The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-01-21
VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE.

New York.
VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE.
ARGUMENT
ON Il EZECUTIoN-LAw
(ContiHued.)
The BIZ hrQhoacd By the seisct commit
rec before tie Housc.
MONDAY, January 9.
Remarks Of Mr.. PEr4oN (oTPrince WI-
ham,
The Importance of the subject before
the Eiousc, together with the strong desire
which feel, that the principles which inBu-
ence my vote should be fully understood, is
the apology which ! offer for taking part in
this debate, alter the luminous discussion it
mas received from the representative OF the
City. am opposed 10 the passage Of his bill,
because i bctiete ii 10 DC both uflcofistitut;
onai and ineXpedient. BY the 10Th section
or the lst article OF the Constitution of the u.
States, 1T is among other things provided,
that no state shall pass a law inpairingt the
Obligation of contracts" WHY was this
Clause introduced into The constitution OF the
u. States! 1t was to prohibit the states from
the exercise OF a power in violation Of the
first principles of the social compact-a re-
straint dictated by a woeful experience eftlic
ehect moving IRON a contrary policy during
the revolutions: war. The shutting ar the
courts Of justice which contracts were not
only impaired, but debts in many instances
lost, by the lapse OF time, Nv change of resi-
dencc, and by the still more fuCtuatine cir
CunlstanceS OF the contracting parties; the
emission OF paper bills Of credit, together with
a variety Of other legislative interterenccs
with private rights, had during the period "a
foresaid completely destroyed both public
and private confidence. This restraint was
therefore introduced to restore public credit
and general confidence. These 7 presume,
were among the reasons which Influenced the
enlightened Trainers Of the constitution, to
IMPOSE this restriction upon state authority.
NAT III doing SO. they acted wisely, no man
who leels the obligations OF private honor or
public justice will deny. Let ts then enquire
whether the bill before Us falls within the
scope CT the restriction which the wisdom
OF our sages has approved, and reason has
saHctiied.
Ia discussing this subject I shall take broa-
der ground than those who have gone before
me | confess that ! cannot see the merit
OF the distinction taken between bonds and
deeds OF trust. il is said that a boad is q
contract entered into with an eve to the DOW
er Of the legislature to suspend the courts and
thereby protract Its payment, but that no
aid from a court is required to carry into
effect a decd OF trust But can the lcgisla-
turc suspend the courts COnstitutiona!iV? I
say they Cannot, because thereby they would
impair the obligation Of contracts. bonds are
entered into & received from a confidence in
this constitutions balrier-from a confidence
that they are to be Complied with according TO
The laws existing ar the time of their eXccu-
ton. This doctrine does not cOntravene the
power OF tbs legislature 70 new model or ~
.ganlsc the courts Courts arc instituted Cor the
enforcement, not for The impairing of con-
tracts, and any new organization OK them is
Tor the purpose Of obtaining this object more
efectualiy. IheorekicGHv, there should be
no ceiay in obtaining justice in court, prac-
ticaliy there is-hence deeds of trust have
been Tesorted to in which the parties by con-
sent waive this delay and chalk out their owR
remedy. In tho first, the faith of the natl
on is pledged to the contracting parties by
the tenor or the constitution apd the laws
existing at the time Of the contract. In the
latter it is also pledged, but not in a higher
degree. ] conclude therefore thatif this bill
Is unconstitutional so far as respects deeds
OF trust, 1t rs equally so as it respects bends.
What is the substance 81 the bill upon vour
table? BY it YOU proclaim to the people of
Virginia, that they need not comply with
their contracts provided they will make the
debt ultimately secure. The time at which
the money Is 10 ne pald is not pointed out b.
the bill; whether ii 70 be paid 1T the end O.
6 OF II month";. At the Rising of The cmbar-
So. or 50 years hence is totally uncertain.
What is tile obligation of a bond? Gentle
men say, tie oniy o5HgGioH is the payment
o. money, and tbdt this bill proposes merely
q Suspension Of that pNy ment, and therefore
Dies not impair the obligation. IL reply 60
this argument, ] say that an indefinite post
ponemento OF payment does weaken. d.cS IN
paIr the contract as far as the interests Of the
contracting parties are concerned. If the
Legislature car postpone the a of q
debt one year, thsy Can two years. OF what
value would my debt be to me, probably one
hundred years hence admitting 1t TO be Ill
timate'y, ~securc-yct from the argument oi
the trends Of the bill, the legislature can con
sritutIonaliy do this. But this argument is
fnrndcd upon incorrect premises and conse
Ilently the conclusion 10 incorrect. Tue oh.
legation oi lie Contract is not only for the pay.
mont Of nome, but for the payment Of mo-
ney at a particular day. And the bill upon
your table in a much as it changes the day
Of payment, violates he obligation of the
contract and is Of course unconstitutional.