True Democrat. (Paulding, Miss.) 1845-18??, 1846-02-18

This was, probably, not thought of by some
and is to be regretted Some haze suppose
the question may yet be subject to further adu
dication in the Supreme Court ofthe L, States
on the ground that it is not competent for tn,
Legislature to go farther than to qualify the re
medy, but not so as TO affect the vested rights o
the parties otherwise, than in a remedial poin
of view. That it is not the act Of legislation
which works forfeiture Incorporate franchise
butthe acts ofthe corporators, which ifthcy do
! all the consequences attach, and become abSo
lutcly vested, in favor Of and against the par,
ties, 10 be afflicted thereby. If those who thus
reason be correct, the common law rights OF
the parties are impaired. The obligation of a
contract, which was absolutely eXtinguished,
by the act of forfeiture, is revived, and the par
ties, by this revival, are made liable upon con-
tracts, previously abrogated, by the beginning
OF contingency, on which they were depend
cnt, at the time they were entered into This,
too, by the party, having, in its own hands, the
control over that contingency Being no law
yer, Imay not be capable Of Judging correctly,
but to my mind, when we consider that we have
an ordinance as old as 1888 which provides
that we, here in Mississippi, shall have our
judicial proceedings according to the course
of the common law" it occurs that my com
mon law rights, on contracts, are vested, when
the contracts are entered into, with all the Incl
dents which render them obligatory, or not If
| am right in this respect any law which en-
larges or diminishes these rights it seems 10
me must impair the obligation of my contract,
and may require performance, in the very con-
tingency, which the ler c0atractio, exonerated
me- or coarerso Then the question may vet
go to the Supreme Court Of the L. States, and
there be determined differently, unless there is
more in the idea, that pcaaity and a contract
are convertible terms, and that c0alI,0ac in
the law OF contracts, are only pcaaihcs which
the Legislature may remit though one of the
parties may have vested right, in the obIiga.
ton. | cannot see it so, nor does It seem to me
that the Maryland case goes SO far Besides, it
seems to me that there ought TO be, fthcre is
not some difference, between a yrcccdeut, e..
press penal condition. in a charter, and a gene.
raj Subsisliag consequence, Of forfeiture, appIi.
able TO all charters In the Maryland case, /
here was an express sum Of money, Tone mil. /
ion doIars) imposed as penalty, in the char
or, to be forfeited to the State, in case the cor.
'orators should think proper to decline doinga
act This was certainly compctcn,
Or them to do The coporators might see it
realty to their advantage to pay the penalty,
lthor than run the Road as required. And
ier foricitiug the penalty, it is not contcndcd
lat the Legislature could not release the for
iture Bat | cannot see the analogy of the
Use, or the application oflhc principal That
BON the forfeiture Of a corporate franchise the
llicial person ceases to exist, all agree, and
at the Legislature may, righlluliy, create
w corporate existence, out ollhe old materials,
far as the State is concerned, by renewing
e charter, or in other words restore the for
tied franchise; but would respectfully sub
it, whether, in thus legislaliug, it can survive
] obligation, which had been previously re-
ascd, to an individual, either BY forfeiture or
hcrwise. In our Bank Charters, there were
, penalties, except those Of forfeiture with
hich the parties contracting with them can be
osumel to have had notice These were con.
agencies ofwhich all men are presumed to
I'VE taken notice with the effect lheroofon their
nracts. According to the existing law Of
rleiture the debts TO, and from the Banks,
ere released, at the time Of the foriciture.- Z
his, it is respectfully submitted formed as
UGH part ofthe contract, as the same had
en- incorporated in it, Can the Legislature I
instate an obligation which has been released
the act Of the obligee? This would be al !
wing party to take advantage Of their own
ong Thence / conclude there is an inlrin. c
difference between releasing penalties for a
ted by corporation, and making contracts s
igaiory, and coercing payment after the y
ne has been discharged under operation Of {,
sting laws.
Thus much have thought proper TO say on "
5 subject, because am now satisfied the qucs- s.
D was too much neglected in the late canvass {
because it will be the turning question in Il
ne respects, llhe next election. You know Il
strong personal preferences, for their legal o.