New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1845-10-25

speaking OUT RIM does net bod r.nt ol cslltts
10 ia contract un.ee- he has expressly iesei ~
AIT rent Is not rent which was ever dlfHha9e -n'
CANNON law or the Statute LAW OF England piloI -
act Of George which has never been enacleu H
ths State. and the words IN our X ctaiui's pa-c '
voi 400 l. CERTAIN KENTs OF certain services may
81 /, ~ no. mean the thing qtn rels ~
,,,,,,,s,. The Court q Errors may determine ms
question hereafter hut the rst Of distress dd not eHi'i
rior 10 tie passage Of the K statutes or quiz rents
ana whether Ii now does remains 70 be determined.
o rent = not properly certain rent known 20 the aw
and the Legislature whether they have given The night
dis,ess for quit rons thereafter TO be reserved
bsv. nor can not interfere In The contracts then N ex
jsiente a. the passage Of the statute Mr. Chancellor
Kent QuO,ed-snd being called In 70 help out the rcht
70 distrain for persons who hold quit rents We VII
now quote him an authority on the subject u the
Legislature interfering with contracts already IN exist
ence Tie puts beyond all controversy that the Legs
AZURE give nights 20 party ~ contract nor
take nights away from another party % contract which
were in existence At the time Of the passage Of the stat
ute distressis private night remedy. and not
judicial one We will now hear what the late ChanccI
says In delivering biz opinion IN the case o. Dan W
Pan kiesk Johnson Reports, 503 lie Gays as follows
II, - a principle in the English Common Law. AZ an
Gent the law itself that statute aven Of is omnpo
tent Parliament 10 not 70 nave retrospective effect,
Nova cOnsttuuo iuturs forman imponere cbet CT non
'prateniis Brseton hb I vol -. , inst ~ ms
was the doctrine as laid down by brdoy7 ana CONf
and in Gilmore W shutter Il MOd. 80. Lev. ~.
Jones l0- II received solemn recogn ton by the
Court Of r. r. In that suit was brought after
the Path Of June 1911, upon paro premise mace De-
fore that date buttO be performed alter that dale ana
the question was whether void by the statute O
frauds and perjurie.. which enacted that from and 81
ter the 2lth Of June 1917, no seton should be brought
10 charge any person upon any agreement made IN
consideration Of marriage SC. unless such agreement
be in writing &C Ii admitted that the promise
declared Of the kind with those mentioned
IN the statute but the Court agreed unanimously That
the statute 70 be read by transposuon OF the
words tor IL not to be presumed that the act had
retrospect 10 take away action to which the palnu
then entitled and that the other construction would
make the act rcpugnant 20 common justice when W.
consider that this decision pronounced A early
the reign VI Charles H. are iOrciby Impressed with
he spirit of equity and the Independence OF the Er9
Itch Courts So again. in the modem case Of COUch vs.
'Icfcrios q Burr, 2f6s)Whch was qns tan suit Tor
p.nsltv the question was whether statute passed AZ
ter the commencement Of the SUIT allowing dein
'quents by such day TO pay stamp duty. and nd
themselves Of the penalty should affect the case OF
suit already commenced and the Court Of H. b unan
mOusly determined 10 that II could not " u can never
be the true construction OF this act said Lord Mans
field take away this vested right and punish the IN
noceBt pursuer " II with costs.
The maxim in BracOn probably taken from the
civil law for find in, that system the same principle
that the svgvcr cannot alter bis mind % the prejudice
Of vested right Neina potest musre consium SUM
in alterius njurian Dig. 80 u. ~ THIS maxim Of
Popuion is general in It's terms but DR. Taylor Ole
menis OF the Civil Law, l6s) applies It directly as re-
sirictOn upon The iawglyer and declaration IN the
Code leaves no doubt TO the OF the civil law
epes IT CONSTITUTIONS furis cerum est dare fOrman
pegots non al actO praeteriia rcyocar nisi nOnino
tenn ct de praetera tenpore 81 adhere pendenlicus
ncgoiis cautum Ell God l27) This passage according
n the best Interpretation Of the civilians relates not mere
" 10 future suits but 10 future scontra-dstnguished
from past and vested rights Perez reeiecht
II indeed admitted that the prince may enact retro
,pective law provided be done expressly for the viii
of the Prince. under the dcspotsm OF the Roman En-
porOr paramount 10 every obligation. Great lati'
tude sncionty allowed to legislative eSpositions Of
statutes for the separation Of the Judicial from the e
.crbed The Prince in the habit Of Interpreting his
own laws for particular occasions. This was called the
'iHfTlOcO priRcips and this, according to iiGbers
dniiio quando principles into parties 10 gu untur
jus dicunt. (Praee Juris RIM vol 5iJ) No correct
civilian and especially no proud admirer OF NE ancient
republic Of any such there existed could have reflect
cd this Interference with private rights and pending
suits without disgust and lndlguuuOn ana We are
rather surprised to find that under the violent and IT.
regular genius OF the Roman government the principle
before should have been acknow edgod and objected
10 the extent in which lind It, The tact shows, that
O il must be- founded IN the cleare-t Justice.
Our case ia happily very different from that Of the
subjects of JustigiaH With the power Of the Law
Gver is limited and defined the Judicial Is REGARDED
as distinct independent power private rights have been
better understood, and more exalted IN public estina-
lion well secured 10y provisions dictated by the
Spirit of Freedom and unknown 10 the Civil Law
Our Constitutions do not admit the power assumed ~
the Roman Prince and the principle we are consider
ing il to be regarded sacred Il not pretended
that we have any express constitutional provision on
the subject have any for numerous other rghts
dear alike 20 freedom and 10 justice An post tac0
lsw: the strict technical OF the term, Is usually
understood 10 apply 10 criminal and this Is IL
meaning when used in the Constitution Of the United
STATES; yet laws impairing previously acquired civil
rights are equally within the of that prOhbiuon
and equally De cOudt mnci. We have seen that tic
cases IN The nlsh and in the Girl LGn apply 10 such
rights and we shall lind upon farther examination that
there il no distinction in principle any recognized
In practice between law Furnishing person crini-
naly for past innocent act. or Furnishing him clvy
hy diyestng him of previously acquired night The
distinction consists only in the degree o. the oppression
and history teaches that the Government which can
deliberately violate the right ceases to regard
the oiher
There has not been perhaps distinguished lurt or
elementary writer within the last two centuries. VINO
has had occasion 20 take n.tice OF retrospective
laws either civil criminal but has mentioned them
with caution. dstrust or disapprobaton.
"PHgcudOrf sys down without any qualihcauon,ln
general and pointed condemnation OF oil such laws ne.
saws law can be repealed by the law giver but the
rights which have been acquired under IT, while il was
in force do not thereby Il would be an act Of
absolute Injustice 10 abolish with law all the effects
which il has produced. Suppose for example that
there Exists lsw that the father of family may dis
pose Of his property by viii, the Legislature may
without doubt restrain this unlimited night Of disposing
by will but il would be- just 10 take away the pro
perry acquired by will during the existence OF the
former -Drsei de Ia Nat. L. J. c. C, c. John
seps Reports ?. SOB Dash vs. Van Meek
GEORGE CLINTON, JR.