Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1861-07-13

against at present was not the act of suard
"a laU but the effect incident to the opsrat;S oas"
ssach GyLGW and respect to this, whether IL
&passed before or after the adoption of the Consti
was immateria. In illustration suppose dr..
Sunfettered existence of seven hours, the State h
spassed LAW making tobacco legal tender in fa
apayment of debts. After the adoption of the cue .e
Sstltuton of the Confederate States would tor.
shave still continued to be legal tender? mos @
lsuredly not, for the time of the passage of tho
sdWas lmmaterial. If all laws either opposed to ~
seXpreSs provisions of the Constitution then ado,.
Awere to continue importation because thew had u
spassed beforeaand-all of the acts of the ca
Assembly should have been subjected to riooro.
s;Scrutiny before the State was admitted into the Con-
sfederaey. -.-. wv On
81 1t is well illustrated principle of constitrr.
Claw that upon the adoption of new Const;tr,,;lnN
5or an amendment of the Constitution, any and ";
claws previously existing, are ipso tdcto annrra5
and become void so far they are opposed f. az,
sconf1ct with the new or amended Constitutio WV
7the same reason that statute repeats all stain
zspreviously enacted inconsistent with its MENUS
Sand will revokes all former wiils-or an orI
IRON head quarters countermands one prnvio',I
Sven SO lar as It conflicts with its meaning and in
Sstenton and obvious policy N'" III
g 2. But, apart from the Constitution of tbo r
ederate States, we of opinion that the
gin plain violation of the Constitution of tbo Sts.
z7on two grounds ''a'e'
q lst 1.-The declaration of rights" fixes the r.;.
clple OF free government by affirming in section 10
g no free man ought to be deprived of his life ill.,
Aty or property, but by the law of the land" ''s'-
1t is settled that by force of this section the o,i,
saature has not the power to deprive A Of bs bSro
sand give it to B. or to deprive of his Office on%
Sgiyc 1T to c. or of his debt and give it to F|n
aother words, the Legislature cannot deprive cit;z
;sof his vested rights of property Sec Hoka ~
4 iendcrson, Dew. and the case there cteI s..
She question is, can the Legislature deprive czon
sot his debt which is vested right and part ofL
estate or property, in the broad sense in which ,l
5word is used in the section above cited includr 81
srghts of person and rights of property either Ir
Sconerring the right on third person, or by rcI,
ang it to the debtor, or by taking from the crei;o
.5the right to have judgment and execution for Ms
sssdebt according to the course of the courts Nam
estly if creditor is deprived of his right to L,r
1judgment and execution for his debt he is therein
teprlved of his right to the debt which consists IN
ems rght to enforce payment and the ground of hone
dhat this disposition is not to be absolute and nr
siPetual but only until otherwise provided by law
(which is held out by the wording of the statute do
snot at all vary the question of power because fl
s3power to deprive of his debt for an indetin,
dtme is the same as the power to deprive him of il
absolutely and so far as the creditor is concerned i
Az TIE ueOI De gwen 4
Ihrd person or be released to the debtor the viola
on of the rights of the creditor is the same and the
.Spower that can do the one can DO the other.
81 I'd The statute is unconstitutional because II yio
Eates the 4th section of the declaration of rights
sThe legislative, executive-suprenae judicial pof,
Hcf government ought to be forever separate and dis
EStnct from each other.
q Suppose the Legislature should pass statute that
he Governor, in the recess of the General Assembv
t7 hall aOf o1O<I,, H. s1.A.. IL
Cor shall not embody the militia o. the State or shall
not do any act of his Office, would "the legislative
.ssand executive powers of the government be kent
Separate and distinct from each other ?" Or suppose
9the Legislature should pass statute that the Su
3preme Court shall not give judgment and issue exc
zcution in the case of Barnes Barnes or shall not
ssgive Judgment and issue execution in any actions
stor debts due on bonds promissory notes. &C., when
Gin the trial of the case in the court below the in
sstruction of a jury was required or shall not give
Judgment and issue executions in any suit or action
sounded either on contract tort brought before it
Sby appeal from the Superior Court would the legis-
lative and supreme judicial powers of government be
Akept separate and distinct? In other words, would
not the assertion and exercise of this power on the
5part of the Legislature destroy the independence Of
sthe executive and supreme judicial powers Of the
government and subvert the government established
sby the Constitution, by centering all powers in the
Legislative department. and making despotiSm in.
sstead of free government, where the powers are
5dvided ana given to separate departments each
Sing IN its appropriate sphere, check the other
Such, it seems to US, would be the result of the
concession of the power assumed by the Legislature
Gin the passage of the statute under consideration
This result is not avoided by the fact that the
sstrant the Courts is confined by the statute to
sactioH for debts and matters of contract and that il
SIS not absolute, but merely "until otherwise prOvi
zded by law for it is a question of power Ifthe
Legislature has the power to impose this restraint
ION the Courts until otherwise provided by law, it
Shas the power to do so without the provision to
Smove the restraint when we have better times and
Git shall be easier for men to pay their debts and d
Sit has the power to impose this restraint on the
%CourtS in respect to matters of contract it has the
Epower to extend it to matters of tort, and then
imam who is stronger than may take away my negro
Sor my horse or drive me out of my house, and the
flaws of my country will give no redress because
the temple of justice is closed A power to suspend
Cor to abolish the administration of justice cannot
5exst in free government, without law and tribu-
git is anarchy, which is worse than despotsm; and
syet the power involved in the passage Of the statute
unnecessarily and by logical deduction leads to that re-
ssut.
4 If there be such power in the Legislature, we
sare with all our boosted free institutions infinitely
i behind the monarchy of England in respect to Inc
Sprotection of our rights Of person and rights OPo
Sperty. Blackstone the learned commentator on the
constituton and laws of England, in vol. 1st page
lO2 says, " third subordinate right of every Eng
ishman is that of applying to the Courts Of justice
the redress of injuries Since the law in England
lis the supreme arbiter of every mans life liberty
and property, courts of justice must at all times be
3open to the subject and the law be duly administer
! led therein. The emphatic words of Magma Charta
fare these, null mega6imus aut diffsrenus Tsetum
geE juStitia, and therefore every subject for injury
done to him, in terrs in 6onis, vel persona by any
other subject, be he ecclesiastical or temporal, WIFE
; out any exception may take his remedy by courss
of the law and have justice and right for the inuT
done to him, freely without SALE freely without an!
Sdenial and speedily without delay"
Upon the whole we are satisfied that without refer
ence to the Constitution of the United States, Or
8 that of the Confederate States, State ConstG
ion gives ample protection to its citizens against all
sencroachments on the part of the legislature upon
Sthe rights of property, and the reason why sucn
zprominence has been given to that clause OF the