Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-01-24

of the country and give you this act over Courts
and officers to enforce the collection of your debt
upon the terms herein prescribed. Has not the
Government the power to do this and the power to
promote the general welfare by the reasonable ex-
ercise of a power? think eclearly il has y II il
true if the Legislature in the exercise Of this power
pass remedial laws of such character as to show
that their remedial provisions were mere pretenses
to affect, violate and impair the contract Then I
admit that it would be contrary to the genius and
spirit Of our bill of rights and constitution. But
nothing of this character be gathered from the
provisions of this bill
In 1888 there was radical change made in our
stay laws Previous to flat period there was rradr
tion tile stay of executions according to amount
from three to twelve months the Lepislature modi-
fed the general law by requiring the stav on srms
to be four months. and in 1913 it was extended To
eight months they doubtless had the power to stsy
twelve months. Our Courts have always held that
those stay laws operated merely on the remedy,
and that they were constitutional
By the act of 1912 the lease commonly called an
execution against the body of the debtor was re-
peaed. That was regarded as very material and
important remedy for the collection of debts though
a cruel, bloody and barbarous, one and riehtfully
erased from the statute Book. Yet its reneaI on
peratng on contracts then existing was no violation
of the Declaration of Rights ordaiuing that no re-
prospective law impairing the obligation contracts
shall be made. Our Supreme Court in case in 4th
Hum. Is, 81 says that the Legislature NAV pre-
scribe terms and mode, in which remedies may be
pursued and vary the nature and extent of rem
edies, SO always substantial remedy be in
fact left. The Supreme Court of the United States
have settled the same principles.
1t is urged that if the first section of the bill is
not liable to constitutional objection the third NAV
beupon the ground that levy Of the execution
vests the title in the officer and the Legislature
not divest that title. This bill does not propose to
divest any title acquired lien given but express
ly retains it, making that property as well as the
additional security, liable Tor the debit giving the
creditor an additional remedy and ample security
for his Judgment | understand that the early de-
csions of courts did hold that the title of pro-
perty was Invested out OF the owner and vested in
the officer but it is rot absolute 6yesture of the
title and destruction of that of the defsndantin the
execution 1t so, an execution for ten dollars might
be levied upon a slave who is worth thousand
dollars and all claim of the defendant in the execu-
ton would thereby be destroyed. The law is, that
the officer making the levy has the absolute right of
possession and special property in the thing levied
on. As the law now stands, he has the power TO
advertise and sell, and after paying a suficency Of
the proceeds iii discharge of the execution, t. pay
over the balance to the defendant. He is merely
possessed ef the property, charged with the duty
of selling and dividing the proceeds between the
creditor and debtor.-[See 0verton vs.. Perkins, 10
Yerger, 329
This section does not impair the right It
merely postpones the officers in making the
sale and division of the proceeds between
the creditor and debtor. By additional Sc
curity being given for the debt and ample security
for the forthcoming of the property. This section
only operates on the remedy; it stands precisely on
the general principle of the entire bill
The citizens of the State viii be deprived of half
of the good and relief that this act would give
them by striking out this section, for the larger
amount of the indebtedness of the State has
already rpened into Judgment; and now in
executions out and levied, and if sales should
be forced nearly half of the citizens of the State
would be ruined, and in many cases the creditors
injured by placing the debtors in a condition that
they will never be able topay.
These are my views upon the principles of this
BILL believing it constitutional, and that 1t will pro-
mote the common good and the general welfare Of
the people of this State cannot hesitate to give it
my support with all my heart.