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

first, what description Of private individual
this part OF the constitutions alludes to, ant
Secondly will the bill in your hand, if il pas
SEES into a law, impair the ob litigation c pri
vate contracts. In regard to the first point
l have always believed. however singula,
the opinion, that this provision i'm the fedc.
raj constitution, was not meant to extend Il
individuals residing within the limits of the
- me State my most deliberate judgement
upon this subject has always told me THAI
that part of the Constitution meant 70 pro-
tects made between individuals of different
States if the contrary be adnittedi it seems
to me that we at once yield one of these
important state rights, which all Of us are
SO anxious to preserve, and which we ought
at all times to guard, against federal en-
enactment; for l am inclined to think that
the permanent safety of our republican
principles essentially depends upon the IN
dependence OF the States, and so, l believe
the venerable sages Of America Thought,
when they formed the Federal Constitution /;
but if we admit that this is not the fair ex-
position of that part of the constitution !;
what situation will the different states be
thrown into ! Why Sir. we shall put it
ont or tne power of them to regulate
their own internal matters by law, for. al
NEST every law has, in = greater or lesser
degree, some relation to private contracts.
but SIR, it i am wrong upon this point, 1t
seems to me that the bill ought all to pass {;
l say Si,, that according TO my best delibe-
%rations, there is no principle in the bill
which goes to impair the obligation of pri-
waite contracts; | understand that before a
contract can be impaired, it must be made
less strong " ,f,.,s. hc ."e"h>~cd, !. must
have some OF its important features rluckea
from 1t; will any suc:l consequence follow,
from the adoption rf The bill now before the
house To my mind nothing Of that, sort
can be apprehetIded it is true that all legal
operations upon certrip contracts will be
sushcnded for a giyentime, but when thai gi-
ven time expires, the contract is again res
orted to the parties, with all is original per-
feclons, tree from any change, and of course
not impaired but Sir. if the passage of this
law Will be a violation of the Constitution,
1T has been vioiatedin various instances since
its adoption. Where, l ask Sir, was that
guardian spirit OF the constitution (now so
strongly manifested) in 1895, when the re.
pieVylng law was passed? Where | again
ask, was that constitutional virtue, where
was the collected wisdom of the common
wealth when our statute against usury was
adopted? VIII gentlemen saw that there
was no wisdom IN the c1i1ciis of Virginia
upon those oecasionss If they do, the Jour
nais or the house OF Delegates, during those
Sessions. Will present toTheir view the names
OF sageS, renowned for their talents and
admired tor their virtues. The statute of
9S. was a violation of the constitution in a.
bout an equal degree, with the bill now un-
der considerations. and neither of them. in
my judgment, involves any constitutional
~oblects but the statute against usurv not
Only inpaIrs the obligation CT private con-
tracts, but IN a direct manner, and in posi-
tive and explicit language, makes void the
contracts of individuals if they be made
contrary to the provisions of the act vet to
those laws we have heard no constitutional
OBJECTIONS; the last name a statute therefore
goes TO strengthen the opinion which ! be-
tore advanced, upon that part OF the con-
stltution whlch speaks o. private Contracts
the legislature cfthat day, certainly thoraht
With me, that the constitution onlv meant
to apply that provision to individuals living
IN differ>n. etateS. sc sI4-iAah bo.-.Ao..h
differently, they would certainly nave ne
yer passed a law, which was i'll direct vio-
lation of the constitution.
But, sir. the gentleman from the City of
Richmond, has ted you that if we pass che
bill now before the House, the friends of the
bill viii defeat their o IN object, and he en-
dcavors to prove it by saving, that If debit
ors should be unnble to replevy their pro
perty, after it has been ascertained that three
fourths of its value could not be had in cash
that then the property must be sold for what
ever 1T viii bring upon a credit of twelve
months, although, a total sacrifce may fol-
iow-in the first place, sir, I do not per-
ceive any such prb%ision in the bill. although
the law of the last SESSION. which is not re
pealed) does contain the principle, and
which | wish t. preserve. The law gives to the
debtor two chances of relievinghimself. be
fore the consequences pointed out by thegen-
tieman from Richmond can Pillow In the first
place his property must sell for three fourthS
of its value in cash before it can be taken
from him (; in the next place, ifthis proper
ton OF It's value cannot tie obtained, he NAV
repleYy the debt by giving bond ard good
security payable in twelve months il the
debtor viii not, or cannot, cause either
OF these things to be done, it is certainly
right that the property should then be dis.
posed of for the benefit of the debtor, who
ought to have the third chance. IF this was
not the law, what could he done with the
property ? Would You compel the sheriff to
keep II in his possession. and thereby load
me debtor with additional burthens? win
you ehdanger the whole debt, by hazarding
n lass Of the property whilst ills in The hands
If the officer 4i am For doing no such thing.
Hnt, sir, | have seen very little mischief
produced from that provision in the laW. !
believe tiI9t almost every man will be able
20 give ultimate security for the debt he
owes, II he has property enough ~ cover
| .ba ar1Ouuf and - ~. hoe 49, r,,rL ,r,,o-t,