Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1822-04-13


A law essentially similar 10 this was
passed IN North Carolina in 1912. BY
the Supreme Court OF that state II vas
pronounced unconstitutional and "Uid N
the case OF Crittenden VS.. Jones, .Ameri-
can Lazo Journal, vol. S, n. $50, } as
impairing the obligation of contracts. In
deciding that case it is shown by the
court that the practice of passing such
laws, was the evil against which the
constitution meant to guard in prohibit
ing the states to pass laws impairing the
obligation OF contracts, and that it was SO
received and understood at the time.
In the course Of his argument the
Judge observes, that IS the right to sus-
pend the recovery of debt for one Pc
Rod, implies the right to suspend it for
another, and as the state OF things which
called for the FIRST delay, may conlin1ss
for series of years Sttv -se1fsc quehce
may be total stagnation OF the business
of society, By destroying credit and con-
hdence among the citizens
believe it would be difficult 10 find
an instance in which such state Oh things
has not been kept up by such remedies,
| dllu las ilOt IuhtiupSd W AIeANa"S o'NAA
they were laid aside.
| The same Judge tells lis on the au-
thority oil history, that, no sooner had the
use OF such expcdients ceased in conse-
quence Of the adoption OF the federal
constitution, than Public Credit was
terminated, the owners OF property and
the holders of money freely pared with
both, we'll kaowing that no future law
could impair the obligation OF con-
| tracts"
In the same book [pase 500 Judge
| W ashington says, "What is the oblisa-
lion of contract! 1t is to do or not to do
certain thing; and this may be either
absolutely, or under SOME condition, I'M
mediately, or al some future time or
Zines, and at some speci.d place. A
law, therefore, which authorizes the dis
| charge of a contract by a smaller sum, or
AZ diEtrent time, or in differen, man
ner than the parties have Stipulated, I'M
pairs lis obligation, by substituting tor
the contract Of the parties one Which
they never entered into, and to the per-
Torrance OF which they OF course neVer-
consented. The old contract is COM
plctely annulled, aid Legislative con-
tract imposed onthe parties IN lieu there
OF, ThA law, which declares an exist
ing contract h be void, iupeiis KS obll-
CATION, win. presume, be adGIlted by
all men who can understand the torce OF
the piainesl terms or, II not SO, should
be curious 10 know, in what manner The
obligation OF a contract can be impaired.
And if this be the effect OF such law, in
what respect docs it differ lrcm another
which declares that debt, consisting OF
specified sum, and due al an appointed
period OF time, shall be discharged at a
more distant, or indeed different time,
or with smaller sum The DEGREE of
nury to the creditor may not be SO great
10 the one case as III the other, but the
hrincif!e is precisely the same"
Such is the language OF authority on
,his subject. In a late case Judge Hav-
wood, in Tennessee, has pronounced on
The same principles thai such law I'M
pairs the obligation of contracts, and IS
therefore void; and he TOO bears the
strongest testimony, from his oVn OBJ
seryation, to the tendency oil such laws to
increase the evils they profess 70 RENE
dy. And here we find the reason Of the
constitutions! provision. Human ingenui-
~ cannot imagine any other motive tor
it than to prevent laws Oft this sort. The
object was tWO-iold.
|. To protect the people OF the seve-
raj states from the errors of short sight
ed policy, goaded by distress, and rush
ing blind.y upon measures, the evils OF
which are not 10 be toresecn, but by those
master statesmen whose services the To-.
cal governments might not be capable of
Iappreciating, OF at all times have at their
command.
| Q. TO preserve peace among the states
by insuring the free collection OF debts,
r the obstruction of which is numbered
among the causes of war, That this
was in the contemplation Of the trainers
of The constitution is manifest { See the
FederaAst, hages 81 and 43l.) In the
latter passage the author speaks of the
fraudulent laws which had been pass
ed in too many OF the statcs,' and o! the
g constitutional guards" which had been
provided against them Where shall
they be found, but in this clause and
do we find this motive to this law, but in
the alledged necessity to do something to
th eep all the money from beiag carried
out of the country? or, in other words, to
, keep the merchants OF Philadelphia from
recovering their debts here. But for
the federal constitution the law in Ques-