Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-04-16


sttutiOn; il so, that decision would sweep all
penal statutes from the books. The only statutory les
these decisions teach, is that the Judicial forum OF
the couHtry must cOust tie these statutes literally;
they penal statutes. hat To understand by
that clause OF the u. States Constitutions engraied by
the late Convention in the Constitution OF this State,
which declares that the Legislature shall not pass
post tGc;0 laws or laws importing the obligation of
tracts! To proper understanding OF those phrases,
let VS. examine decisions upon those terms in the
Federal Court The case OF Calder vs. Bull. The ques
ton of post JGctO law, extensively discussed.
The Legislature Oi Connecticut had, by resolution
law, set aside decree OF the Court vi ProbatS, rejecting
a WILL and directed new hearing before the Court OF
Probats-And the point was, whether that resolution
an erpoSt Jdct0 law, prohibited by the Constitution
OF the United States. 1t was held that the words
post Jdc0 laws technical expressions, and meant
every law that made an act done, before the pass
ing OF the law, aud which innocent when done,
criminal; or which aggravated crime, aud made IL
greater than il when committed; which chang
ed the punishment, and inflicted a greater punishment
than the law annexed 10 the crime when committed; or
which altered the legal rules ot evidence and
ed less different testimony, than the law lequir at
the commission of the offence, in order TO convict the
offender. The Supreme Court decided that the law or
resolution of Connecticut, not within The intention
oil the prohibition, and was not unconstitutonal-The
OF Fletcher Peck, is relied upon by the worthy
gentleman, 10 support his views of the unconstituon
atty Of the law; but for myself MIR. Speaker, cannot
see the remoest bearing that have upon the
one under consideration. The worthy gentleman OBJ
served, that he had examined great many cases. but
had not succeeded in finding much doctrine that would
apply TO the present In this, agree with the
gentleman perfectly II could believe tina, his other po
sltions could be well supported, would aban-
don the cause in hopeless despair. But, sir believing
as do that his positions cannot be mainained shall
anime the case of Fletcher Peck-and what it,
The Legislature OF Georgia, by act of the 18th JAM,
1895, authorized the sale of large tract of Wild Land,
and grant made by letters patent, in pursuance
OF the act, TO number of individuals in the OF
the Georgia Company. Fletcher held deed from
Peck for part of this land under title derived from
the paentAnd in the deed, Peck had covenan,ed that
the State OF Georgia lawfully seized when the act
passed. and had good right TO SELL and that the let
tiers patent were lawfully issued, and the title had not
been legally impaired The action for breach oil
covenant, aud the breach assigned was that the letters
patent were vod for the Legislature OF Georgia. by act
of the 18th OF February, 1896 declared the preceding
act TO be null and vod being founded in fraud and
corruption. One OF the questions presented TO the SUI
preme Court upon the case was, whether the Legisla
ture of Georgia could consuonally repeal the OF
1913, and rescnd the sale made under il? The Court
declared that when the law was in its nature contract,
and absolute rights have vested under that contract
repeal OF that law could not dives those rights nor
annhilate impair the title acquired. 1t does not
require any comment OF mine 10 shew that this case
has no bearing upon the present, gentleman will
contend that the delinquent land holder has vested
right TO be released from all the obligations of this gov
eminent. lac next case is the State OF New Jersey
wilson, which was thu: That the Colonial Legislature
oil New Jersey in 1855 authorized the purchase OF lands
Tor the Delaware Indians and made stipulation at the
time that the land should be subject taxation
Lands were accordingly purchased, and conveyed TO
trustees Tor the oil the Indians and the Indians reeas
ed their claim to other lands consideration for this
%,
when they were sold TO individuals under the authority
OF an act OF the legisature-And ia 1901 the Legsla
tue repealed the act of l75S, eXempng those lands
from taxation. The Court held the OF l75S be
contract and the act OF 1904 to be breach of that con-
tract, and void under the Constitution of the U. States
IL will be readily perceived by the Senate, that there
express stipulation in the grant, that the In
dians should take this land free from axaton that being
one OF the express conditions Of the grant Every mans
sense OF moral propey would revolt at the idea OF the
Legislature without the consent OF the grantees chang
fundamental
And in The OF III Dartmouth College as W5od
ward, where the Legislature OF New Hams shire al
tered the terms tt the charter, Is" bout the con'tn of
the COLE ge--w hiCh the Supreme Court decided
uuc Institutional, the Dartmouth College was q
mere private r. emosynary Instu len, endowed with |
d capacity 10 take properly for objects unconne ted
with The welfare OF the State therefore, to take away
this individual right for government purposes, would
be iInpairing the obligation OF contracts This
then conclusivey proves, that II ibis grant had been
gwen for government and police pnrpose' he Lagis
a'ure, the implied conditions oil he e. had
not been performed, could resume the rights for il this
not the case, all governments resolve
hem elves into elementary priI cples, and fall pros
ra'e under their own weakness. The doctrine OF i'm
pairing The obligation OF cOnr6cs is plainy set foiA in
the Of Sturges CrowniD gsiel The defendant
was sued in the United States Court upon two ptoms-
isry notes gwen in March, 1871 and he pie AIDED h 3 |
di charge under an n"lvent act f Iii ale, pas.t
April, lSll-,he Chief Justice decided hiatt COM
petent Tor The Legislature, 10 pass lave dschateng he
debtor from imprisonment, and tb t wac part of he
conr9ct, but only means OF coeci n. 1t Yves also adj
mit,ed that the Stae Legislatures cOud pass statutes
OF limiIst onfor iuth statutes relate 10 The remedy
and not to the obgs ion OF the cOntFac'hat the Sac
could constitH onally pass tar krup, laws thsy did
hot impar the obligation of contracts al any time be-
fore tbe Fede al Government passed form Ia we upon
that sutsct SO, Sir, It will appear that a sound dis |
tincton eSiss, between tue obligations Of contract
end the remedy TO enforce Il payment of that
tract: and the proves that The rene ",
the Legislature may at pleasure after, modify, ard
char &c az eXpediency may require without in pBg
the Oblgato OF the contract, &c. Sir, 10 relation 10
the remedy % the safe TO the payment OF |
taxes-ste may collect the N in the efficient mode
and change in the mode could operate as a re- |
lease Of the d. btno more than could evade the
payment Of debt that was purely ccgniZ3bn in a
court Of justice at The time of s creation because the
Legislature changed afterwards inc mode recovery,
md conferred that jurisdiction upon justice of the |
peace, other and different tribunal ani as 10
the objections to the seventeenth section OF this bill
that requires the plaintiff, before be give lis patent
in evidence 10 any suit now depending, hereafter TO
be brought Tor the recovery of land, shew that he
has bed the same entered upon the Commissioners
Books, and paid all taxes due thereon. IL il coDendsd
that this section il unconstitutional, and pairs the
obligation Of The grant. Does not the Senate psreeiv
that IL the Cove Ut possesses the power
forfeiture and take the grant away for payment of
taxes, she may do less act end cay 10 This den-
quen land holder you shall OF have the beDe fl OF The
legally constituted authorities OF this State, unless you
shall pay The Government what she demands OF her
own eiuzeni-aDd can there be any thing more rea-
sonatl,?
What would be the to pass law forfeiing and
vestDg those lands in the occupant Ct The land If The
delinquent land-hcder can bring Lis action OF eject