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

Za1On ahO citlztnSnlp, according w inc
terms Of the law in force When thsy ar
rived in the country. The fight oil cili-
zenship attached by this ler loci and iec
temhoris which subsequent regulations
could not change. This is mos, Silk
ing example OF the estimation in " hlch
rights created by he law are held By tie
law. And is Paramount authorlly IN
support OF the principles commended for.
After all whal Is the state OF The IS !
The legislature have said to the plain
ulis, that if the Sd section of the act Of
3oth March, 1919, be violated, and YOU
sue for it, you shall have the damages.
This is the proposition by the state ,he
act being violated, the plaintiff sue and
recover $4,000 The parties are the
state and the plaintiff. The offer il
made by the state, and accepted by he
plaintiff; il is then consummated, II is
executed. Can then the state wilhout he
consent of the plaintiffs rescind this con.
tract. and destroy The rights acquired
under it? This is the real question. Ii
takes both parties to contract TO alter
or recind it; if one is bound, both are
bound, and state is as much bound by
lis acts as individuals.
Ii an individual violates a contract, he
is liable to an action in damages, and
knowof no principle Why a state should
not also be liable. But il The state can
without the consen, of the plaintiff re-
scind this contract, or release this de-
mand, were even judgment obtained
against her, she could instantly release
it. The conclusion then would be, that
individuals are bound by their acts, and
! governments are not; such doctrine de-
stroys every thing like faith in govern
ments; and such hypothesis need only
to be stated to be condemned If how.
! ever the act, giving the plaintiffs the right
10 recover their money was an IMPROVE
dent one, or the grant was too large,
still tho state cannot COR plain, the act
was her own, and she is bound by it. II
individuals make improvident grants, or
do improvident acts, they arc never,he-
less bound by them, unless fraud can
be shown which violates such acts; YET
surely the state cannot plead that her
act was void because she passed ii
through fraud; such plea by an indi-
vidnslor the state would be ina,lnissble.
Cranch 1855, Fletcher VS.. Peck.
But if the state is out of the question,
and the only parties are the plaintiff and
defendant, then the result must be equal
ly, yes, more fatal to the argument. For
if the state is out Of the question, we
have only to look 10 the record, where
the original cause of action has merged
in the judgment. A judgment is corr
tract in law, and The highest character
OF contracts known TO the law All
causes of actions are either ercontracte,'
or erdiiictS, but when judgment is REM
dered, ali are merged in the judg menf =
all bccome coneraees. Aud this brings
the acts under consideration within that
section ofthe constitution which de clares
thar no state shall fass any laSv imhdir-'
ing tie obligation Of contracts
The penalties are considered contracts
implied by law. See 81 Blackstone, 437;
But independent of their reasons, this
is not case of forfeiture that can be re-
leased. The constitution of the state it
is true, declares that the Executive
s. shall have power to grant reprieves
and pardons." This grant OF power
can only be intended, and can only be
exercised, when the state is party; nor
can it be exercised though the state were
party, unless the fine belongs to the
state; where it belongs 20 an iniormer,
the Executive cannot release it. This
proceeds upon the principle that BY the
commencement Of suit, the right of ac-
ton vests in the plaintiff, and WHICH no
subsequent act of the legislature, or the
functionaries Of the government can die
vest.
We need not inquire whether the le-
gislature can in any case, remit fines and
.orlei'ures; such power not being er-
tressly given TO that department Of the
government by the constitution. 1t is
he Executive in whom the people have
cnniided this high power This grant
Of power to the Executive, however,
does not it would seem necessarily pre-
cude the exercise of the same power by
the people through the legislature. The
maxim erhressum Mcit cessare tacitum,
applies only to positive grant OF power:
not 10 limitations upon It's exercise by
another coordinate department OF the
government unless the terms of the grant
amount to a prohibition. Surprising,
however, the right were doubtful, it
should be exercised with great caution,
,,J ,t,,,, I'll ,,o.l,, IN po,h;p,. ~