The Charlotte journal. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1835-1851, 1842-02-24
CONGRE ssEONAL.
Substance Of hie Remarks of Mr.. BERRIEA
on lie BiI.fo repeal The Bankrupt Lar.
SENATE-JAxuAnY &c.

cf4N n tL-JANUARN 20.
Mr. BERRIES resumed. lie said i, was
with sincere and unieigued regret tina. he
made THE additional irespass upon the
time Of the Senate. In the position IN
which he stood. if it were consistent with
his sense Of duty 10 himself. and TO q pnr.
ton Of his own immediate constituents. 10
the creditor as well as the debtor interests
which are TO be affected by the operation of
this law, and to the interests as well as the
duty Of the Government, he would not dc.
! tain the Senate by the utterance Of an add
tional word on tue subject. But il was not
so--an imperative sense Of Guty compelled
him TO go on--and, 10 the best Of his ability,
that duty should he faithfully fulfilled.
lie proceeded TO say, that " hen the Sen.
ute passed from the consideration Of this
I subjec, yesterday, he had discussed the
question Of the constitutional authority Of
+ Congress 20 pass bankrupt law, not limit.
ed 10 traders merely, but extending TO all
classes Of the community, and bad eudeav.
ored to place tho assertion Of that power
under the protection Of the Cou.t;uion, Of
coGtemporaneous Interpretation, OF Judicial
decisions, aud Of the concurring opinions Of
4 enlightened iurlsis who had commented
/ upon that instrument. He had attempted
also TO vindlea;e the rlghtiul authority Of
( those judicial decisions, as the final aTbitra-
meni which the Constitution itself had pro.
yided.
lie was now, be said, TO discuss the con
I sttutional question ID another aspect. Ii
was objected that the bankrupt law was
unconstitutional, because /. was retroactive,
! because il extended 10, and discharged con
tracts which bad been entered into belore,
ss well as those which shall be en,ared into
after the act begins 10 operate. It's compe
+ .cui, say the directors, 10 pass bankrupt
law which shall release The future acq1si-
tions Of the debtor from contracts cDiered 10.
to after the passing Of the act, but not from
prc e.riaing contracts. Why not, Mr. u.
asked; why not Does the Constitution
forbid IL Is il forbidden by any principle
of good iauh--of the inyIolablity of con.
,racIsl DO not the Interests as well as
the duty Of the Government require il.
Is ii forbidden by tue Consultation Far
from II. The power is asserted in that
instrument, both 96irmallvoly and negative.
"; Gfirmat 49,, - express grant oI
the power, to rs.'y SIS, 10 establish i4ps
on the subject q bankruptcy, which, ia
1 every commercial nation OF the world, have
/ been held TO cover the whole ground of the
relations between a debtor in falling CIR
cumstances, aud his creditors, and TO ez.
tend TO the discharge Of the future acqui.
silions Of the debtor, from liability TO bis
contracts, totally regardless Of the time at
which they were entered into. Such is
the nature aud effect of these laws, accor-
ding to tho understanding OF civilized ma
tons. II, then, II were admitted that n
bankrupt law SO operating impai.s tue obll.
putlon Of contrasts, the answer Is, tha, 10
tins extent, and Tor this purpose, Congress
has power, under the Constitution, TO pass
laws lmpalIing the obligation Of contracts,
The power is gwen expressly, cGfrmatirefy'
Blu, it is also gwen negatively The
obligation Of contracts, their sacredness
and lnyiolabili,y, engaged tho attention O'
the ftamers of The Constitution, when they
expressly declared that no State shall pass
Z" any law impa,ring the obligation Of con
tracts" The States had surrendered the
general power TO pass bankrup, laws TO the
General Government, on high consdera
tons Of expectancy aud necessity. For al
other purposes, contracts ought to be hello
iny,olabe, aud hence the inhibition upot
The States to impair their obligation; bu
This payer has been transferred TO the Gen
eral Government, and that consideration
forbade that Congress should be included
! 10 the Prohibition. they were not lnelu
ded, and thus by Hegdfioa as strongly a.
hy the express lrant of the authority Il
pass laws on the subject of bankruptcy, Il
this power asserted in the Constitution
Ia its exercise forbidden by any princt
/, ple of good faith And what is that prln
chile. and how is il violated by this law
! There is a sacredness in contracts entered
into bona fae, both IN the eye OF the law
. and of sound morality. The maxim, .fde'
serpanda est, is of undlspu,ed authority
/. and aueh, 10 be universally observed. Mr.
B. said he would never be found among thu
advocates for lis violation. But is IT viola
ted BY the provisions of the law under
! consideration A contract is an agree
! ment 10 do or not to do, particular thing
Let us distinguish between the obligation
of contract and the remedy for ITS en-
forctmeni j: aud admitting, argument! sra
Tia, the inviolabii,y of the former, let U
J. consider whether, even independently o
the constitutional grant, the latter is mo-
, habitualy subjected to the exercise OF ord,
nary legislation, to be regulated as con Isl.
craiious of cxpediency may dictate. The
creditors enters into contract, Tor non
compliance with the terms OF which, The
law gives him an action at law. For the
I. purpose of the argument, | will supposs
that this right of action is, under the la"
existing at the date Of the contract, unllm
, tied as to time. Before tho creditor bnds