Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1819-03-22

PleWaS 10 De protected IN Whatever IoTiD
it'might be assaied. To what purpose
should the convention enumerate the par
ticular modes Of COLLATION., which should be
forbidden when it was intended 10 forbid
alp Had an enumt ration OF all The laws
which might violate contracts been at
tempted, the provision must have been
less complete and involved in more per-
pIexity than it now is. The plain and
simple declaration, that no state shall
pass any lasv impairing the obligation of
contracts, includes insolvent laws, and
all other laws, SO far as they infringe the
principle the convention intended to hold
sacred, and no farther. But, the conven-
ton did not intend to prohibit the passage
OF all insolvent laws. To punish honest in
solveney by imprisonment for life, and to
make this a constitutional principle, would
be an excess of inhumanity, which would
not readily be imputed to the illustrious
patriots who framed our constitution, or to
the people who adopted it. The distinc-
ton between the obligation Of contract,
and the remedy given by the legislature to
enforce that obligation, exists in the nature
of things. The remedy may be modified
as the legislative wisdom shall direct, with
out impairing the obligation of the contract.
Confinement of the debtor may be pu-
ni,hment for not performing his contract,
or may be allowed as means of inducing
him to perform it. But the state may re-
fuse to in6ct this punishment, or may with
hold this means, and leave the contract in
full force. Imprisonment is no part of The
contract, and simply 10 relieve the prison.
er does not impair its obligation.
The court also iptimated that it had been
commended at the bar, that this construction
of the constitution would extend to statutes
of limitation and laws against usury. The
court did not think 50. Statutes of limita.
ton relate to the remedies which are fur
nished in The courts. They rather establish
that certain ciIcumst~ noes shall amount to
evidence that a contract has been perform
ed. than dispense with its performance
But, if, in state, where six years may he
pleaded in bar to an action OF assumpsit,
a law should be passed declaring that con-
tracts already in existence, and not barred
by the statute, should be construed to be
within il, there would be little doubt of its
unconstitutionality. So with respect to
the laws against usury, II The law be that
no person shall take more than six per-
cent per annum for the use Of money, or
that ii more be reserved the contract shall
be void, a contract made thereafter reserv-
ing per cent. would have no obligation
in its commencement But, it law should
declare that contracts already entered into
and reserving the legal interest should be
usurious and void, either in the whole or ia
part, il would impair the obligation of the
contract, and would be clearly unconstiu-
tional
The court stated, that this opinion was
confined to the case actually under consi-
deration. II was confined to case in
which a creditor sues in a court, the pro-
ceedings of which, the legislature, whose
act is pleaded in bar, had not right to
control and 10 a case where the creditor
had not proceeded to execution against the
body of his debtor within the state whose
law attempts to absolve confined insolvent
debtor from his obligation When such q
case should arise, it wcald be considered.
Ofcourse, the 9TH question was resolved
in the negative.
The next case which came on for argu-
ment on this subject. was that of M'Milan
against M'Neill In this case the debt was
contracted in the year 1878, in the state of
South Carolina, both the parties then re-
siding there. The debtor removed to Lou
siana, and obtained his discharge in l8l5,
under the nsovent act OF that state passed
in 1903. In 1917, a suit was commenced
against him, by the creditor, in the district
court of Louisiana. The discharge under
the law Of that stale was pleaded in bar
the plea was determined to be insufficient ;;
judgement was rendered for the plaintiff, i;
aud the case was brought, by writ of error
before the Supreme Court of the United
States.
This court determined that the case was
not dis inguishable, in principle, from that
OF Sturgis against Grow inshield-that the
] w OF Louisiana, SD far as il purported TO