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

hSCu lnat the actual remedies lnere-
lore, afforded by existing laws, although,
perhaps, in the contemplation of the
parties 10 a compact, cannot be regard
cd oy them as the essence oft; and con-
Sequently, that to change the remedy is
rot TO change the contract. W ere
this argument as conclusive as it is spe-
clous, it would weigh much against the
clear and strong evidence Of an unlver-
sal practical cotcmporaneous exposition,
and would only show that the conven-
ton had lily chosen the terms which they
used.-But what does this argument
prove That TO change the remedy is
not to change the contract; to destroy
The remedy is not to destroy the contract;
Granted but this does not prove that to
impair or destroy the remedy does not
impair or destroy the obligation of the
contract.
The moral obligation of a contract is
in the conscience of,he party. With this
the law cannot have nothing to do. The
only obligation on which the law can act,
is the legal obligation, and it can only
act on that by giving or Withholding sane
tons or remedies. To say, therefore,
that the law should rot impair the obi
ration of contracts, is to speak of course,
OF then lesa,-ohhyo cation, which alone the
law can impair, and to say that It shall
not impair the remedies in which alone
that obligation is 10 be found.
l, is part of the history of,he consti-
tuition that this clause at first contained a
prohibition to 'aNer contrGcts.' Ihe
phrase was doubtless changed, because
a moments consideration would show
that contracts cannot be altered by any
power but that of the parties themselves.
Abolish the remedies, destroy the evil
denccs forbid the execution; yet the
contract remains. 1t is registered in
heaven, and must continue the same for
ever
The contract itself, therefore, and the
morai obligation Of the contract are alike
impressive to the power Of the law. And
yet we are told that we shall Constyne the
constitution as if intended to protect
what cannot be assailed as carefully
guarding contracts On that side where
the very nature of things interposes an
impossible barrier, and leaving open the
only avenue by which danger can enter.
The law does not deal in abstract norali-
ty. 1t does not say merely that man
ought to pay his debts. 1t says he shall
pay them, and dec lares its readiness, and
provides its remedies to obHg'e him to
pay them. Ii it takes away these reme-
dies, and refuses TO oblige him to pay, it
surely takes away all the obligation it can
create or destroy.
The objection is here urged that this
construction would make the existing
remedies unalterablc as to existing con-
tracts, however necessary TO the purposes
ofjus;ice the modification might appear.
The answer to this is obtained by asking
"what are the purposes Of justice % 70
ascertain and to enforce the rights OF par
ties. We look to the laws to enforce
our rights. Its remedies are ready, but
we must FIRST show the case which enti-
ties US to the use of them. He who is in
terested TO dispute our professions has a
right to be heard. Justice requires this,
and prescrlbes some delay. 1t is fairly
a matter of discretion to say how much
is necessary. But when legal nvestiga
ton is gone through; when the inquiries
OF Justice are answered, it is no longer a
question of much or little. 1t is then as
certained tina, the demands OF the party
ought 10 have been long since satisfied,
and instead Of prescribing further delay,
instead OF Withholding appropriate reme-
dies, and clogging rights no longer ques-
toned with new and unexpected condi-
tons, Justice may rather be supposed to
lament that she had not been more lynx
eyed in the discovery Of truth, and that
her authority had been SO long suspended
during the process of investigation. In
every instance we are obliged to do some
injustice to avoid a greater; to deny a
right for season, lest we should precipi-
lately enforce a wrong. To modify
remedies, therefore, in this view, is not
to impair the obligation of contracts, it
is 70 regulate the means Of ascertaining
them. II enforced as soon as ascertained,
the willul denial right cannot be imput
ed. AS soon as it is known to be right,
it is no longer denied. But the modi6-
cation of remedies does not stay with
the Judgment, This is true. Justice
is not only watchtul not TO award
what is wrong, but to see that her be-
hests are obeyed. How long a time shall
be necessary to carry them into effect,
how long it shall be before the acts Of
her ministerial officers, done in virtue OF
her authority shall be finally inspected,
and ratified or annulled, is again fair
matter of discretion. Remedies may al