Elizabeth-Town gazette. [volume] (Elizabeth-Town, N.J.) 1818-1821, 1819-03-23

=
obligation Of contracts"
| This opinion, Of course, rendered it un-
necessary to consider the second ques-
ton.
On the third question, the Court were
Of opinion, that the act of New. York,
which was pleaded in this case, land
which not only Gberates the person of the
debtor, but discharges him from all liza
bility for any debt previously contracted
on his surrendering his properly in the
manner it prescribes) is an act or law inn
pairing the obligation Of contracts within
the meaning of the 10th section Of the
FIRST article of the constitution of the
United States.--In delivering the judg-
meut of the Court, the Chief Justice
stated, that, as 10 what was intended by
the trainers Of the constitution when they
used the terms, "Aay lam impairing the
obligation Of contracts" it would seem
difficult to substitute words which are
more ineligible, or less liable TO miscon-
struction. A contract is an agreement in
which party undertakes to do or 10: 10
do particular thing. The law binds him
to perform his undertaking, and this is
Of course, the obligation of a contract.
In The case at bar, the defendant had
given his promissory note TO pay the
plaintiff a sum of money on or before a
certain day. The contract binds him TO
pay that sum on that day, and this is its
obligation.-Any law, which releases a
part of this obligation, must, in the lite
raj sense of the word, impair it. Much
more must law impair ii which makes il
totally invalid, and entirely discharges it.
| II was not necessary, nor would it have
been safe, for the trainers of the constitu-
ton to enumerate particular objects to
which the principle they intended TO es.
tablish should apply. The principle was
the iauiolability Of contracts. This prin.
ciple was to be protected in whatever
form it might be assailed. To what pur-
pose should the convention enumerate the
particular modes Of uiolation, which should
be forbidden, when ii was intended to for
bid all? Had an enumeration of all the
laws which might violate contracts been
attempted, the provision must have been
| less complete aud involved 10 more per.
piexity than it now is. The plain and
simple declaration, that no state shall pass
any la,v impairing the obligation of con.
tracts, includes insolvent laws, and all
other laws, SO far as they infringe the
principle the convention intended to hold
sacred, aud no farther. But, the con.
vention did not intend TO prohibit the pas
sage Of all insolvent laws. To punish
honest insolvency by imprisonment for
| life, and to make this constitutional
principle, would be an excess of inhu-
manity, which would not readily be i'm
puted TO the illustrious patriots who framed
our constitution, or to the people who
adopted it. The distinction between the
obligation of a 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 le-
gislative wisdom shall direct, without i'm
pairing the obligation of the contract.
Confinement of the debtor may be pun-
ishment for not performing his contract,
or may be allowed as a means of inducing
him to perform it. But the state may re-
fuse to infict this punishment, or may
withhold this means, and leave the con-
tract in full force. Imprisonment is no
part of the contract and simply TO relieve
the prisoner does not impair its obligation,
| The court also intimated that ii had been
commended at the bar, that this construc-
ton of the constitution would extend to
statutes of limitation and laws against
usury. The court did not think SO. Sta
tutes of Limitation relate TO the remedies
which are furnished in the courts. They
rather establish that certain circumstances
shall amount to evidence that contract
has been performed, than dispense with its
performance. But, it, in state, where six
years may be pleaded 10 bar TO an action
of assumpsit, a law should be passed de.
claring that contracts already in existence,
and not barred by the statute, should be
construed to be within it, there would be
little doubt of its nconstitutionality. So
with respect to the laws against usury.
II the law be that no person shall take
more than 6 per cent. per annum Tor the
use Of money, or that If more be reserved
the contract shall be void, a contract made
thereafter reserving per cent. would
have no obligation in its commencement.
But, if law should declare that contracts
already entered into and reserving the
legal interest should be usurious and void,
either in the whole or in part, it would
impair the obligation of the contract, and
| be clearly unconstitutional.
The court stated, that this opinion was
confined to the case actually under consid-
Grafton. 1t was confined to case 10
which creditor sues in court, the pro-
ceedings of which, the legislature, whose