lic may be allowed to interfere with the immediate possessions of an individual; but these must be cafes of absolute necessity, in which every good citizen ought cheerfully to acquiesce: Yet, even then, justice requires, and the law declares, that an adequate compensation should be made for the wrong that is done. For, the burthen of the war ought to be equally borne by all who are interested in it, and not fall disproportionately heavy upon a few. These general principles are fortified by the explicit language of the Declaration oƒ Rights, Sect. 8. which provides, that “no part of a man's property can be justly taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of his legal Representatives.” In the present cafe the Appellant did not voluntarily surrender his property, nor was it taken from him by any legislative fanction.
That there are, however, some instances where an individual is not entitled to redress for injuries committed on his property in the prosecution of public objects, must be admitted; but these instances are carefully distinguifhed by the writers on the law of nations; Vatt. B. 3. Sect. 232. and are in no degree analogous to the foundation of the Appellant's claim. If, indeed, the property in question had remained in Philadelphia, and had there been seized by the enemy, there could have been no reason to claim an indemnification from the public; but, when it was taken out of the possession of the owner by the executive authority of the State, and removed to a distant place, with a promise of restoring it on demand, the subsequent capture being clearly a consequence of this interference, the government is bound to indemnity the Appellant for his loss.
It is unnecessary to travel into an investigation of the variety modes, by which an individual may seek for redress and compensation, where his property has been divested for the use of the public. The right is Clear, and the carry right must have a remedy, is a principle of general law, which the Legislature of Pennsylvania has expressly recognized; directing, by an early Act of Assembly, the settlement of the accounts of the Committee and Council of Safety ; and prescribing in what manner the claims of individuals should be settled and discharged. 2 State Laws144. To these bodies, the Pennslvania Board of War succeeded ; the business the Board was transacted in the same way ; and there can be no good reason, why the obligations which they incurred, should not be as fairly and fully adjusted and satisfied. The Legislature, indeed, must have regarded the matter in the same light ; for, finding that the former law was inadequate to its objects, another was enacted to appoint a Comptroller General, and to authorize him “ to liquidate and settle, according to law and equity, all claims against the Commonwealth, for services performed, monies advanced, or articles furnished, by other of the Legislative, or executive powers, for the use of the same, or for any other purpose whatever.”– This authority embraced the Appellant's claim, and the Comptroller General has erred in deciding against it.
