APPENDIX.
LIST OF REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.
| Number. | Where reported. | By whom reported. | Committee. | Date. | Bills and reports. | Detailed reports. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | House | Mr. Giles[265] | Select | April 22, 1802 | … | R. |
| 2 | House | Mr. Marion | Select | Feb. 18, 1807 | Favorable | R. |
| 3 | Senate | Mr. Roberts | Claims | Mar. 3, 1818 | Adverse | R. 124 |
| 4 | House | Mr. Russell | Foreign Affairs | Jan. 31, 1822 | Adverse | R. 32 |
| 5 | House | Mr. Forsyth | Foreign Affairs | Mar. 25, 1824 | Adverse | R. 94 |
| 6 | Senate | Mr. Holmes | Select | Feb. 8, 1827 | Favorable | R. 48 |
| 7 | House | Mr. E. Everett | Foreign Affairs | May 21, 1828 | Favorable | R. 264 |
| 8 | Senate | Mr. Chambers | Select | May 24, 1828 | Favorable | R. 206 |
| 9 | Senate | Mr. Chambers | Select | Feb. 11, 1829 | Favorable, bill | R. 76 |
| 10 | House | Mr. E. Everett | Foreign Affairs | Feb. 16, 1829 | Favorable | R. 82 |
| 11 | Senate | Mr. E. Livingston | Select | Feb. 22, 1830 | Favorable, bill | R. 68 |
| 12 | Senate | Mr. E. Livingston | Select | Dec. 21, 1830 | Favorable, bill | R. 32 |
| 13 | Senate | Mr. Wilkins | Select | Jan. 26, 1832 | Favorable, bill | |
| 14 | Senate | Mr. Chambers | Select | Dec. 20, 1832 | Favorable, bill | |
| 15 | Senate | Mr. Webster[266] | Select | Dec. 10, 1834 | Favorable, bill | |
| 16 | House{ | Mr. E. Everett Mr. Cambreleng | }Foreign Affairs | Feb. 21, 1835{ | Favorable Adverse | }R. 121 |
| 17 | House | Mr. Howard | Foreign Affairs | Jan. 20, 1838 | Favorable, bill | R. 445 |
| 18 | House | Mr. Cushing | Individual | Mar. 31, 1838 | Favorable | |
| 19 | House{ | Mr. Cushing Mr. Pickens | }Foreign Affairs | April 4, 1840{ | Favorable, bill Minority Adv’s | }R. 343 |
| 20 | House | Mr. Cushing | Foreign Affairs | Dec. 29, 1841 | Favorable, bill | R. 16 |
| 21 | Senate | Mr. Choate | Foreign Relat’s | Jan. 28, 1842 | Favorable, bill | |
| 22 | Senate | Mr. Archer | Foreign Relat’s | Jan. 5, 1843 | Favorable, bill | |
| 23 | House | Mr. C. J. Ingersoll | Foreign Affairs | April 17, 1844 | Favorable, bill | |
| 24 | Senate | Mr. Choate | Foreign Relat’s | May 29, 1844 | Favorable, bill | |
| 25 | Senate | Mr. Choate | Foreign Relat’s | Dec. 23, 1844 | Favorable, bill | |
| 26 | Senate | Mr. J. M. Clayton[267] | Select | Feb. 2, 1846 | Favorable, bill | |
| 27 | House | Mr. Tru. Smith[268] | Foreign Affairs | July 13, 1846 | Favorable, bill | |
| 28 | Senate | Mr. Morehead | Select | Feb. 10, 1847 | Favorable, bill | R. 144 |
| 29 | House | Mr. Tru. Smith | Foreign Affairs | Jan. 4, 1848 | Favorable, bill | |
| 30 | Senate{ | Mr. Tru. Smith[269] Mr. Hunter | }Select | Feb. 5, 1850{ | Favorable, bill Minority Adv’s | }R. 44 |
| 31 | House | Mr. Buel | Foreign | June 14, 1850 | Favorable, bill | R. 355 |
| 32 | Senate{ | Mr. Bradbury Mr. Felch | }Select | Jan. 14, 1852{ | Favorable, bill Minority Adv’s | }R. 26 |
| 33 | Senate | Mr. Hamlin[270] | Select | Jan. 17, 1854 | Favorable, bill | |
| 34 | House | Mr. Bayly[271] | Foreign Affairs | Jan. 4, 1854 | Favorable, bill | |
| 35 | House | Mr. Pennington | Foreign Affairs | Mar. 3, 1857 | Favorable, bill | |
| 36 | Senate | Mr. Crittenden[272] | Select | Feb. 4, 1858 | Favorable, bill | R. 53 |
| 37 | House | Mr. Clingman | Foreign Affairs | May 5, 1858 | Favorable, bill | |
| 38 | House | Mr. Royce | Foreign Affairs | Mar. 29, 1860 | Favorable, bill | R. 259 |
| 39 | Senate | Mr. Crittenden | Select | June 11, 1860 | Favorable, bill | |
| 40 | Senate | Mr. Sumner | Foreign Relat’s | Jan. 13, 1862 | Favorable, bill | |
| 41 | Senate | Mr. Sumner | Foreign Relat’s | Jan. 20, 1863 | Favorable, bill |
NO PROPERTY IN MAN: UNIVERSAL EMANCIPATION WITHOUT COMPENSATION.
Speech in the Senate, on the Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery throughout the United States, April 8, 1864.
The property in horses was the gift of God to man at the creation of the world; the property in slaves is property held and acquired by crime, differing in no moral aspect from the pillage of a freebooter, and to which no lapse of time can give a prescriptive right—John Quincy Adams, Speech at Bridgewater, November 6, 1844.
Swift with her Pand she issued and unclosed
The loathsome sties wherein the swine reposed.
…
They men became, but younger than before,
More beauteous far, and far majestic more.
Odyssey, tr. Sotheby, Book X. 398-407.
The Christian religion is equal in its operation, and is accommodated to every nation on the globe. It robs no one of his freedom, violates none of his inherent rights, on the ground that he is a slave by nature, as pretended; and it well becomes your Majesty to banish so monstrous an oppression from your kingdoms in the beginning of your reign, that the Almighty may make it long and glorious.—Las Casas, Address before Charles V.: Prescott’s History of the Conquest of Mexico, Vol. I. p. 379, Note.
In a clause of his will Cortés expresses a doubt whether it is right to exact personal service from the natives, and commands that a strict inquiry shall be made into the nature and value of such services as he had received, and that in all cases a fair compensation shall be allowed for them. Lastly, he makes this remarkable declaration: “It has long been a question, whether one can conscientiously hold property in Indian slaves. Since this point has not yet been determined, I enjoin it on my son Martin and his heirs that they spare no pains to come to an exact knowledge of the truth, as a matter which deeply concerns the conscience of each of them, no less than mine.”—Cortés, his Testament: Ibid., Vol. III. p. 345.
Mais certes, s’il y a rien de clair et d’apparent en la nature, et en quoy il ne soit pas permis de faire l’aveugle, c’est cela que nature, le ministre de Dieu et la gouvernante des hommes, nous a tous faits de mesme forme, et, comme il semble, à mesme moule, afin de nous entrecognoistre tous pour compaignons, ou plus tost frères.—La Boëtie, De la Servitude Volontaire: Œuvres, ed. Feugère, (Paris, 1846,) p. 26.
Quand est-ce donc un homme de Dieu goûtera le plaisir de la liberté dans toute son étendue? Quand il ne la goûtera que dans ses frères affranchis.—Bossuet, Panégyrique de Saint Pierre Nolasque, Point II.
Et qu’on ne dise pas, qu’en supprimant l’esclavage, le Gouvernement violeroit la propriété des colons. Comment l’usage, ou même une loi positive, pourroit-elle jamais donner à un homme un véritable droit de propriété sur le travail, sur la liberté, sur l’être entier d’un autre homme innocent, et qui n’y a point consenti? En déclarant les nègres libres, on n’ôteroit pas au colon sa propriété; on l’empêcheroit de faire un crime, et l’argent qu’on a payé pour un crime n’a jamais donné le droit de le commettre.—Condorcet, Note 109 sur les Pensées de Pascal.
Allegiance to that Power that gives us the forms of men commands us to maintain the rights of men; and never yet was this truth dismissed from the human heart,—never in any time, in any age,—never in any clime where rude man ever had any social feeling, or where corrupt refinement had subdued all feelings; never was this one unextinguishable truth destroyed from the heart of man, placed as it is in the core and centre of it by his Maker, that man was not made the property of man.—Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Speech on the Trial of Warren Hastings, June 6, 1788: Moore’s Memoirs of Sheridan (London, 1825), Vol. I. p. 505.
In each of these cases [the United States and Russia] the slaves and the serfs are not ripe for freedom; no enslaved people ever are; and to wait, before you bestow liberty or political rights, till the recipients are fit to employ them aright, is to resolve not to go into the water till you can swim. You must make up your mind to encounter many very considerable evils at first, and for some time, while men are learning to use the advantages conferred on them.—Archbishop Whately, Annotations to Bacon’s Essays: Essay XXI., Of Delays.
Non-seulement ma liberté est à moi, par la seule grâce de Dieu, comme ma vie, et personne n’en peut disposer à ma place, mais je ne suis pas maître d’en disposer moi-même. Ce n’est pas assez de dire, que la liberté est un droit: la liberté est un devoir.—Jules Simon, La Liberté, Tom. I. p. 26.
The first public movement for an Amendment of the National Constitution, abolishing Slavery, was a resolution presented by the devoted Abolitionist, Henry C. Wright, and adopted by the American Antislavery Society at its anniversary meeting in Philadelphia, December 4, 1863. In a letter to Mr. Sumner, January 13, 1870, Mr. Wright recounted the history of this resolution, which he set forth, prefixing the original in the handwriting of Mr. Sumner:—
“That the voice of the people is heard through petitions to Congress, and this Convention earnestly recommend that this voice be raised in petitions for an Amendment of the Constitution, declaring that Slavery shall be forever prohibited within the limits of the United States.
“Charles Sumner.
“On board of Steamboat Empire State.”
Mr. Wright adds:—
“This is in your hand. On the back, in my hand, are the words: ‘Saloon of Steamer Empire State, on Long Island Sound, Wednesday, A. M., December 2, 1863. Adopted by the American Antislavery Society, at its thirtieth anniversary or third decade meeting, held in Philadelphia, December 3d and 4th, 1863. Adopted December 4th, Friday. Presented by Henry C. Wright, of Boston, and adopted by the Society without a dissenting voice.’
“Henry C. Wright.”
Mr. Wright afterwards communicated these facts to the press.
December 14, 1863, in the House of Representatives, Mr. Ashley, of Ohio, introduced a Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery, in these terms:—
“Slavery is hereby forever prohibited in all the States of the Union, and in all Territories now owned or which may hereafter be acquired by the United States.”
On the same day, Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, introduced another, in these terms:—
“Slavery, being incompatible with a free Government, is forever prohibited in the United States, and involuntary servitude shall be permitted only as a punishment for crime.”
January 11, 1864, in the Senate, Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, proposed the following amendment:—
“Slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall not exist in the United States.”
This was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
February 8th, while the Committee had the question still under consideration, Mr. Sumner proposed an Amendment as follows:—
“Article —. Everywhere within the limits of the United States, and of each State or Territory thereof, all persons are equal before the law, so that no person can hold another as a slave.”
Mr. Sumner moved the reference of the joint resolution containing his Amendment to the Select Committee on Slavery and Freedmen, of which he was Chairman. Mr. Trumbull thought it had better go to the Committee on the Judiciary, to which the other proposition had been referred. Mr. Sumner remarked, that already petitions against the Fugitive Slave Act had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary with the recommendation that they be referred to the other Committee, that the terms of the resolution raising this Committee were broad enough to cover every proposition relating to Slavery, and that, in fact, petitions relating to a Constitutional Amendment had already been referred to this Committee. If after this statement the Senator desired that the joint resolution should be referred to the Committee of which he was the honored head, Mr. Sumner consented with the greatest pleasure. Mr. Trumbull expressed the opinion that “the appropriate Committee for all propositions to change the Constitution was the Judiciary Committee,” and in this opinion Mr. Doolittle concurred. Mr. Sumner was perfectly willing to follow the suggestion made. His chief desire was that the Committee would “act upon it soon.”
Meanwhile Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, moved that the joint resolution be indefinitely postponed, which was lost,—Yeas 8, Nays 31. It was then referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
February 10th, Mr. Trumbull reported back the two joint resolutions, and the various petitions on the subject, with a substitute, as an amendment to the joint resolution of Mr. Henderson, in the following terms:—
“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
February 17th, Mr. Sumner, inferring from the report of the Committee a disposition to follow the Ordinance for the Northwest Territory, and also thinking it desirable to expel from the Constitution clauses alleged to concern Slavery, gave notice of the following substitute, the first clause of which is modelled precisely on the famous prohibition in the Ordinance.
“Article 13.
“Section 1. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude anywhere in the United States, or within the jurisdiction thereof, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; and the Congress may make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to enforce this prohibition.
“Section 2. In the third paragraph of the second section of the first article, concerning the apportionment of Representatives, the following words shall be struck out, so as to be no longer a part of the Constitution, namely: ‘Which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons,’ except the words ‘excluding Indians not taxed,’ which shall be allowed to remain, so that the whole clause shall read: ‘Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, excluding Indians not taxed.’
“Section 3. The whole of the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article, in the words hereto appended, shall be struck out, so as to be no longer a part of the Constitution, namely: ‘No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.’”
March 28th, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the joint resolution, the pending question being the substitute of the Committee. Mr. Trumbull opened the debate by an elaborate speech, in which he said: “If we are to get rid of the institution of Slavery, we must have some more efficient way of doing it than by the Proclamations that have been issued or the Acts of Congress which have been passed.… Sir, in my judgment, the only effectual way of ridding the country of Slavery, and so that it cannot be resuscitated, is by an Amendment of the Constitution, forever prohibiting it within the jurisdiction of the United States. It is reasonable to suppose, that, if this proposed Amendment passes Congress, it will within a year receive the ratification of the requisite number of States to make it a part of the Constitution. That accomplished, and we are forever freed of this troublesome question.… We take this question entirely away from the politics of the country; we relieve Congress of sectional strifes; and, what is better than all, we restore to a whole race that freedom which is theirs by the gift of God, but which we for generations have wickedly denied them.” Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, made an effective speech, whose character appears in its title, as published: “The Death of Slavery is the Life of the Nation.” Then followed, on successive days, speeches from Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, Mr. McDougall, of California, Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, and Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, all against the Amendment. Mr. Davis declared that “the most operative single cause of the pending war was the intermeddling of Massachusetts with the institution of Slavery,” and it was an “objection of overruling weight, that no revision of the Constitution, in any form, ought to be undertaken under the auspices of the party in power.” Mr. Saulsbury said: “Immediately after the Flood, the Almighty condemned a whole race to servitude. He said, ‘Cursed be Canaan!’” In behalf of the Amendment were able speeches by Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, and Mr. Henderson, of Missouri.
April 8th, the last day of debate, Mr. Sumner made the speech which follows this Introduction.
During the discussion there were several votes. Mr. Davis moved as a substitute, “No negro, or person whose mother or grandmother is or was a negro, shall be a citizen of the United States, or be eligible to any civil or military office or to any place of trust or profit under the United States.” This was lost,—Yeas 5, Nays 32. Mr. Davis then proposed to add to the first section of the proposed article: “But no slave shall be entitled to his or her freedom under this Amendment, if resident, at the time it takes effect, in any State the laws of which forbid free negroes to reside therein, until removed from such State by the Government of the United States.” This was rejected without a division. Mr. Davis further proposed to add at the end of the second section, that, “when this Amendment of the Constitution shall have taken effect by freeing the slaves, Congress shall provide for the distribution and settlement of all the population of African descent in the United States among the several States and Territories in proportion to the white population of each State and Territory.” This also was rejected without a division, as was another Amendment by him concerning the election of President and Vice-President. Mr. Powell moved to add to the first section: “No slave shall be emancipated by this article, unless the owner thereof shall be first paid the value of the slave or slaves so emancipated.” This was rejected,—Yeas 2, Nays 34.
Mr. Sumner offered his substitute in these terms:—
“All persons are equal before the law, so that no person can hold another as a slave; and the Congress may make all laws necessary and proper to carry this article into effect everywhere within the United States and the jurisdiction thereof.”
Concerning the Amendment of the Committee he remarked:—
“It starts with the idea of reproducing the Jeffersonian Ordinance. I doubt the expediency of reproducing that Ordinance. It performed an excellent work in its day, but there are words in it which are entirely inapplicable to our time. They are the limitation, ‘otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.’ Now, unless I err, there is an implication from those words that men may be enslaved as a punishment of crimes whereof they shall have been duly convicted. There was a reason for that at the time; for I understand that it was the habit in certain parts of the country to doom persons as slaves for life as a punishment for crime, and it was not proposed to prohibit this habit. But Slavery in our day is something distinct, perfectly well known, requiring no words of distinction outside of itself. Why, therefore, add the words, ‘nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted’? To my mind they are entirely surplusage. They do no good there, but absolutely introduce a doubt.
“In placing a new and important text in our Constitution we cannot be too careful. We should consider well that the language adopted in this Chamber to-day will in all probability be adopted in the other House, and it must be adopted, also, by three fourths of the Legislatures of the States. Therefore we have every motive, the strongest inducement in the world, to make that language as perfect as possible. I do not hesitate to say, that I object to the Jeffersonian Ordinance, even if presented here in its original text. But now I am brought to the point that the proposition of the Committee is not the Jeffersonian Ordinance, except in its bad feature. In other respects, it discards the language of the Jeffersonian Ordinance, and also its collocation of words.”
Mr. Trumbull replied, that the Committee, upon discussion and examination, had come to their conclusion. “I do not know,” he said, “that I should have adopted these precise words, but a majority of the Committee thought they were the best words; they accomplish the object; and I cannot see why the Senator from Massachusetts should be so pertinacious about particular words.” He hoped Mr. Sumner would withdraw his proposition.
Mr. Howard, of Michigan, wished as much as Mr. Sumner to use significant language that cannot be mistaken or misunderstood; but he preferred to dismiss all reference to French constitutions or French codes, and “go back to the good old Anglo-Saxon language employed by our fathers in the Ordinance of 1787, an expression which has been adjudicated upon repeatedly, which is perfectly well understood both by the public and by judicial tribunals.”
Mr. Sumner withdrew his proposition, which he called a “suggestion” only, and also “a sincere effort to contribute as much as he could to improve the proposition in form,” but could not resist the appeal of his friend, the Chairman of the Committee. He forbore to press any amendment.
Mr. Sumner often regretted that he had not insisted upon a vote on striking out the clause giving implied sanction to slavery or involuntary servitude as “a punishment for crime.”
April 8th, on the passage of the joint resolution, the vote stood, Yeas 38, Nays 6, when the Vice-President announced that the joint resolution, having received the concurrence of two thirds of the Senators present, was passed.
May 31st, the joint resolution was taken up in the House of Representatives. Mr. Holman, of Indiana, objected to its second reading, and the Speaker stated the question, “Shall the joint resolution be rejected?” On this question the vote stood, Yeas 55, Nays 76; and the joint resolution was not rejected. An excited debate occupied several days.
June 15th, the vote was taken, and it stood, Yeas 95, Nays 66, not voting 21. So the joint resolution failed, two thirds not voting in its favor. Mr. Ashley, of Ohio, a most strenuous supporter of the Constitutional Amendment, changed his vote from the affirmative to the negative, so as to move a reconsideration, which motion he made in the evening, and it was duly entered on the Journal, thus holding the joint resolution in suspense. The session of Congress closed without further action.
At the next session the President in his Annual Message reminded Congress of the pending Constitutional Amendment, and recommended its “reconsideration and passage,” adding, that by the recent election the will of the majority was “most clearly declared in favor of such Constitutional Amendment.” January 6, 1865, on motion of Mr. Ashley, the House of Representatives took up his motion to reconsider the vote of rejection. The debate, which was opened by him in an earnest speech, proceeded, with some interruptions, until January 31st, when he called the previous question on the motion. Mr. Stiles, of Pennsylvania, moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table, which was lost,—Yeas 57, Nays 111. The previous question was then ordered. On the motion to reconsider, the vote stood, Yeas 112, Nays 57, not voting 13; but, a majority being sufficient for this purpose, the motion to reconsider was agreed to. The question then recurred on the passage of the joint resolution, when, on motion of Mr. Ashley, the previous question was ordered. Before this was done, he stated that to hasten a vote he had declined speaking. Mr. Brown, of Wisconsin, asked him to yield, so that he might “offer a substitute for the joint resolution.” Mr. Ashley could not yield; he had a substitute himself, which he should much prefer to the original joint resolution, but he did not offer it. On its final passage the vote stood, Yeas 119, Nays 56, not voting 8. So the two thirds required by the Constitution having voted in its favor, the joint resolution was passed.
All possible preparation had been made for the vote, and the attendance was unusually large, both of Representatives and spectators. The people throughout the country awaited the result with profound interest. The announcement by the Speaker was received with an outburst of enthusiasm in the Chamber. The Republican Representatives sprang to their feet and applauded with cheers and clapping of hands. The spectators in the crowded galleries followed the example, and for several minutes the Chamber was a scene of joy and congratulation. Mr. Ingersoll, of Illinois, then said, “In honor of this immortal and sublime event, I move that the House do now adjourn”; and the House adjourned.
The joint resolution submitting the Constitutional Amendment bears date February 1, 1865. It now remained that the Amendment should be ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, there being at the time thirty-six. A certificate, announcing that this had been done, was issued by the Secretary of State, December 18, 1865, and from this date the Amendment became part of the Constitution. President Lincoln, who had watched this event with absorbing interest, did not live to witness the final result.
Mr. Sumner saw so clearly the delay incident to a Constitutional Amendment, and even the uncertainty with regard to its passage by Congress and adoption by the States, that, while supporting it cordially, he did not relax meanwhile his efforts for Congressional legislation against Slavery. Even if Congress could not be induced, in the exercise of its powers, to decree the death of the public enemy, he hoped that at least it would not hesitate to use all other powers to limit and weaken it, so that, should the Constitutional Amendment fail, or be postponed, Slavery would be in a condition from which it could not recover. His main postulate, that Slavery was contrary to Nature, and an outlaw, was important in sustaining action against it, whether by Constitutional Amendment or Congressional legislation. In the course of debate on another question, Mr. Sherman spoke incidentally of the Constitutional Amendment as “the main proposition,” when Mr. Sumner at once remarked:—
“The main proposition, Sir, is to strike Slavery wherever you can hit it; and I tell the Senator he will not accomplish his purpose, if he contents himself merely with a Constitutional Amendment. I am for a Constitutional Amendment; I have made the proposition in several forms: but how long will it take to carry that Amendment through both Houses of Congress, and then carry it to its final consummation in the votes of the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, according to the requirements of the Constitution? Are we to postpone action on all these questions until that possibly distant day? No, Sir!”[273]
The speech which follows was published originally under the title, “Universal Emancipation without Compensation.” In the edition of the Loyal Publication Society of New York the title was “No Property in Man.” These two titles present fundamental principles of special significance at that time. They were in the nature of answer to the clamor for compensation.