Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1857-1865, 1858-09-10

Bay. The Union 6 american replies, at
some length, to our structures upon its
policy Of gold and silver currency, and
directs its efforts against our views of the
constitutionality of that policy, as pro-
posed to be enforced by that paper. It'll
says :-"Now the constitution of the Uni
ted States provides that no State shall pass
any 'er post tqcto law, or law impairing
the obligation of contracts" Hence It'll
argues that if the law be net ez post tacto,
the State has the constitutional power to
vitiate contracts between man and man
entered into after the enactment Of the
law. Now we read that clause of the Con-
stitution differently, and infer its meaning
to be that the States shall pass no ex post
facto laws, nor laws "impairing the obliga
ton of contracts" Coeval with the first
social compact, and inseperable from it,
was the right Of contract between private
individuals, whether it consisted of the
exchange Of a pair Of moccasins for a
culver of arrows, or the selling of land
for its real, or supposed equivalent. This
right was antecedent to all constitutions,
is above them all, and is an indispensable
condition of social and governmental
organizations and, we conceive, it was in
view of this fact, that the trainers of the
Constitution denied to the States the power
to impair "the obligation Of contracts"
either by ex post facto, or prospective laws.
What constitutes the obligation of con-
tract? 1t is the legal or moral duty to
fulfill it. If then, two men enter into
contract--the condition of which is the
exchange Of horse for its equivalent in
Kentucky bank notes, what is the obliga-
ton implied In that contract The de-
livery of the horse, by the one, and the
payment of the consideration by the other;
and whilst it is constitutional to enact a
law to enforce such contract, it is uncon-
stitutional to enact law that shall impair,
in the future, "the obligation" of all similar
contracts. And whilst it is proper to for
bid the enactment Of ex post facto laws,
we can not reconcile, with our views of
right, the idea that the Constitution in
tended to defend the sacred "obligation of
contracts" against ex post facto laws only.
BY way of refuting our position, and
strengthening its own, the Union Dc Anaeri-
can cites us to the usury laws as evidence
Of the constitutional right of the Legisla-
turo to vitiate private contracts. We con-
cede, and claim it as the right and duty of
the Legislature to fix rate of interest to
govern in the business transactions of
guardians, administrators, executors &c. !;
and there is an obvious necessity for this
that will strike every intelligent reader
But so far from this being an interference
with private contracts, it is simply furnish
ing rule Of settlement where no private
contract has, or could have, been made
The distinction is too plain to need eluci-
dation. But when the Legislature goes
further than this, and says that man S
money shall be worth to him no more than
six per cent, when he is dealing with a
man legally competent to make his own
bargains, we believe it is an usurpation of
power and an impairing of "the obligation
of contracts" strictly within the meaning
of the Constitution. If, however, this be
simply an exercise of constitutional power,
can not the Legislature, with an equal
show Of right, say that man, in buying
and selling horse, shall realize no more
than six per cent? Lending and buying
are both simply investments of money,
and we ask the Uaion & american to draw
the constitutional distinction between the
right to realize no more than six per cent
in the one case, and as much as fifty per
cent in the other! We do not deny the
constitutional power of the Legislature to
fix rate interest to protect the rights and
interests of minors, or to perfect contracts
which carelessness or accident has left
open, and legal inability could not perfect;
but we do deny its power to ''impair the
obligation Of contracts" between living
and legally competent parties, either by
ex post facto, or prospective laws. The
right to make contracts dates back behind
the Constitution; the obligation to fulfill
them, is the same in all ages and countries
aud the power to impair them is to be
found only in the exercise of brute force.
But to another point The Union &
American soys:
"Onc or more Of the State Legislatures
has provided that the payment of debts
IN bills of smaller denomination than
e. LII. L Ii l. L 4 4 -