Those who voted in the negative are-Messrs.

So the resolutions were laid on the table.

Mr. Morrill of Somersworth submitted the following resolutions: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened, that our Senators in Congress be instructed, and the Representatives in Congress from this State be requested to use their efforts to cause provision to be made by law for the equitable adjustment of the claims of our citizens for spoliations by France prior to the year 1300.

Resolved, that the Secretary of State be required to furnish the Senators and Representatives in Congress with copies of the above resolution.

"

Shall the resolutions pass?

It was decided in the affirmative.

So the resolutions passed.

Ordered, that the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate therein.

Mr. Ela of Meredith submitted the following resolution:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened, that the sum of seventy-eight dollars be allowed J. B. Wiggin for engrossing all the public acts and resolutions at this session and in full of his account, and that said sum be paid out of the treasury.

Which was read a first and second time.

On motion of Mr. Warner

Resolved, that the rules of the House be so far suspended that the resolution be read a third time at the present time. The resolution was then read a third time.

Resolved, that it pass.

Ordered, that the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate therein.

On motion of Mr. McDaniel

Resolved, that the thanks of this House be presented to the several Reverend clergymen for the able and satisfactory manner in which they have discharged the duties of chaplains the present

session.

Mr. Ela of Meredith, from the committee on Engrossed Bills, reported that they have carefully examined and find correctly engrossed bills and resolutions, of the following titles, to wit:

"An act in amendment of an act for laying out highways, passed July 3, 1829."

"An act in amendment of an act entitled an act in addition to and in amendment of an act prescribing the duties and regulating the office of Sheriff," passed June 29, 1829.

"An act to incorporate the Nashua Academy."

'An act to abolish imprisonment for debt."

"An act regulating the piling, hauling and removing of seaweed > and rockweed from the seashore in the towns of Hampton, North Hampton and Rye."

"An act relating to railroad corporations."

"An act authorizing towns to build and repair school houses in

certain cases."

"A resolution in favor of Jeremiah Elkins."

A resolution in favor of William Fisk and others."

"A resolution in favor of Joseph Hill."

“A resolution in favor of the selectmen of the town of Shelburne." Which were severally signed by the Speaker.

Ordered, that the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate therein.

On motion of Mr. Knapp

Resolved, that all bills, resolutions and petitions lying on the table be postponed to the next session of the Legislature.

Mr. Baker of Hillsborough pursuant to notice previously given by himself and others presented the following protest against the passage of the bill entitled "An act in addition to and explanatory of an act relating to rail road and other corporations, passed June 20, 1840."

PROTEST.

The undersigned, members of the House of Representatives, protest against the passage of the bill entitled "An act in addition to and explanatory of an act relating to rail road and other corporations," and assign, the following reasons:

1. Because it is unconstitutional.

In the twelfth article of the bill of Rights are the following words; "every member of the community has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property: he is therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection and to yield his personal service when necessary, or an equivalent. But no part of a man's property shall be taken from him or applied to public uses without his own consent, or that of the Representative body of the people."

This article guaranties to every citizen of the State the right to the full and free enjoyment of his property, subject only to the paramount right of the State to apply it to public use. But the use to which the application is to be made must be clearly and exclusively public, one in which the citizens of the State are interested generally, in which all participate, or may participate, equally; one which is. confined to no, individual or association of individuals.

Such, in the opinion of the undersigned is not the character of the use contemplated in this bill. It is not like a highway which is open to all, which is dedicated to the public; in which no one is privileged above another; of which the public is the proprietor

and owner. It is clearly and exclusively private. The property of the citizen is to be taken and given to a corporation. That corporation is alone interested in the profits of it. It is theirs and theirs alone. The citizens of the State have no rights, no privileges, no interests, no easement which is not subject to the control of the corporation. The use to which the application is to be made is private and that entirely. The State is in no respect interested in a railroad otherwise than it is in a line of Stages, or a manufactory, or a grist mill, or in the farms and workshops of its citizens. The property in each is exclusively private.

It is not denied that a railroad may under certain circumstances be of public utility. It is not denied, that this means of conveyance furnishes advantages, not to be derived in any other way. But that is not the question. It is not to be asked, whether an enterprize in which a citizen, or a corporation may engage is, or is not, of public utility, when an act is required to be passed giving to that citizen or corporation, the power to take the property of another without his consent. Such a doctrine would unsettle all right, all liberty, all security. It would strike at the very foundation of society. No man could be safe for a moment. The rights of property would be of no more worth, here, than in the veriest despotism on earth. Should this be made the question nothing more would be necessary when a citizen or a corporation wishes to take the property of another, but to prove to the satisfaction of the Legislature, that that citizen or corporation could use the property of some other person, to better advantage than the owner; that it would be of public utility, to take from one and give to another. The very suggestion of the consequences to which such a doctrine would lead, proves its absurdity; proves that it cannot be countenanced in a community which claims the protection of law; the protection of a constitution which guaranties to every member of it, the rights of property.

A doctrine like this, would confer not only upon rail road corporations, but upon banking corporations, manufactoring corpora tions, insurance corporation-in short, upon any corporation which the caprice of a legislature might create, the power to take our ladds, cut up our farms, demolish our dwellings, lay waste our fields, at the will of the Legislature, a proposition too monstrous to be entertained for a moment.

If the Legislature ean confer upon a corporation the power to take the property of our citizens without their consent, on the ground, that the enterprize in which that corporation may have embarked, is of public utility, it can confer upon an individual a

A man wishes for a site upon

similar power for a similar reason. which to erect a mill, and applies to the Legislature for power to take a water privilege which his neighbor refuses to sell, on the ground that the erection of a grist mill is of public utility; that it will accommodate the people of the State. Would the Legislature confer the power? If not, why confer the power upon a corporation? Have a portion of the citizens of this State, merely because they are invested with corporate franchises, a claim to the favour of the Legislature, which is denied to the citizens generally? Can a corporation claim a right to do what an individual cannot? Shall they be clothed with power to take the property of our citizens without their consent, while it is denied to the individual? By what right? No Legislature would for a moment listen to the application of one citizen, to take the land of another without his consent. Why then shall they listen to a corporation? The undersigned believe it ought not to be done; that it cannot be done without setting at naught the rights solemnly guarantied by the constitution; rights heretofore deemed sacred from legislative

enactment.

2. Because it is partial in its operation. The act of June 20, 1840, provides that "from and after the passage of this act, it shall not be lawful for any corporation to take, use, or occupy any lands without the consent of the owner thereof, unless the construction of the works contemplated in the act of incorporation shall have been commenced prior to the passage of this act."

There are now in existence no less than four Railroad corporations, the works of which had not been commenced prior to the passage of the act of June 20, 1840, besides numerous other corporations, created for different purposes. Out of these the Concord Railroad has been selected and by this act, it is to be exempted from the operation of the law of June 20, 1840.Upon what ground shall one corporation be thus privileged over another? It has been suggested that a survey of the route has been made, and a considerable expense incurred; but a similar survey may have been made by each of the other corporations; and this survey would have been as necessary without the power to take the property of the citizen, as with it. The Concord Railroad corporation stands upon no different equity in this respect from that of either of the others; and in the opinion of the undersigned, this act which confers this extraordinary power upon the Concord railroad, while the others are excluded, is partial in its operation, unequal and unjust.

It cannot but be obvious that every citizen of the State is e