under the firm belief that something should be done to prevent corporate bodies appropriating private property to their own use, before giving some security to do so. After an argument on it, he was persuaded-although the seventh article was under consideration, and this seemed to be the appropriate place that the ninth article would be the proper place for the amendment, and it might be done in two or three words. Therefore he had withdrawn the amendment in order to offer it in the ninth article.

He was aware that there was a feeling prevalent among gentlemen against touching the ninth article. He would call the attention of delegates to the state of facts as connected with the adoption of the amendment as proposed. We must strike out a section in the ninth article, if we insert this amendment in the seventh, otherwise we should leave a contradiction in the ninth. We should, therefore, have to go into the consideration of the ninth article. There was another reason, too, why the amendment should be put in that article, which is commonly called the Bill of Rights, because it embraced one of the reserved rights of the people, viz:-that in no case shall private property be taken for public use, without an equivalent being given therefor. He moved a postponement of the question, and asked for the yeas and nays.

The CHAIR declared the motion not to be in order. Mr. DICKEY said that in referring to the ninth article of the constitution, he found the clause to read

66

Nor shall any man's property be taken, or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, and without just compensation being made."

It would be observed that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Luzerne, made a restriction on the legislature not to invest a corporate body with the privilege of appropriating private property to its use

and which was also for their use, without first obtaining compensation, or adequate security. Now, there was nothing in this amendment at all conflicting with the tenth section of the ninth article. The article, therefore, ought not to be touched. We should now have a different rule for assessing damages than we have had in incorporate companies. Under the decisions of a tribunal, no injury had been done. And, where the parties had not obtained any amount of damages, they went to the legislature, and if their claim was a just and equitable one, they have obtained redress.

Mr. BIDDLE, of Philadelphia, said that he was in favor of the principle of the amendment, which he was of opinion ought to be inserted in the ninth article, therefore he would vote against its introduction into the seventh.

Mr. DENNY, of Allegheny, hoped the gentleman from Luzerne would withdraw his amendment, and offer it again when the ninth article should come up for consideration. He was in favor of the amendment, but wished it postponed till that time, which probably would be to-morrow. He was not sure that the legislature had the power to authorize a corporation to take any man's property. It was said, that the objects of a corporation were of a public character.

He did not think that the construction of a rail-road or a bridge was for the public benefit alone. They looked to private benefit also. The public are benefitted incidentally by the construction of a road or a bridge; but the company expect to be remunerated for their trouble. He wished to see the report of the committee on the ninth article, which, no doubt, would be such as he could expect, from the manner in which that committee was composed, before he gave his vote on the amendment.

I know, said Mr. Denny, that cases, have occurred, which have come within my own knowledge, and in which this power has been used oppressively and to a greater extent, probably, than in the despotic countries of Europe. And of this the citizens of Pennsylvania have universally complained. Injustice has heretofore been done by the servants of the commonwealth, who believed that they had the right to take possession of the property of individuals, and who have baffled their claims for compensation by putting them off from year to year. In later times, I am aware that the legislature has adopted a more liberal plan for assessing and paying the damages accruing in such cases, than was at first adopted.

I shall, therefore, if an amendment is to be urged in this article, vote in favor of it; though I should prefer that it should be deferred until we reach the ninth article, at which time we shall have the report of the committee submitted to us, and which, I have no doubt, will be full of light. We shall most probably get though the seventh and eighth articles in a short space of time, and may thus get a sight of the ninth article before we adjourn this evening.

Mr. WOODWARD said that he was in favor of the amendment, and in favor of its insertion in this place. The seventh article on which we are now engaged, continued Mr. W., relates to the subject of corporations; and the amendment of my colleague (Mr. Sturdevant) relates to the power of the legislature in erecting corporations. I think, therefore, that this

is precisely the proper place for the amendment, and I rise to say a few words in support of it.

What is it? It is "that the legislature shall not invest any corporate body with the privilege of appropriating private property to its use, without requiring such corporation to compensate the owners of said property or give adequate security therefor, before such property shall be appropriated."

There cannot be a doubt that the adoption of such a provision will tend to remedy a great evil now existing in this commonwealth, of which many and grievous complaints have been made, and that it will be a salutary restraint upon the power of the legislature in granting these acts of incorporation. And, in answer to the objection of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia (Mr. Ingersoll) and others, that this aniendment properly belongs to that part of the Bill of Rights which requires compensation to be made for property taken for public use, and that it will be inconsistent and out of place here, I will take leave for a moment to turn the attention of these gentlemen to the words of that part of the tenth section which is supposed to be applicable here. They are as follows:

"Nor shall any man's property be taken, or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, and without just compensation being made."

Now, this clause provides only for a special case either as to corporations or individuals; while the amendment of my colleague embraces a general provision and, at most, is but a re-asseveration of the same principle. The two are not in any manner, or to any extent, inconsistent with each other. The clause in the Bill of Rights provides for just compensation, nor does it prohibit the legislature from providing that just compensation shall be made before the property is taken. The legislature, then, has power to require compensation to be made before the property of the individual is entered upon, and therefore the previous proposition of my colleague, requiring that corporate bodies, where power is given them to take private property, shall make or secure compensation to the owner, before the property is taken--such a provision, I say if inserted in the seventh article--would not be at all inconsistent either with the letter or the spirit of the other provision in the Bill of Rights. What more is wanting than is to be found in the Bill of Rights? What more can be added? Is it intended to say that the commonwealth shall not take the property of her citizens to carry on works of internal improvement, without such limitations and restrictions as will for ever prevent the progress of those improvements? And is this amendment which the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia (Mr. Ingersoli) desires to introduce into the Bill of Rights, is it intended, I ask, to put an end to our noble system of internal improvements? If that is its object, I, for one, am against it. Your Bill of Rights, if left as it has stood for seven and forty years, secures a just compensation for any property which the legislature, in any form, may take away? What more is wanting? As to the mode of making the compensation and the time at which it shall be made, all these things are open to the action of the legislature. But a just compensation must be made, or not one foot of land can constitutionally be taken from the citizen. This is the state of things as the constitution stands at the present time.

I am free to admit that there are great evils existing, not only in consequence of legislation in favor of corporations, but in consequence also of legislation in favor of internal improvement system, as to the state works. These evils are the result of an inadequate assessment of the compensation; for an opinion has taken possession of the board of appraisers that the interests of individuals should so far yield to the interests of the commonwealth as that their property should be taken for the use of the public, without any thing like an adequate compensation being yielded for it. The evil is in the administration of the system, and not in the system itself. How is the evil to be remedied? By this convention? In what manner? Can we legislate so as to make a board of assessors who will award proper remuneration? Not at all. That is a matter which belongs to the legislature and not to us. Allow a jury of the county; let the legislature allow a jury of the county to come before them, and to get from them the compensation which this board of assessors, taking only a bird's eye view of the injury sustained, may refuse to allow. Or let the legislation be modified from time to time in such manner as the legislature may think proper. The evil lies in the administration of the system, and in the imperfect manner in which these damages are assessed. And I say that it will be impossible to devise, in the constitution, a remedy for those evils. The remedy is to be applied by the legislature, and is to be applied appropriately and exclusively by the legislature.

The gentleman from Allegheny (Mr. Denny) has made allusion to a report of the committee on the ninth article. which he hopes may have some bearing and throw some light upon this question. The gentleman does not, I think, precisely understand the character of the complaint which was referred to that committee; if he did so, I apprehend he would see the difference between the two cases.

In a few counties in Pennsylvania that is to say, in the counties of Lycoming, Luzerne, Schuylkill and Northumberland, the legislature, under an act passed on the fifth of May, 1832, called the lateral rail road law" authorized the owners of land, mills, quarries, coal mines, limekilns or other real estate in the vicinity of any rail road, canal, or slackwater navigation, made by any company, and not more than three miles distant therefrom, to make lateral rail roads to the same. Well, sir, under

this law, the individual claiming to construct the rail road, must make compensation to the individual over whose land the road is to pass. Before a blow is struck, six viewers are appointed by the court of common pleas of the county to examine into the necessity and usefulness of the proposed road, and to report what damages will be sustained. If no appeal is taken from this report, the court confirms or rejects it. Either party may appeal, in which event a jury go upon the ground and assess the damages to the owner.

These are the provisions of the "lateral rail road law." Here is not a case of the legislature taking private property for the purpose of constructing public works, nor of constructing works of corporations. The complaint is not that compensation is not adequately made; but the complaint is that there is private property taken from one man and given to another; that the property is not taken for public use, but absolutely for private use that it is, in short, a sacrifice of a private right for private

use.

Sir, there is much in the argument. What may be the report of