Independent Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1842-1844, 1843-04-15

have adopted; and it being our duty
to decide the question certified TO us by
the Circuit Court, we have bestowed upon
the careful and deliberate consideration
which its Importance demands.
Upon the points certified, the question
is whether the laws of Illinois of 10Th and
the 9th of February ls4l, come within
the clause of the 10th section of the first
article of the Constitution of the United
States which prohibits a State from pas
sing law impairing the obligatian OF con-
tracts.
The laws Ct a State regulating a pro-
cess offs courts and prescribing the man
ner which it shall be executed, OF course
90 not bind the courts of the United States,
whose proceedings must lie governed by
the acts of Congress. The act Of 1892,
however, adopted tie process used in the
State courts, as it stood in 1889 and since
then the act of IS28 on the same subject,
has teen passed; and the third scct.on Of
the law directs, that the final process IS
sued in iu gments. and Gecrees in any of
the courts Of the United States, and the
proceedings tbercupon, shliI lee The same
except their STYLE in each State rcspe"-
lively, as were then used in the Courts OF
such SG'cs; and authorizes the CpuIts
Of the United States, if they see
fit in their di,cretion by rules of cont SO
far to alter final process, as to c'ntorm
the same 10 any change which might alter
wards he adopted, b. the Legislature of
the respective States for the State Courts.
ANY acts OF STATE Legislature therefore,
in relation 10 final process, passed since
1923, arc ONO force Ia The courts OF the
/ United States, unless adopted by rules OF
court a corii g 10 the pr"vi,nns Of this
nc, ofCong c,s. And although such State
laws may nave Eeen 20 I'D pel, YET they
are imperative and Of no force if in con-
/ fit with The Constitution or an act Of Con-
gress.
A, concerns the obligations Of the con.
tract upon which this controversy has arr
sen, they depend upon the laws OF li"oIs
AS they stood at the time the mortgage deed
was executed. The money due was indeed
to lie paid in New York. Bat the mort
gage given to secure the debt, was made in
Illinois, for real property situated in that
St, tie, and the rights whch the mortgage
acquired in The premises depended upon The
llMs OF the State. In other words the eX-
i-tiag ws Of Illinois created and defned
the legal aud eq i'ahIe Objection of the
mortaag" contact
Ii The laws Of the SAFE passed after
war S had zone nothing more than change
the remedy on contracts o. his description,
they would be liab % constitutional
objection. For undonbt" lily State may
regulate at pleasure the modes of proceed
INC ia its courts in relation to past con-
tracts as well as future. 1t may for eX
ample shorten the period of time within
which claims shall be barred by the stat
nte of limitations. It NAV fit thinks pro-
per direct that the necessary implements
Of agriculture, or the tools OF the mechanic,
or articles Of necessity in household turni-
ture, shall, like wearing apparel, not be Ii
able to execution on judgments. Regula-
tions of this description have always been
considered in every civilized community,
as properly belonging TO the remedy. to be
exercised or not by every sovereignty, ac-
cording 10 its own views of policy and hui
mainly. 1t must reside in every State to
enable it TO secure its citizens from IN Just
and harrassng litigation, and to protect
them in those pursuits which are necessa-
ny to the existence and well being OF every
community. And although new remedy
may be deemed less convenient than the
old one, and may in some degree render
The recovery of debts more tardy and diff
cult, yet it will not follow that the law is I'M
constitutional. Whatever belongs merely
to the remedy NAV be altered according to
the will of The State, provided the aItera-
ton does not impair the obligation of the
contract. But if that effect is produced,
it is lmmaterial whether il is done by acting
on the remedy, or directly on the contract
Itself. In either case it is prohibited by the
| Constitution
This subject came before The Supreme
Court in the case ofGreen VS.. Bidde, de-
cided in 1923 and reported in s Wheaton
|. 1t appears to have been twice elabn-
rate'y argued by connse! on bhh sdcs,
and deliberately considered by the Court.
On the part oGthc demandrntin that case
1t was insisted that the laws Of Kentucky
passed in 1857 and 1912 concerning occn-
plying claimants of land impaired the DBL
77gltlon of the compact made in Virginia In
l. $50. On the olhe: hand il WAS contend.
ed that these laws only regulated the rem.
cdy aud did aot operate on the right TO the
lands.
In deciding he point the court say, /" 1t
is no answer that the act of Kentucky now
in estlon, are regulations Of the remedy,
and not o; The right 10 the lands. these