bank applications it has already rejected, we have an earnest of its future acts. Gentlemen will discriminate between the bank bills which are before us: charters will be granted for public good, not for private emolument: and there is no cause for apprehending such an increase of banking capital, as to endanger the circulating medium of the state.

Your committee are of opinion this act should not become a law.

IN ASSEMBLY,

March 2, 1833.

REPORT

Of the select committee on sundry memorials of the inhabitants of various towns and counties in this State, relative to the law abolishing imprisonment for debt.

Mr. Herttell, from the select committee to whom were referred sundry memorials of the inhabitants of various towns and counties of this State, praying for the repeal of the law abolishing imprisonment for debt, passed the 26th day of April, 1831, and which went into operation on the 1st day of March, 1832,

REPORTED:

That your committee have had the subject with which they were charged under consideration, and bestowed upon it that attention and reflection to which a matter so important, involving some of the most essential rights and interests of the citizens of this State, is entitled.

Before, however, making any remarks on the prayer of the said memorials, or the complaints and allegations contained therein, your committee deem it proper, as a matter essentially connected with that referred to their consideration, to premise, that there are human rights which are alienable, and others which are unalienable: that is, there are some rights which man may exercise himself, or which, if he chooses, he may appoint or authorize others to perform. These are therefore alienable. But there are other rights which men may exercise themselves, respectively, but which they have no right to delegate others to perform or exercise. Among these are the rights of life and of personal liberty. That these being unalienable cannot be parted with by any bar [Assem. No. 216.]

1

gain or contract, and hence, that no person nor government can derive a right from his or their constituents to deprive them of the unalienable rights just mentioned, under the colour or pretence of any alleged agreement for such purpose, is fully illustrated by the following considerations:

"The love of life is doubtless the strongest sentiment which can influence the actions of mankind. It is inherent in the very organization of human existence. It is therefore irresistible in its operation, and co-existent with life itself. The power by which man was created, and not man himself, implanted this sentiment in the human mind: and being the first and strongest sentiment which can influence human actions, it indicates 'self-preservation as the first law of nature;' to insure obedience to which, the source of life has wisely made the disposition of man to live and preserve his existence, as strong as the obligation to do so. Hence it is that man has no right voluntarily to destroy his own life. It is for this reason that suicide is placed on the catalogue of human crimes."

"It would doubtless be futile and unjust to make a law, and command obedience to it, without giving those on whom it is intended to be obligatory, the power to obey it. The powers of mind are not sufficient for the purpose above indicated, when the body is held in duress. It is therefore only by means of the free exercise of the powers both of mind and body, that the laws of selfpreservation can be fulfilled. The injunction, therefore, and also the right to exercise the intellectual faculties and the bodily powers, for the purpose of pursuing the means of human existence, is as well defined, and as obligatory as the law of self-preservation, of which it necessarily constitutes a part. Hence man having no right voluntarily to destroy his own life, he cannot authorize another to take it away; inasmuch as he cannot empower another to do that which he has no right to do himself. It is for this reason that taking life in a duel is murder, notwithstanding the contract or agreement of the parties to fight. Personal liberty being indispensably necessary to the fulfilment of the laws of self-preservation, man is equally bound to preserve and exercise it; and has no more right voluntarily to resign it, or part with it by agreement or contract, than he has to destroy his own life or to bargain with another to destroy it. Hence the right of personal liberty is unalienable: and man has no more right to authorize another, by virtue of any agreement, to destroy or restrain his personal liberty than he

has, as before remarked, to delegate or authorize another to destroy his life, in pursuance of any contract for that purpose."

If it should be 'objected, that this reasoning goes to deny the right of government to imprison for criminal offences, your committee answer, not so; government not only possess that right, but to prevent crime and to punish the offender, is an essential, or the primary object for which political governments are instituted: and that power emanates from the very laws of self-preservation, of which we have been speaking. That natural law is so obvious and imperative, that it authorizes each individual, even in a state of nature, to take the life or restrain the liberty of any who may seek to destroy or endanger the life of the assailed, or who attempt to violate the natural and unalienable right of life, or of personal liberty. Each individual, by virtue of the laws of self-preservation, possessing the right of self-defence, all are alike vested with it, and hence may, by agreement, refer the matter of controversy, in cases where it is practicable so to do, to other individuals to determine the manner and the degree in which the aggressor shall be punished. These referees, representatives or government, are therefore not only bound to defend and protect each individual from aggression, but have a right, as each one in a state of nature has, for the purpose of self-preservation, to place the aggressor in such a situation, or to inflict such reasonable punishment as will be most likely to insure the safety of each and every individual member of the civil compact. Thus the powers of government to prevent crimes and to inflict punishment for criminal offences, are derived from individual right, under the law of self-preservation: still reserving to each individual the right of self-defence when life or liberty requires immediate and efficient protection.

Here your committee beg leave to remark, as an incontrovertible and invariable axiom in logical reasoning, that inconsistency is error, or conclusive proof of its existence. Truth alone is consistent with truth:-and that each truth, must of necessity, be consistent with every other.

Having established the truth, that the right to personal liberty is both natural and unalienable, and cannot righteously be destroyed, nor restrained by the express provisions, or the operation of any voluntary contract; and having also shown that individuals have a right, and hence that government may acquire the power