Property
James Madison
March 29, 1792
[Madison wrote this newspaper article to explain the relationship
between property rights and other natural rights. — TGW]
This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one
man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in
exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a
man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every
one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called
his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free
communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the
profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his
person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice
of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be
equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly
respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or
his possessions.
Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an
opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that
which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term
James Madison
March 29, 1792
[Madison wrote this newspaper article to explain the relationship
between property rights and other natural rights. — TGW]
This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one
man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in
exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a
man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every
one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called
his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free
communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the
profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his
person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice
of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be
equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly
respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or
his possessions.
Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an
opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that
which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term
particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is
a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is
his own.
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just
securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government
which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals,
does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their
opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a
more valuable property.
More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a
man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or
taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property;
other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that,
being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his
castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact
faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more
sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for
which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original
conditions of the social pact.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where
the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal
liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the
service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang,
would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under
appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where
arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its
citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their
occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general
sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so
called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of
linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order
to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the
manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the
oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the
manufacturer of buttons of other materials!
A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under
which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward
another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries
of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the
keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to
labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another
spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing
man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him,
in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his
necessities.
If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the
inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly
even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet
directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions,
their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which
indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor
that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of
time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the
influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a
a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is
his own.
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just
securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government
which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals,
does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their
opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a
more valuable property.
More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a
man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or
taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property;
other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that,
being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his
castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact
faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more
sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for
which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original
conditions of the social pact.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where
the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal
liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the
service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang,
would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under
appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where
arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its
citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their
occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general
sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so
called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of
linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order
to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the
manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the
oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the
manufacturer of buttons of other materials!
A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under
which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward
another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries
of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the
keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to
labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another
spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing
man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him,
in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his
necessities.
If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the
inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly
even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet
directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions,
their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which
indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor
that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of
time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the
influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a
government is not a pattern for the United States.
If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to
wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of
property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that
most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in
violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other
governments.
[From Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, ed., The Founders’
Constitution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 1:598-99.]
If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to
wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of
property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that
most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in
violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other
governments.
[From Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, ed., The Founders’
Constitution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 1:598-99.]
No comments:
Post a Comment