Bloomington herald. [volume] (Bloomington, I. T. [Iowa]) 1840-1849, 1843-04-28
Dectsj0n Of the Supreme Court Of the Umt-
ted Seates--the Stay Lasrs.

A paragraph is going the rounds Of the
newspapers. which states that late decis-
ion Of the Supreme Court of the United
States pronounces as unconstitutional the
property Tor two-thirds) laws Of this State
passed in ls4l. The questions in the
eause alluded 10, says the Washington
letter. writer, . rose upon certificate Of
division in opinion between the judges of
the Circuit Court Of the United States for
the district Of Illinois. in the case of Bron-
son and Kinzie, involving the cons.i!u-
tionaIily of two acts of Assembly Of that
S,ate-the one passed the 9Th of Februa-
~, I84l the other, the 9Th of the same
months and year." The following is
copy Of the answer of the Supreme Court
to the questions
First. The decree should direct the
premises to be sold at public auction to
the highest bidder without regard TO The
law Of 10Th February, 1s4l, which gives
the right of redemption 10 the morigager
Tor twelve months, and to the judgment
creditor for fifteen months.
"Second. The decree should direct
the rale Of the morsgaged promises with.
out being first valued by three household
ers, and without requiring two thirds of
the amount of the said valuation to be old
according TO the law of + eb 81. le4l."
We learn that no question with regard
TO the cons.i.u.ionality of the property
laws of l64l, was before the court. The
question to be decided was. whether GER
tain mortgaged property held in trust, with
an express power to sell to the highest
bidder (which power was contained in the
mortgage i.self,) should be sold, subject to
the provisions of the two-ihirds laws of
l84l, or whether it should be so sold.-
The court decided that it should not.-
Such. we learn, are the real facts of the
case; hence, the Supreme Court of the
United States has not decided the IS Stay
Laws Of Illinois" 10 be unconstitutional.
illinois State Register.
We have read over very carefully the
opinion Of the Supreme Cour; Of the Uni
ted States on the recent case of Bronson
agains. Kinzie and others. deciding the
relief laws Of the States to be unconstilu>
tional. We do not profess any familiari-
ty with intricate legal questions such as
this; but. TO our poor comprehension. il
seems that the principles of this decision,
carried out, will endanger the validity of
all discharges given under the recent bank
rnpt law, which affect previous contracts. |
The inviolabiIi,y of contracts, under the
Federal Constitution, and the want of any |
power in the States to impair the obIiga.
ton. either by directly affecting the con
tract. or indirectly the remedy. to degree
which affects The obligation. are main,ain-
ed with great strictness. The decision.
indeed. mentions State laws only but un-
til it can be shown that the prohibition up
on the States is an implied grant to the
Federal Government. or, in other terms.
that Congress has all powers of sovereign
~ not expressly reserved to the States,
The principle Of this decision will, as we
understand it. cover every case of retros-
pec'ive legislation by Congress which af-
fects contracts, as we'll as the Legislatures
OF the States. The question will. without
doubt, be made at the next term Of the
Supreme Court-Mobile Register and
Journal.