HARNESS VS. CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL CO. 251

was a principle of right and justice inherent in the nature and
spirit of the social compact, which restrained and set bounds
to the authority of the legislature, and beyond which it could
not be allowed to pass. That principle which protects the
life, liberty and property of the citizen from violation in
the unjust exercise of legislative power. Regents of the Uni-
versity of Maryland vs. Williams, 9 G. &J., 409.

Chancellor Kent, in speaking of the right of eminent domain,
or that inherent sovereign power which gives to the legislature
the control of private property for public uses, remarks, that
the constitution of the United States, and of most of the states
of the Union have imposed a valuable check upon the exercise
of the power, by declaring, that private property shall not be
taken for public use, without just compensation; a principle,
as he says, founded in natural justice and recognised by the
universal law. And, he further observes, "that though it be
not a constitutional principle, yet it exists with stringent force,
independent of any positive provision." 2 Kent Com., 339,
340, and note.

The only case to which I have been referred, in which it was
held, that private property might be taken for public use,
against the consent of the owner, and without making compen-
sation, is that of the State vs. Dawson, 3 HUVs Rep., 100.
This decision was placed upon the ground, th'at the 5th article
of the constitution of the United States, which prohibits the tak-
ing of private property for public use, without just compensa-
tion, is applicable, exclusively, and restrictive only of the pow-
ers of the general government and its functionaries; and, that
as there is no restraining provision in the constitution of South
Carolina, the legislative authority could not be controlled.

The weight of this authority, however, is much weakened
by the dissatisfaction with it, expressed by several of the judges,
and by the opinion of Mr. Justice Richardson, in support of the
obligation of making compensation.

But, if it should be conceded, that the legislature of Mary-
land might exercise the power in question, if there was nothing
in the constitution to forbid it; and, if the argument pressed