The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1856-12-17
suPRENElcouR OF NORTH CAROLINA
gs;aios Of Chief Justice Mask. IN The eass q The
Bank of FayateuWe

2NteH. ". j. ut6StNtttSNtcs--l dSICC WIN NY
brethren in the FIRST two propositions con-
veged IN their opinion. First, that by the
act Incorporating the Bank Of Fayetteville.
power was granted to issue notes or bills OF
any denomination, from one dollar to any
amount; and secondly, that the act Of 1850
has no bearing upon the question submitted
IL The Court in this case. The first PROPOSE
tion is true, because the end and object OF
the grant was to establish bank OF issue Is
well as Of deposite and the second is true,
because, by .he caption ot the act Of $50. ss
originally passed. the object and intent Of the
Legislature is plainly set forth to be, to pre-
vent the circulation, in this State, OF bills
issued BY banks out of the State, Of less
denomination than Ave dollars. And the fact,
that in the Revised Statutes, the act is brought
forward without the caption, can make no
difference. as the caption is 10 part of the
act, but simply key to unlock the in.
tention of the enactOrs Of il. do not con-
cur in the opinion, upon the effect and
operation of the act Of 1854, upon the right
ol the BANK Of Fayetteville to issue notes or
bills Of the denomination of one dollar. 1t
X not my purpose to 90 into an elaborate in
yestigation Of the subject, but 10 content my
self with the statement Of few principles,
and reference TO few cases, 10 sustain my
views.
Ii isa sound rule, that where an act is
passed by the Legislature, susceptible Of two
constructions, one in conformity with their
constitutional powers, and another in con-
Dict with them, the former is TO be taken as
the true construction, rather than the latter.
A due regard 10 coordinate branch OF the
government requires such rule. Was il
the intention Of the Legislature, to be "a Their
ed from the act itself, in passing the act Of
1854, TO deprive the bank Of Fayetteville Of
the power to issue one dollar biiiss NV inn
preston is that il was not. In the first
place, il is not TO be presumed that the Leg
stature was disposed 10 do that indirectly,
which they felt they had no power TO do d.
rectIy. This would be doing great injustice
To that body. Again, the bank ofFdyetteyille
was The esly bank 10 the State whose charter
authorised the issue of notes of that denomi-
nation. II il was, then, the intention Of the
Legislature 10 withdraw that power, an act,
plain and simple in its phraseology, expressly
repeating so,mueh Of tie act incorporating
The bank as conveyed that power, would
have been sufficient, and would have left nc
doubt as TO the intent Of the Legislature.
This theylhaye not done. but passed gen
eral act. Ny opinionis, that the Legislature
did not intend to interfere with rights already
vested, but those which might hereafter BE-
called into existence BY the future incorpora
tien Of backs. This construction leaves the
act of 1854 free to act, untrammeiled BY The
constitutional objection raised 10 it. IL, how
ever, am mistaken in this view Of the &C
OF 1854, and il was the intention Of the Leg
isature TO repeal 50 much Of the charter o
the bank of Fayetteville as coniers upon III,
corporation the right to issue one dollar bills
am Constrained to say, deem the act, 81
far, unconstitutional, as being a plain viola
tion Of the 10Th section of the first articI,
of the constitution Of the Emitted States
which, among other restrictions upon I'll,
power Of the States, forbids the passing o
any Law inpairng the obligation olenntracts
The clause Of the constitution was intendel
70 restore public confidence, shaken by II,
course pursued in several States at the clos
Of tie war OF tie Revolution, and 10 estabIsI
the great principle, that contracts should b.
inriolsble. Under is egis, It was intende
that al our institutions. commercial, itera
~, charitable, and religious, should find safe
" from the fluctuations Of public opinion ant
political strife. II embraces all contracts
whether made By the State with one Of il
citizens, or one made between private indi
yidBals; whether executed or exeeuto-y.
is not questioned but that grant made b,
the State Is a contract under the constitution
and protected BIZ IL IN the celebrated cas-,
u Fletcher '. Peek, 6 cranch 81, tie C0ur
declare, that where law is 10 the nature 0
a contract, and absolute rights had vested IN
der i, the repeal Of the law cannot dives
those rights nor destroy or impair them
The same principle !. declared 10 the case
tie STATE ~ .Ner J4sey !. WilsOn. Cranc
l64. IN TIeleni v TGgior, 2 Cranch -,
was declared, that legislative grant, com
peteh;ly made, vested az indeieasible an,
iresocable title, ard repgdiatrs the doc
trine, that such a grant was reyoeable IN i
nature, and held only darG,fe bene pidcifo
II the case d Dartmouth College, Whea
tan SIS, the whole doctrine arising unJe
this restriction 10 the Constitution uf th
United States, was most deliberately argued
and received tie mos, clear and practical ex
position br tie Court. Chancellor Kent, i
lie 1T vi. II hls CommeDIares, p. AIS
observes. The decision 10 that Gaze dl
more than any single at proceeding from III
authority 0f ihe United States, to ihr0a a
imprcgnaJlc barrier around az rights al
franchises derived from the giant d the 60,
ernmrut." lnprgghabls ~ longer. Il hrl
Dc btas p'aeit0 d d. legislature. TIE que,
ton again cane before tbe same tribunal
ne case Of Gran !. Billie. S Wheaton {,
which tie Court declare, that the Dbjgetio
toal.w, on The ground u Il. impairing ii
obligation Of contract, cau never Deepen
upon TIE extent 0t the change. Any devil
ton lrum 10 terms. however minute, nr al
pafehiiy immaieri4l ID II. effect np1n Il
contract, o. apun aay part d parcel lheren