The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-05-01

ment s tue question whether our iegisauoh snai ps
prospective, (and that the bill provides for or whether
Il shall reach back and embrace cases which have al
ready occurred, perhaps years ago. and have been na
adjudicated upon Now, sir, will take case occurring
live years ago will trace lis history from us rise unit
il is finally decided bill presented in the orphans
court The issue was deyisaua vel II was decided
against the parties claiming under the pretended Will
taken up by way OF appeal TO the circuit court and
there tried by jury and the decision OF the court below
confrmed aud after that decision which gave the
party right to final Judgment execution was issued
the assets were seized upon according to law and sold e
satisfy judgment, and distributed among parties who
acquired vested rights in them. BY this bill modified
by this amendment as is proposed, writ OF error
disturbing the rights which have been thus vested
under the then existing laws, by taking the original
question e from the fcS court W 70 the Supreme Cc
any pretext OF justice in It'll
| Well sir, take the case to which this amendment
is intended believe, especially to be applied II is
case which has created no little excitement in this com
muntya question Of marriage or no marriage, OF will
or no will need not and do not intend to, mention
is very well known by the senators generally The in
erests at stake considerable. The claim was de-
cided against the party setting up the marriage in the
orphans court and again, appeal decided against
her in the circuit court full trial by jury, who pro-
nonnced that there was neither will marriage. Now,
sir this amendment proposes 10 run back and give 70 this
party the right to take up her to the Supreme Court
and there the whole investigation, with security
10 rights vested in virtue of the faith given to that which
was hnal judgment at the time it was made.
u
legislation which is to invade vested rights under the
sanction OF final adjudication OF claims by the proper
court and provision which is to act in the future
friend from Mississippi MR. FooTEl says thai is a
familiar kind OF legislation. have examined the books
extensively and do not find it to be SO at all He says
i is known TO the legislation OF all the States. Why,
sur, il there is any thing that is repugnant to the
spirit OF our whole system of jurisprudence and to that
Of the jurisprudence Of Great Britain from which s
derived il rs every species of retrospective legislation
acting upon vested rights. have always regarded the
case il the State Of Maryland That was passed under
have looked into the legislation Of several Of the Sates
and into their judicial decisions and find that nvari-
ably Judges have pronounced judgments
express ground that il is in conflict with vested rights.
Now sir If this species Of legislation is repudiated in all
established est @ II % It's favor BY ss Congress @ ' preseason
Our constitution itself expressly prohibits post acto
laws and although there is express provision against
e yet e M
that there is refined distinction made between egsla
ting as to affect the right the remedy; but sir
with this distinction, the Legislation proposed BY this
amendment involves something more IN substance than
mere change in the remedy am surprised that gentle
men should speak with SO much confidence OF this being
familiar species OF legislation am certain mar J. ,s
has prevailed find reported in the State OF Con-
nectcn in which the whole system of retrospective e-
gisation is eaboraely reviewed and condemned where
1
judges who speak OF il in the very strongest terms OF dis
appreciation, characerising something treacterous
account OF It's insdiously invading vested rights, in
which cannot be guarded against by any degree
Of human foresight subjecting persons who have acquir
ed and paid for and taken possession oil property under
security Of the laws they then existed to the liability
of being summoned to show why they should moi
be eyiced When there authority and such
against such legislation, must require something more
conclusive than anything have heard to convince me
that ought TO adopt this amendment II is resort 10
what the judges denomnate treacherous legislation In
the that referred persons this very town have
probably purchased this property and raised credit upon
at the banks and elsewhere upon the and
pledges OF the hat OF this very judgments and by disturb
ing we put 10 jeopardy everyspecies OF htle by attack
ing the good faith and credit which ought 10 reign in the
transaction OF human affairs. In my opinion, all such
legislation is justly characterized reacherous and
hope thatnolhng will induce the Senate to sanction it,
MIR. F00TE. MIR. President, the honorable senator
from South Carolina really think has not yet responded
to the short argument that had the honor TO offer when
was last up The honorable senator will allow me 10
say, that he must feel himself somewhat siraitened
in this debate, when he is compelled to talk about
the provision OF the constitution inhbiting post
fdct0 legislation, and 10 attempt to apply II 10 the
case under consideration No one knows better than
that honorable that IL has been long since for
mally decided by the Supreme Court OF the Union that
the provision relating 10 post fdo laws has exclusive
application 10 criminal offences
Mr.. BUTLER, Qnierposing know that very well.
did not advert 10 IL as applicable 10 this case, except
showing the spirit OF hostility in our system OF legis
lation TO retrospective legislation.
1
what he also knows very well that the Supreme Court
has expressly decided that Congress has the pass
Retrospective law and ha, would be very wrong, in
certain cases. not do so notwithstanding all that has
been said about unsettng the business OF the country
and violating good faith between and man. The ex.
istence OF this constitutional power say, is expressly
recognised by the Supreme Court OF the United States
thus reducing the whole controversy to question
OF expedency with reference TO each particular of
legislation, il may arise from time TO time. Why, SIR
general bankrupt law Is retrospective law and nobody
questions its constuonallty, and few, II any, al
this day even question it's expediency.
Now, sir, will not occupy much OF the time OF the
again, that the simple Question is Has injustice been
done in in which il Is in power TO counteraci
IL and il so, Shall shall apply the appro-
pirate remedyl With the views which L entertain, |
cannot hesitate to what is my duty upon this
casion.
| can see no distinction, IL the case be within
convenient reach OF our powers as legislative body,
ceve any why should not exercise all con.
stuona powers legislative body, 10 providing
dies for cases that have already occurred can
better reason Tor providing remedy for which may
hereafter than for those which may be in pro
gress IL is said that these cases do not belong the
class but for all substantial purposes they belong
TO the same class II we have a constitutional power 10
reasons OF equitable policy which apply class ap-
ply equally 10 The other. could not consistently vote
for the bill a. was reported from the committee with
out being also IN favor OF the amendment The general
notion OF the senator from South Carolina H. tnat no
remedy should be provided all BY any legislative body
for which have not already arisen that II Il
should happen that A is guilty OF committing pecunary
fraud upon u, would not be proper for the law making
body, having authority the parties, To devise
40 af VIII H..