Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1825-04-12

NEW OK. III was " an aCtlOn OIL deO
against sheriff for an escape. An act d
sol made sheliffs liable for the escape
OF debtors from the Jail Liberties. The
creditor however had his election against
the sheriff or 10 sue upon the bond to
keep within the Jail liberties taken by the
sheriff In 1910 subsequen. act was
passed, giving the sheriff a right of de-
fence, from recatiOn or fresh pursuit, or
a returning ofthe PRISONER into custody
The action had been commenced before
The act of 1910 was passed. AT the trial
which was afterwards, the defendant
pleaded that the prisoner had voluntarily
returned into custody agreeable TO the
act of 1910. The question was, could
this latter act give such a defence, and
thereby bar the action, for an escape, be-
fore its passage. The court decided that
it could not; that the instant of the es-
cape 10y the act Of 1901 the plaintiff had
pested right of action, which the legis
lature, could not alter or release.
Chief Justice Kent said" that the
case before he Court ought to be decid-
ed precisely as if the act of 1910 had not
been passed. That the point was whe-
Their by the act of 1901 the defendant " as
LIABLE" he further declared that the
cons ru ton commended for on the part oil
the defendant Chat the act of 1910 re-
leased the actlon) would make the sta
lute operate unjustly. 1t would make
lit defeat a suit already brought upon a
right already vested. This would be
punishing an innocent party with costs,
as well as divesting him of right pre-
siously acquired under the existing law
Nothing could be more alarming than
such sahvertion Of principle" 7 John
sou, AT, Dark VS.. Vankleck.
If therefore, the authority Of alludged
cases be against the validity of this act Of
our legislature, principle and the con-
stllnuon are equally against it.
i is contended that the constitution is
silent on this subject; that there Is no
express prohibition in that instrument 10
the legislature, to prevent the passage
OF retrospective laws; and that if not ex-
pressly prohibited by the constitution,
the legislature possess the power.
The constitution it is true does not
prohibit retrospective laws by that name,
but II does in more than one section,
prohibit the exercise of the ho7per 10
make retrospective laws. When The
power, the voilion to do an act is pro.
hibiied, Legitimate consequence results
that the act is prohibited. But if no eX-
press prohibition exists IN words in the
constitution to the validity OF this act, ii
does exi-l in the stirif aud hrincihles OF
The constits ion.
The principles and reason of erhost
jacto laws comes within the rule OF ihis
case. The very Term enhoSt .tacto law
means law made after the fact, after
the act done Though as discussed IN
Sd Dallas ii is confined 10 criminal cases.
But ii is bad rule that will not work
both ways. II this new act had inflicted
a heavier penalty, or dem handed great.
er sum OF money, than the old one; no
person could then pretend to have any
doub, of its being erhoSt .Jacto ask
them why. The answer would be, be-
Cause it takes from the defendant sum
OF money, to which he had vested right,
for an act done before its passage. This
Is no doub, correct, but whose vested
rights and whose money does this new
acl take. away The plaintiffs who have
done nothing but what the law authoriz-
ed them 10 do, had v3ted right against
the defendant for tzvo thousand dollars
this law vas passed to take away this
righ,--it has IN fact punished them, by
taking from them that much money, for
their right to it had by operation OF law
become vested and perfect right. Is
not this then Justly entitled to be called
an e.rtost facto law Is it not law
which Furnishes the plaintiffs made after
the fact? What shall ii be called; or is
II species OF that unintelligibie gargon
tor which We have no name in our lam
guage? But again, il has been said, the
term retroShective law, Is not found in
the constitution, and | may add neither
is the terms Uested rights found. in the
constitution: yet in substance they are
both there, the former trohi6ited to be
passed, and the latter declared i3yio!a-
bic.
A vested right is one, lawful in its
inception, which is lawfully acquired,
and in which the interest is complete.
This is the case with the one before us,
and ifthis right, this he3ect vested right
can be abroga,ed by the Legislature, be-
cause we have no term by which the
exercise OF such power is prohibited,