Arkansas intelligencer., 1843-07-15
Published by request.)
From the Arkansas Journal.

Fas passed at the late session OF Inc Ueh-
sembly of this State, entitled IAN act to
.jfIats and settle the affairs of the Real Estate
~ M but the importance Of The act. together
H. 4 extraordinary positions taken by those
n Sc it, induce me, in continuation of my
vi to submit the following for the considera.
/. ~ Yourself and readers.
t{{ h3s been asserted by, as before stated, high
Sal authority, that the disfranchisement of this
as contemplated by the act. would,
{acto, be an extinguishment of tho debts due,
Kdffrom that Institution, and that no sooner,
Y our courts had pronounced judgement of
i ittlre. then its notes would be no better than
k16ach blank paper. Yes, gentlemen have not
fnoed here:-they have confidently said, that
Sulv this would be the effect of dissolution,
y khat the Legislature had no power to prevent
ffI-ths. no law could have been passed by the Le-
q ;;s{6fu.e-t1idt 40 provision could have been in
srtod ii, the act, to have prevented such an effect
that such provision would have been and is
~ 5acio. They 60 further and tell US of the
i1isulty and delay which will be produced by such
spfoce dng-that it will not be settled much be-
,re the time Charles Fox set to pay his debts, the
" cf judgement. A resort to the Supreme Court
Rfbe United States is threatened-our doubts and
k5s are wrought on-everything the ingenuity
Skacn can devise, is seized on, to deter those up
i Whom the duty is imposed, to carry out the
bions of this act, by resort to judicial au-
-. Again, sir, we have been told the inves-
y * 81, ito the affairs of this Bank, have been
90, with pernicious consequences,-tha its
ies Nv, deprecated, since the session of the
Z id re-and that in consequence of tho facts
!, ,~is. been brought to light, odium is at
be thrown on those who have boen foro-
investigation. An inquiry into these
harges, and an argument Of the points
idved in these questions, will be the sub.
communication.
point, then, which l will notice is,
cement Of forfeiture ard disfranchise-
ce an extinguishment, ipso facto, of the
if so, do not the provisions of the act
h operation of the common law from
Il! l concede at once, sir, that if the
W, were suffered alone to operate in
he effect would bo, as stated by those
but whilst am willing to concede this
show to a demonstrative certainty,
itself, destroys the effect of the COM
'aralizes it--proyidos otherwise--and
time, when it was perfectly compo-
Legislature to have interfered-with-
hg thst interpostiou obnoxious 20 the
eing &c post facto. a
gislature had passed an act or joint
requiring proceedings to be instituted
Bank, to dvest her of her franchises |
ig further in the act or joint resolution,
Ell mode and means by which her affairs
! Wy Undated, in case of forfeiture, the COM
oy course, would be left alone to ope-
nsequently the debts dao to and from
pso facto, would be extingulshed the
would revert to the grantor or his
lie personal property would escheat to
!, succeeding to the rights of the crown
ind. But the 42d section of the act ta-
Connection with the previous and succeed
~ lions, prevents that effect. I:provides that
.d5asd the corporation be deprived of her fran
Is. still the debts shall not be cxtinguished,
{. hdl the other common law consequences re-
VT 10 her. This tho Legislature had a right TO
=, IL anticipation of dissolution; and this is
if not by direct and positive adjudica-
on Of the highest and most enlightened courts
our country. at least, by dicta, which amount
authority of more weight, than if tho points had
lively been made before the tribunals which
utterance to them. The celebrated cases
rted in lst Harrington's New Jersey reports,
pf lie vs., the Camden and Amboy Rail Road
pany, and in lst Blackforj's Indianna Re-
bear me out in this position. But suppose
-pint had never been adjudicated, and, that
Z no light of precedent to guide and direct
researches and investigations, does not
yober reason, say to US, that the provisions
oct will, and do, prevent an ertinguishment,
or forfeiture?, Gentlemen tell us no
provisions arc &c posi- facto, and uncon.
2H'' Are they, | would, with Difference,
ncere! Or do they sound this bug
What is an er post tacfo Lap?-
{. Justice Story, in the case of Wat
:, Mercer 9Th Peters Reports, pago
81 cr post facio law, as contemplated
& tuition! Does no not say ''thar the
Nj applicable to civil laws, but to penal
IA laws, which punish no party for acts
&lo. done, which were not punishable at
"a nishable to the extent or in the man.
d." and, continues the Judge in the
~ short, er post facto laws, relate to
- riminal proceedings which impose
md forfeitures, and not 10 civil pro.
n affect private rights retrospective.
~ 'ays, she cases Calder vs., Bull, Sd
Fletcher vs., Peck, 5th Cranch R.
~ s., Sanders, 18th Wheat, r., 286.
VI VS.. Mstthewson, Q Peters R., $50,
20 this doctrine. In the case of
VS., Merser, quoted above, did not
Q distinction between laws which
et acto and those which were retrosnec
ler Of which are prohibited hy the
nd the latter are not? Is there a
,onglng to the profession in this State,
! Na Asis y, 'nat ,h's act Of tho Legislature, is
a 1.,i .asss the charge. then just quoted! Is
'tII4 v whose mind is so obtuseas 10 pre-
taxing the distinction just drawna-