ever a case shall occur, that for the public use the private property of individuals must be surrendered, then such a surrender will be sustained, not only by the language of the constitution itself, but by the nature and fitness of things. The very existence of political communities renders indispensable the exercise of such a power, and such a power being vested in the Legislature, may by them be delegated by law, and in this way only can private property be taken and appropriated, without the owner's consent. We hold our estates subject to the demands of the public for their exclusive use. We hold them above and beyond the control of others. The property of an individual, in pursuance of the provisions of law, may be taken and appropriated for the debts of that individual. It is merely applying personal means to meet personal liabilities.

But it would be regarded as abhorrent to every principle of common justice and opposed to every principle of constitutional law, to contend that the property of one individual could be seized and applied for the satisfaction of the debts of another; and yet there is not the slightest difference, in principle, in giving authority to take the property of an individual, without his consent, to pay the debts of his neighbor, or to take that property and give to that same neighbor to promote his convenience or to increase his substance. It is nothing more and nothing less than taking individual property, against the will of its owner, for private use. I cannot fail, without a violation of the oath, I have just taken to support the constitution, to carry out in practice what I have not hesitated to advance in theory-that the surrender of private property, without consent, except for public use, cannot be required. This great principle is coexistent with our government. The sober sense of our community can never be confounded with the unmeaning jargon that public use is attained by private accommodation and the protection of private interests. The true difference between public and private use could not be more perfectly illustrated, than by contrasting our highways constructed by public means, sustained at public charge and exclusively dedicated to public benefit, with those constructed by private appropriations, preserved by private expenditures and dedi

cated to private interest. The one class is exclusively within the control of the public; the other is as exclusively within the control of individuals. The one is a public, the other a private con

cern.

The acquisition, possession and protection of property is one of the essential and inherent rights of mau, and on entering into a state of society he must surrender, to some extent, this natural right to that society, in order to insure the protection of others. For the construction of our public highways, private property of necessity must be taken and thus appropriated, even without the consent of the owner, if a just compensation shall be made. Legislatures can provide for the construction of all such ways. The power is expressly conferred by our own constitution, and con firmed by that of the United States. But no such principle can be made applicable to private ways, constructed by individuals or by artificial persons for private purposes. Estates are not held here by so uncertain a tenure. Property cannot be put away from the control of its owner, against his will, when required for purposes of individual speculation, when wanted to accomplish private ends, or when necessary to advance private interests.Such objects can only be attained by negotiation and contract. Mind must meet mind, when the possessions of one may be needed to carry out the operations of another. A contrary doctrine would place the estates of men beyond the control of their owners-give to wealth the power of applying the means of others to the accomplishment of its own ends; of converting the soil of the husbandmen, without his consent, into canals and railroads, and of thus subjecting the homes of the poor to the claims of the rich. The exercise of any such power would be wholly unwarranted by and opposed to the very first principles of our government. There is no compromising, no giving up of this principle. If the views expressed are right and constitutional, then the principle will be maintained unimpaired, so long as our institutions shall continue. The Legislature can in no instance delegate a power which they do not enjoy. It cannot rightfully presume to exercise an authority over the private property of the citizen, which is not warranted by the terms of the constitution.

It would be most dangerous and alarming to enlarge the express grants of power by construction, or control them by considerations of expediency. I have before said, if such a power exists in the representative body of the people to give authority to appropriate the property of individuals, without their consent, to the use of private corporations, equally constitutional would it be to confer the same power for the use of the corporators. There is not a shadow of difference in principle. Nor does the constitutional exercise of such a power, for private purposes, depend on the degree of public use. The abstract power, if possessed, might with as much propriety be conferred upon the owner of a waterfall, to construct a dam and flow the lands above, in order to erect a mill demanded by the convenience of a neighborhood, as to construct a railroad for the accommodation of other portions of the community. There is no half-way house, no middle ground. The first section of the act contained in chapter 142 of the Revised Statutes, passed before I came into office and approved by my immediate predecessor, contains a provision worthy of the head and heart of the representative body of the people, which gave it a place among our statutory enactments. It contains, in my judgment, the true constitutional doctrine upon the rights and powers of private corporations over the property of individuals. This valuable reform in our legislation, gives the desired protection to the property of individuals against all encroachments of irresponsible corporate power.

In the course of this session applications may be made to you for the renewal of existing bank charters and for the incorporation of other private companies. It is not within my province to prescribe the details to be embraced in the charters for any such incorporations. If the general acts are not as they should be, it is for you to make the alterations required, and it would illy accord with the Executive to differ with the Legislative branches of the government in the details of a measure which do not in effect violate our constitution. The principle of individual liability for the debts of private corporations will not, I trust, be yielded; and while it should be faithfully preserved by the future legislation of the State, we should be careful in our engagedness

for the maintenance of this principle, that we do no wrong to these private corporations, by restricting too much the powers of the corporators. Equal and exact justice should be the end and aim of public legislation.

From the last annual report made by the Bank Commissioners of Ohio, I subjoin the following extract as containing sound and correct doctrine upon the subject of banking :

"In the organization and management of banks, the control over their discounts and the decision as to what persons or classes of persons shall be accommodated, the people have no more direction, than in the affairs of private individuals. The accruing profits, instead of being kept as a fund to discharge the debts of the corporation or to meet its losses, are semi-annually divided among the stockholders, and thereafter become private property, beyond the reach of an execution against the bank. And here is the distinction between a natural person and a corporation. The natural person retains his accumulated profits and they become a part of his property, and are liable at all times for the payment of his debts; but the corporate body, instead of retaining its profits to pay its debts or to meet any losses that may occur, divides them among the stockholders. Individual liability, instead of dividing the profits among the stockholders and the losses among the people, proposes to divide the losses as well as the profits among the persons composing the body corporate. The history of the past has proved that frequent and heavy losses have occurred from bank failures. This loss must fall upon one of two classes of men, the bankers or the bill holders. If the management devolves exclusively on one party and the profits also enure to the same, it is clearly right to fix the responsibility on that party having both the control and the profit."

The Legislature will constanty bear in mind that their first and last object, should be to provide for the perfect security of the public against every possible loss by reason of the conduct of private corporations. It is immaterial in what way this object shall be accomplished, if it be but attained. The maximum of the capitals to be held by banking companies, the provisions and the details for their government and for the security of the pub

lic, are properly and exclusively within your province. With those matters I do not propose to interfere.

If it be policy to increase banking or any other private corporations, it would be but an act of justice that the security to the public should be made with as much convenience to the corporations as practicable. Various modes have occurred to me, each looking to the same object, and I dare presume that your own reflections will finally lead to the adoption of some general plan which will give entire protection to the public, without imposing such unnecessary restraints as will lead private corporations to surrender their charters. The incorporation of a bank is a power which should be exercised with great caution. To all such artificial persons, you give the right to create for the public a paper circulating medium, which ever has been and ever will be taken as money by the people. It is not to be denied that to banking companies, uncontrolled and irresponsible, and conducted as they have been, is committed the power of fixing the value of the entire property of the country. When they expand their circulation, property rises. When they contract, it sinks. "If a great expansion of the currency of the country creates high prices, high wages and over-trading, it is self evident that a great contraction of the currency will produce exactly the opposite effects -low prices, low wages and little trading." The abundance of paper money gives an inflated value to products, which is taken away when new discounts are refused and payments required.

"The constant tendency of banks has been to lend too much, and to put too many notes in circulation." It was once well said by a distinguished peer of England, that "if the Americans went into the funding system of England, and adopted their projects of unsubstantial paper money, their boasted independence would prove to be the merest phantom." How literally has this prediction been verified by the history of past events!

Much has already been accomplished by the stern and inflexible democracy of New Hampshire, in promoting the cause of equal rights and in sustaining the demands of just and constitutional privileges. Let us steadfastly maintain the positions we have assumed. True it is, that the history of our own State, for