The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-01-19

possession OF the tenement TO his landlord
The fails to pay his rent at a giventime
yet we put /, out UT the power of The land
lorG to eviCt him accordihg'to the covenant
Il we pass this bill; i cannot unde rstant
SIR, that any such will or car
follow the law provides only for the pay.
ment OF money. it involves no principle en-
braced by any contract which does not roin,
o"ect'y - 'nnney, it leaves the landlord a,
mncn at liberty to enforce his contract upon
this point, with his tenant, as he would be
before the adoption OF this bill. and there
fore ] think that this objection falls to the
ground.
lhe gentleman from Richmond has AGAIN
stated. tiiat if wepass thisbiil, we bring down
rum upon every description of our Citizens ;
we INST ruin our merchants, then the me-
c:an'cs and lastly the farmers, and he en-
deavois to prove it in Il most extraordinary
manner; we are told sir, tina, by the passage
of the bill. ,ye shut the Courts of our own
state against the recovery of debts due TO
merchants by taTmers. and Whit we are do
ing TINS, we invite citizens Of Indifferent states
to bring suits Immediately in the federal
Courts against the n,erchants here. who are
unable to be punctual, because they cannot
recover from their debtors. Before | answer
IRIS objection, l beg leave to say that my W
opinion dlway s'has been that the practice i'm
the courts of the u. States must conform to
the practice in the diRcrent state courts. in
which such Court of the U. States NAV be
ned, and when l advance this opinion | am
aware that L contrary decision has been mud
YET SUI cannot abandon a position which
my best Judgment tells ME is correct.
The opinion which I have formed, grows
: out OF the law hfthe United States. passed
the 18th September 1889, the 24th section
or which rs III these word, - .TuH he Fl
lJ"rfher enacted, fhkt me Ia zys of the aeye-
RAJ ofateS, ercfft fohere ne c~onHtltution,
treaties or statues of The U1vted .ytatea
sinai other7vise regtfre or hrop5dc. sbcY he
rcSdrded as rules oI decision in trials al
common ta.r IN the courts Of the United
n'afe8 IN cases 7ohete kheY a6fty" Here
then 1t seems to me dat the law whicl, or
ganseS and establishes the Drincipsl courts
or me United States IS not ONLY iuper'ous in
ITS language, but thadit is so clear a y ex-
plicit in favor of the l~epinion which have
expressed as to be free from every thing
IKE ambiguity. 1t is admitted th1r the laws
which existed in the several states at the
time that the Federal Courts were establish.
ed, shall govern ne destisions in those corrts,
out i: IS decldcd that4 any subsequent law,
which any of the different states may choose
To pass ,shalfhave any operation upon the rules
OF decision IN the Courts of the u. States.
l VIII enquire Sir, for the authority which
Gentlemen have for giving such a construc-
ton to that section of the Federal law which
i nave Just quoted; for my own part I con
Tess | Cannot perceive it from a single word
which is contained. in the law.
lOeileve that the moment any state passes
a law, that law is immediately recoenized'
by the federal law of 1889, provided L shall
apply 20 any decision which may be necessa-
ny IN any ct the courts ofthe u. States. and
the language used in the 3Ath section, seems
TO me to be particularly adapted to embrace
all cases where a change of law NAV take
place IN the states-what becomes of the
new states that have been received, and
may hereafter be received intothe union. in
this law OF Congress does not recognize both
them ana their laws as soon as they have an
existence! L imagine that gentlemen will not
say mat they are unproyided for, and if they
admit thu thev are provided for in the
i o. 'hey must admit that the same
"a" VII embrace all new laws which may be.
ed the union in the yssggtt states tat &. thar compos
SO embraced and recognized only the Laws
then IN force in the different states, 1t can no
more be extended to the law Of subsequent
state, than it can be eXtenGedto d subsequent
law os state then in existence.
But, sir, IT am wrong in rhis, ] do not ap-
prehend the ruinouS consequences, which the
gentlemen hohavc spoken before ne, have
depicted. When a creditor is convinced that
his debtor in another state, means 20 act bo-
n%estly- and that he has debts enough due. to
pay him, bug is prevented by law, from lay
ing his hands immediately upon the mercy,
wo1Id he BE- so rigid, would it be even hisiu
tere5t thus To prosecute his debtors l think
not sir, l believe, the better course would be
10 act towards the debtor ia tine most mild
and IenieDt manner, by which, there would
be a better chance 10 recGver Dos per pound,
than by Plunging him into a federal court and
crushing MIN At once. Adopt this course and
the debtor would become almost frantic and
desperate, by which half the debt would be
hazarded in iunumerable instances. No sir,
the interest of the creditor would be TO make
himself ultimately secure by taking as
signments of debts, or getting such other Sc
curity az the debtor might be enabled to give,
and this would be done in every instance
where both creditor and debtor we're honest
citizens. This system ofreasoning, however,
Is denied by the gentleman from Richmond,
and he tells us II we pass the bill, nominal
transfers Of debts will take place i'll order TO
get the suits into the Federal courts and if
one debt does not amount to $500, many of
the debts due 20 the merchants, will be con
solidated into one, by advertisements &c.
&c. which will enable the creditors to bring
snits in the Federal courts, and by this means
the planters aud farmers viii also be crush
/ IL -