The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-27

In the close OF his opinion he again refers 70 THIS same
law Of Maryland giving II an opefauon N Eases wnich
have already made q ,Ss
committee found il was just and right TO make general
law applicable to all hereafter to arise that there
was no earthly reason why this case now under consde
ration should be taken out Of the operation OF the general
law which the committee thought the necessities OF
the community required understand that il is the unan-
imous opinion OF the bar in this District that the pur
poses OF justice require such act this, because they
cannot get Justice under the law stands Ii you
are them going 10 remedy the future, why not remedy the
past if you do it without running against the provs
ions Of the constitution II seems to me- in such d
this, when il is manifest that the purposes OF JUS
tce require such act that the safest course for Con
gress to make il retroactive well prospective
and there would be no harm in making i 50 because il
the Supreme Court should decide that that part Of was
aacons'taona they would give 70 force. Sa! would
striking out the retroactive portion 81 the bill for Wa can
not commit any fatal in giving il retroactive opera
lion do not wish to go into the merits Of this case but
This amendment, can see no earthly reason why we
should net make applicable to cases which have already
arisen, well to those which may hereafter arise.
Mr. BUTLER hope. Mr. President, the vote will
be taken on lhe amendment The bill has been three
times before the Senate and Just as we were about to vote
upon it il has been postponed explained the views OF
the committee when it last up The bill Provides
as The Senate has already been informed for appeals in
the orphans court in which may hereafter arise,
which may be pending, Bnt the amendment to the
bill recommends strike out that feature OF ii, which,
came from the committee, gives the act retrospective
operation. The amendment recommended by the COM
mttee destroys this feature the proposed will restore
it, SO far 10 embrace that have occurred within
five years. will repeat, what stated when it was up
before, that lar regards many cases that have been
referred to, Il suppose we may consider them as hav
ing been referred in general erms rights have been
vested which would have been destroyed If the judgment
should be reversed spoke particularly OF case which
was referred to by the senator from New Hampshire.
before the orphans court The first issue was OF mar
riage marriage; the second of deusaUn Ue nonor
viii or vii! both were decided in the negative.
Mr.. FOOTE raised the question OF order, whether il
was in order to discuss upon this proposition the merits
/ The VICE PRESIDENT said that in order to discuss
Mr. BUTLER have no idea of going into the merits
OF this at all; but have right, II speak
all TO speak OF the Judgment in the case and OF the
points and issues upon which that judgment turns. As
to the facts which led to the Judgment and which are in
volved in the issues have not the least idea oil going
into them, or to say whether there was marriage or no
marriage; but the issues can certainly speak Of else
cannot speak OF the judgment.
say, therefore, that there Were two points involved in
the case, have already stated and il was decided in
the orphans court that there could be no administration
granted on the ground that there was marriage. IL
there had been marriage, then the widow would have
taken her dsbuiive share otherwise, the real estate
would be divided amongst the next OF kim THIS last has
been done to some extent by proceedings In PARTITION.
This has been done under the operation OF what
was regarded as hna Judgment The same remark may
bs made of other Rights were conferred in the
stale of the law as il existed; the law gave the
right II was judgment, so far as regards the
rights of the parties under It, II is not one Of those
judgments which can be opened without affecting the
rights OF third parties who have acquired rights under
them. go further than that do say Mr. President,
that far regards the OF these States there
were but two instances. believe, 10 which can re.
fer-one in Connecticut, and the other in Maryland
in which retrospective operation has, been, given
to bill Of this kind; to give remedies s.. Where "a
which the parties acquired their rights; and in the
Of Maryland i does not even reach the one which
is under consideration. For there, as remarked, the
question was on the circuit whether there will or
will whether the party had right to makea will or
and il before that was finally decided, and
under an appeal to higher court that some one procured
the passage Of the act by the Legislature OF Maryland,
giving appeal from the verdict OF the jury Here, sir we
go back TO the which have occurred in the last
where the rights have become as perfect as any
rights object to the whole species OF this retrospective
legislation II is not known TO the States and this would
be the first instance OF federal legislation taking retro
spectve action. have spoken OF il as rather an nno
vaiion, and dangerous one, upon the history oil our
legislation hope, sir, this portion Will be stricken out
and that the bill will be confined TO the cases that shall
hereafter arise say, once for all that have not gone
into the merits OF the case now pending, but only into
statement OF the facts and issues OF T.
Mr.. WALKER. am surprised 10 hear the sena-
tor from South Carolina ,l advance this doctrine about
regard TO this matter person died, and an application
made by the brother for letters OF administration
Pending that application. or rather alter letters had
been granted, another person comes forward and claims
TO be the wife o the deceased and claims letters OF ad
ministration Her rights TO administer were contested
and, in the investigation in the orphans court,
was madeup whether there was or was not marriage !;
and this issue sent 10 the circuit court In the trial
of that issue il was admitted that OF the most mani
fest kind committed In that trial was found that
there marriage, after proof had been introduced
for six weeks to abide that issue. Letters OF admins
traon granted to the first applicant and he has gone
and administered partially upon the estate will ask the
senator from South Carolina, a lawyer-who
an eminent judgeif he point TO authenticated
case in Amenca where toe acts OF the administration,
after the letters have been revoked, considered
invalid Can he point me toa case where the admins
trauon has not been sustained
Mr.. BU TIER Certainly, they have been sustained.
the result here IL letters revoked The adminstra-
oa 70 the extent TO which has gone will be sustained.
and far the property has been sold the sale will be
valid SO that contend there Is no diverng OF vested
right in this nsaace and this idea should not be brought
before the Senate 10 deter il from doing act OF manifest
usce when lhe senator from South Carolina acknowl
edges that the administration, 30 far as il has gone will
be maintained. :. .
And then il appears that this question presents itself IN
another light The people, the lawyers, and everybody
else-.tbe whole world and the rest OF rnaakind-are
ciamorng for reformation in the judiciary here, and
they cao get il; neither they get incidental relief
The rshi to change the which held everywhere
else is refused here and they not allowed the right
of appeal. il that right Is 10 have retroactive effect II
s objected TO, because will divert vested rights, when
il is apparent that in this such effect will not be
produced The opposition, however, is still equally per.
tnacious For one, wish TO have vote taken, and
wish TO have the people OF the District of Columbia re-
ceive he benefit Of this bill will not prolong this dis
cusson further, but hope that vote will be taken before
the senator from Kentucky feels called upon, m the per-
forsh she ar.lar oft tha day