The Yazoo City Whig. [volume] (Yazoo, Miss.) 1844-1851, 1846-02-13

contract existing al the time It is made,
impair the obligation Of the contract This
Is the effect, although no reference is made |.
10 such laws BY the contract, as fully as il |
they were written out at the time and incOf-
porated into it. To this extent the indus
ence Of these decisions meets with unquali-
fed acknowledgment. But these cases do
not show, nor is there any reason to believe
when they ore compared with the prior de-
ciciona of the same Court, that il was meant
to prohibit all legislation in regard to exist.
ing contracts, as beyond the pale Of legisla.
tive power. The Court itself says, that it
is not to be understood, that all legislation
in regard to existing contracts is repugnant
to tue constitution. Indeed, such con.
slruction would mike our frame of govern
ment an impotent and impracticable scheme.
The effect of the law must be looked to in
every instance, and if il diminish the bind.
ing force Of the contract on the party who
makes it, then it is obnoxious to the consti.
tuition, otherwise not. The statute book of
every State is filed with provisions which
bear upon contracts in existence at the time
of their. passage; to strike all these out,
would leave the statutes themselves IN a
hopeless state Of mualation and confusion.
There is a subsequent case which came
before the same exalted tribunal, which ex.
plains TO some extent their own sense Of the
two cases just referred to,-I mean the State
Of Maryland vs.. Baltimore and Ohio Rail
Road Company, How. 5S4. In that case
by an amendment OF the charter Of the com
pany in 1886, it was enacted, ''that the State
should subscribe for three millions Of the
Stock Of the company; with pIoViso tina
if the company should not locate its road {.
as to pass through Washington county, the!
should forfeit one million Of dollars 10 th'
State of MARYLAND foI the use Of said coun
ty." In le4l another act was passed re
!, pealing so much Of the former act, as direct
ed the route Of the road through Washing
ton county, and releasing the forfeiture in
tposed By the former act, by way Of penalt
for non-eompliance. The constitutiOnalit
of the latter act was the turning point Of th
= case. The Court says, "a provision that
party shall forfeit particular sum, in cas-
he does not perform an act required by Law
has always, in the construction of statute
been regarded not as contract with the d,
:, linquent party, but as the punishment f
= an offence. Undoubtedly, ia the case
: individuals, the word forfeit is construed
be the language of contract, because col
tract is the only mode in which one pers'
" can become liable to pay PenaltytO anot
er for a breach of duty, or the failure
= perform an obligation. In legislative pr
% ceedings, however, the construction is oth'
= wise. aud forfeiture is always to be rcgaS
:" ed as a punishment inflicted for violati
u Of some duty, enjoined upon party
''s law; and such, very clearly. is the meant
20 of the word in the act in question" 81
=, The right to remit penalty OF forfeiture
u fully recognized, and the decision was
coo favor of the validity Of the law.
aus The principle of this case fully comp
vas bends the one befor the Court. By bre,
10 Of the conditions Of the charter, the b
ac' forfeited its franchises. This forfeiture
ene Legislature had the right to remit in vi
Ken or in part. Angel and Ames on Corp. 9
ol 1t interferes with no part Of the cont
'tne between the Bank and its debtors, and |
rs have no right 70 complain. But the phi
2 't' pie which the counsel for the appellan
nee strenuously invoke would not aid them.
e. that at the request Of the debtor, il
par written in the contract after the promis
! !. pay the money-prOvided the Bank doe
u's forfeit it's charter; be it so the Bari ma
usn' ply, but write further -provided also
lPai' State does not release or remit the c.
llga> quences Of such forfeiture. Il all this
y 70 done, the case would but stand as II
, unN does, when the Legislature has exerciI
lA'ss> lawful and constitutional power
su'u- The History Of Legislation in the
SIS g Of this Union affords but too many inst
Y o Of the fatal facility Of chartering
'Onsu and too man, evidences Of the il eiIe
: re- such policy. As some period q 81
pow ,hs;r existence. Great proportion
aateo States, has run the same Eoundthat ou
''qaog done. Numerous banking companieI
.css g been incorporated excessive issues 3
e paper have been maj imitation, del
g. Z ton, and Insolvency have followed
! eng lssn comss legislation q compel y
pam Wind up % seize o1 their chatseEs.
reef go nls,ts 1ror, ia wssek