Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1851-07-09
IMPORTANT DECISION.

We copy from the Baltimore Patriot Of Saturday
last, the following yesterday morning, the per-
sons confined in Jail for non-payment of debts,
were brought, on writ of habeas corpus, before
Judges Prick and Legrand, to decide whether, un-
der the new Constitution, which went into effect
yesterday, they ought not to be discharged. Hen
ny May, Esq, appeared for the debtors, and T.
Parkin Scott, ESQ.,, for one of the creditors. The
question was submitted without argument, and the
Court decided that the debtors must be discharged.
The following is copy Of the very able opini-
on of the Court, which was delivered by Judge
Legrand:
In the matter of the Habeas Corpus, in the case
of Cyrus X. Brett and others, imprisoned for
debt Judge Legrand delivered the following
opinfCh, in which Judge Prick fully concurred
The return of the Warden shows that he detains
in his custody the persons of the petitioners, by vr
tue of writs of capias ad respondendum and capias
ad satisfaciendum that is, some of them he holds
because they have failed to give bail, and others
because they have failed to pay judgments render
ed against them.
The 10th section of the 10th article of the new
Constitution provides that the new Constitution
shall go into operation on this day-the 4th July,
1851 and, the 44th section of the Sd article of
the same instrument provides,
"No PERSON SHALL BE IMPRISONED FOR
DEBT"
The petitioners are imprisoned for debt, and I'M
less there be something to the contrary in the Con-
stitution of the UNITED STATES, they must be dis
charged under the new Constitution of the State
of Maryland. To all legal minds the question is
free from all difficulty. The clause Of the Const-
tuition of the United States which provides s'no
State shall pass any law impairing the obligation
of CONTRACT is the only one which can be
thought to have the slightest bearing on the sub
iect and the meaning of that clause has been fix
ed by the decisions of the highest tribunal in the
country, the Supreme Court of the United States.
Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Sturgess
Crowningshield, Wheaton, page 200, uses the
following clear and unequivocal language: ''With-
out impairing the obligations of the contract the
REMEDY may certainly be modified as the wisdom
of the nation shall direct. Confinement Of the
debtor may be punishment for not performing
his contract, or may be allowed as means of in
ducing him to perform it. But the State may re-
fuse TO infict this punishment, or may withhold
this means, and leave the CONTRACT in full force
IMPRISONMENT is NO PART OF THE CONTRACT, AMI
SIMPLY RELEASE THE PRISONER DOES NOT I'M
PAIR ITS OBLIGATION
This decision of the Supreme Court of the u
nited States has been followed by numerous other
asserting the same doctrine, and is of course. I'm
der the Constitution of the United States The
Supreme law of the land to which all owe obedi
ence.
The 7th section of the 10th article Of the new
Constitution which provides, call right vested an,
all liabilities incurred shall remain if this Con
stituton had not been adopted, does not initiate
AGAINST the express prohibition of the 44th section
of the Sd article. Its whole scope and design, a
we are informed by its author, being to preserv