Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1860-02-15


4. Every law that alters the legal rules of
evidence and receives less or different testimo-
nv than the law required at the time of the
| commission of the offence, in order to convict
the offender
Such are the established definitions of an er
post fdcto law, and so sef-evident must it be to
every mind that Our bill has not the remotest
relation to them, that we proceed at once to
the next point, and that is the retrospective
character of it, for it is a common error of men
that these two classes of laws are alike-a fall
lacy that was most ably exposed by Judge
Chase, in the case of Calder VS.. Bull. Said
that distinguished jurist Every post fdcto
law must be retrospective, but every RETROSPECT
tive law is not an er post .fdctO law. 1t is a
good general rule that law should have no
retrospect, hut there are cases in which law
may justly and for the benefit of the communi-
ty and also otindividuas, relate to time antece-
dent to their commencement. The Supreme
Court of the United States Is Cranch, 1852
have also said If the term er post tdcto law is
to be construed to include and TO prohibit the
enacting of any law after a fact, it will greatly
restrict the power of the federal and state leg
islatures, and the CONSCIENCE of such con-
| structon may not be toreseen.' Chancellor
Kent, in his Commentaries, remarks, (vol. l,
p. 1887 Retrospective laws, unless they are
er post tdcto laws, are not prohibited by the
constitution of the United States And he
further remarks, tvol. /, p. 1867 while con-
| demning generally retrospective legislation,
| las per opinion in Dash VS.. Van Kleeck,
Johnson But this doctrine is not understood
to apply TO remedial statutes, which may be of
retrospective nature, and only go to confirm
rights already existing, and in furtherance of
the remedy, by curing defects, and adding to
the means of enforcing existing obligations.
Such statutes have been held valid when clear
ly just and seasonabie, and conducive to the
| general welfare, even though they might oper
ate to degree upon existing rights, as a stat
ute to confirm former marriages effectively
celebrated, or a sale of lands effectively made
or acknowledged Could any language more
clearly express the exact scope, character, and
intent of the bill now reported, than does the
last quoted words of our nations most learned
Jurist. And these sentiments, lmbued with
the very spirit of equity, are sustained by the
laws and decisions of our sister states, as we
will now demonstrate"
Decisions are cited from the Pennsylvania
courts that legislative enactments ito cure de-
fects in the Acknowledgements of temmecovert,"
were held to be valid from the Connecticut
courts to show the same thing in regard to
defective levy of an execution on real estate,
the defect being found in an unlawful return
sets courts showing that the same principle was
recognized and sanctioned The decisions
most in point appear to be, one from the Maine
courts unfolding legislative act legalizing
certain marriages which were performed by
unauthorized persons,-and some of the fol-
lowing from the courts of Massachusetts,
''The statute of 1856, chapter 6, abolishing
joint tenancies, was a retrospective statute,
yet its constitutionality was sustained by the
Supreme court Mass. R., 1856. &c. also,
the statute of 1903, chapter 49, which confirm
ed the proceedings of the General Sessions so
far as they lacked validity in regard to the
jail limits was sustained by the same court.
Chapter 81, Acts of 1917, was retrospect
i've and remedial act, and the court says of it
that it chad retrospective operation upon ex-
listing trusts and contracts and created new re-
sponsibties but being beneficial and rem
edial law its validity has never been ques-
toned, (23 Pick, 194). We now come to
another act that bears directly and specifically
upon the one now submitted by your Com
mittee. By chapter 60, Acts of 1889, in re-
gard to the surplus revenue, jurisdiction was
given TO the supreme court to issue injunc-
tions to prevent the violation Of former law,
and its last clause is as follows -
"And no order or decree of said court, or
any judge thereof, heretofore made in any
such case as is above contemplated, shall bC
discharged or invalidated on account of wan
= of jurisdiction in said court or judge, but al
o orders and DEGREES are hereby confirmed.
d This law was carried up to the supreme court
If and the constitutonality of this last clause wa
- unanimously sustained by the court, (see Sim
II mons VS. Hanover, % Pickering, 1872, wher
L Wilde, j., reviews the law and discusses an
S atfirms the power OF the legisa ture to pas
i such statutes.
Passing over ten years time, We come t
the "Act concerning proceedings in Insolver
e cy," chapter 116, acts of 1919, which we civ
4 an ertenSo.
q "All proceedings instituted as had in an,
case of insolvency, before any commissions
: of insolvency in this Commonwealth between
0 the sixth day of June and the sixth day @
s July in the year 184S, so far as the same ma,
!. want effect or validity by reason that sue
commissioner was not duly sworn or qualified
I under his commission, are hereby confirmed
it and the same shall be taken and deemed goo
= and valid in law, to all intents and purpose
whatsoever"
> The Committee claim that these cases full
|. authorize the bill they have reported; bu
= they add the following from the Supreme
: Court of the United States -
1.-THE case of Calder VS.. Bull, is probably
the earliest as well as strongest case on record
in which the power of State to pass retro
spective or remedial statute was decided. B,
t the existing law of Connecticut right to re
cover certain property had vested in Calde
and his wife, in consequence of decision of
: court of justice, but in virtue of subsequen
, resolution or law, and the new hearing there
f Of and the decision in consequence, this RICH
to recover certain property declared to be il
Bull and wife, and the court sustained tn
constitutionaity OF the law. And similar de
cisions have been made in the same court il
the case of Satterlee VS.. Mathewson, 2 Peters
$50; Watson Mercer, 8 Peters, SO, ant
Charles River Bridge VS.. Warren Bridge eacI
and all affirming the power and right of State
legislatures to pass retrospective and remedia
laws"
HE MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM.-The East
: ern Argus says that George NJ Weston, who