LAVIN V. EMIGEANT INDUSTBIAL SATINOS BANK. 661 �people -would be made to say to the two houses ' you shall be vested "with the legislative power of the state, but no one shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privi- leges of a citizen, unless you pass a statute for that purpose;' in other words, 'you shall not do the wrong unless you choose to do it.' The section was taken, with some modifica- tions, from a part of the twenty-ninth chapter of Magna Charta, which provided that no freeman should be. taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of bis freehold,'*etc,, but by iawful judgment of his peera or by the law of the land. �"Lord Coke, in his commentary upon this statute, says that these words, 'by the law of the land,' mean by the due course and process of law, which he afterwards explains to be • by indictment or presentment of good and Iawful men, where such deeds be done in due manner, or by writ original of the common law.' 2 Inst. 45, 50. In North Carolina and Ten- nessee, where they have copied almost literally this part of the twenty-ninth chapter of Magna Charta, the terms ' law of the land' have received the same construction. 1 Dev. 1; 10 Yerger, 69. The meaning of the section, then, seems to be that no member of the state shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of his rights or privileges, unless the matter shall be adjudged against him upon trial had according to the course of the common law. It must be asoertained judicially that he has forfeited his privileges, or that some one else bas a superior title to the property he possesses, before either of them can be taken from him. It cannot be done by mere legislation. But if there can bo r, doubt upon the first section of the seventh article, thore can, I think, be none that the seventh section of the same article covers the case. • No per- Bon shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.' �"In the Matter of Albany Street, 11 Wend. letJ, where it was held that private property could not be taken for any other than public use, Chief Justice Savage went mainly upon the implication contained in the last member of the clause just cited. He said : ' The constitution, by authoriz- ��� �
