already, shall be kept out of it no longer; and every man's right to his
own body shall be protected." True, Congress may not arbitrarily take
property, _as_ property, from one man and give it to another--and in the
abolition of slavery no such thing is done. A legislative act changes
the _condition_ of the slave--makes him his own _proprietor_, instead of
the property of another. It determines a question of _original right_
between two classes of persons--doing an act of justice to one, and
restraining the other from acts of injustice; or, in other words,
preventing one from robbing the other, by granting to the injured party
the protection of just and equitable laws.

Congress, by an act of abolition, would change the condition of seven
thousand "persons" in the District, but would "take" nothing. To
construe this provision so as to enable the citizens of the District to
hold as property, and in perpetuity, whatever they please, or to hold it
as property in all circumstances--all necessity, public welfare, and the
will and power of the government to the contrary notwithstanding--is a
total perversion of its whole _intent_. The _design_ of the provision,
was to throw up a barrier against Governmental aggrandizement. The right
to "take property" for _State uses_ is one thing;--the right so to
adjust the _tenures_ by which property is held, that _each may have his
own secured to him_, is another thing, and clearly within the scope of
legislation. Besides, if Congress were to "take" the slaves in the
District, it would be _adopting_, not abolishing slavery--becoming a
slaveholder itself, instead of requiring others to be such no longer.
The clause in question, prohibits the "taking" of individual property
for public use, to be employed or disposed of _as_ property for
governmental purposes. Congress, by abolishing slavery in the District,
would do no such thing. It would merely change the _condition_ of that
which has been recognized as a qualified property by congressional acts,