Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1861-02-13


an end, and looks only to the immediate and appa-
rent result 1t stops not to enquire into the legal
ty of the steps by which the desired thing may be
obtained, nor what other consequences may follow
after its attainment 1t is like patient, who in
agony will give up the hopes of life for relief, though
by poison even against one paroxysm of suffering
The cool physician, however, refuses the potion, and
the patient suffers and lives thankful, when he is
restored to himself that he had around him in his
madness, better friends than himself
The case of Crittenden .. Jones decided in 1914
on the stay law of 1912, is an unquestioned prece
dent for declaring void all such laws the bill in
question. if the object of the Legislature can be
seen. Now, gentlemen, since that decision, to Wit,
in 1888, there was another celebrated case 1oke '.
Henderson, Dev. ~ before the Supreme Court
consisting of Ruf6n, CASTOR and Daniel, names
which need no praise in this age, and before you.
In that case it was suggested that If the Legisl
could not effect the unconstitutional purpose in
way they could in another and by different act
making the principal object of the Legislature ap-
pear to the Court to be the incidental result The
answer to that suggestion was worthy of the Court
and the State, and commend it to your attention.
IF such law" says the Court "were to pass it
would itself be unconsttutional-tha being its OBJ
ject. If the purpose were declared in the law in
such terms that the Court could say that the act
was passed upon no other, the same duty would
! =
UNCONSTITUTIONAL but if the law be couched in
general terms so that the Court, which cannot in
quire into motives not avcwed. could not see that
the act had its origin in any other consideration but
public expediency, and, therefore, would be obliged
to execute it law, still it would not in reality.
be the less unconstitutional, although the Court
could not pronounce it So It would be law because
the Court could not its real character and there
fore could not that it was unconstitutional
go = Al
supposes (what cannot be admitted a supposition)
the Legislature will designedly and willfly violate
the constitution in utter disregard of their oaths
and duty. To do indirectly, in the abused exercise
of an acknowledged power not given for, but per-
vertetl to that purpose, that which is expressly
forbidden to be done directly is gross and wicked
lnaction of the constitution and the more so, be-
the resorted to deprive the injured per-
son, and designed to deprive him of all redress
by preventing the question becoming the subject Of
judicial cognisance."
Twenty seven years ago, these eminent men, each
of whom had been distinguished members of the
Legislature of the State, proclaimed to the people,
that to accomplish indirectly by "the abused ex-
ercise of an acknowledged power not given for but
perverted to that purpose, that which is expressly
forbidden to be done directly, is gross and wicked
infraction of the Constitution"
To the great authority of these distinguished
tho Union, not less known nor less worthy Of your
regard might be added, till you might see "Pelion
OH Ossa piled" But, if the well considered opinions
Of your own great names will not stay your attempt
it is not likely that you would respect any other
authority than sic rolo sic jubeo. " 1t may not
he amiss here to notice an error into which even
fair minds have fallen namely that the obligation
they conclude that all provisions for remedy to
enforce it are without and not subject to prohibi-
ton against imposing the obligation. If this be
true, then a repeal Of every remedial provision to
enforce the obligation is lawful There is no escape
from this consequence. This doctrine advanced in
the early cases before the Supreme Court of the
United States to sustain State laws affecting the
remedy, was then. and in numerous cases since has
been met, exposed and denied to be Law. In the
well considered case of Planters, Bank o. Sharpe
the Court declared as follows:
"One of the tests that contract has been en-
forced is that its value has by legislation been d-
minished. 1t is not by the Constitution to be i'm
paired at all. This is not question of degree or
manner cause, but of encroaching in any respect
on its obligation, dispensing with any part of its
force. And if in protesting to alter the remedy
only, the duties and rights of contract itself are
changed or impaired, it comes just as much within
the spirit of the constitutional prohibition. Thus,
if a remedy is taken away entirely, or clogged BY
condition of any kind the right of the owner may
indeed subsist and be acknowledged but it is inn
paired. And the test as before suggested is not the
extent of the violation of the contract but the fact
that in truth its obligation is lessened, in however
small particular, and not merely altreing or regu-
lating the remedy alone"
In Nc Cracker Y. Raycood, the same court says
when the contract becomes contaminated the law
defines the duty, and the right compes the party to
the performance to perform the thing contracted
for, and gives the other right to enforce the per-
Torrance by the remedies then in force If any
subsequent law affect to diminish the duty or to
impair the right it necessarily bears on the obliga-
ton Of the contract in favor Of one party to the in
jury Of the other hence any law, which in its ope-
ration amounts to denial or obstruction of the
right accruing by a contract. though protesting to
act only on the remedy is directly obnoxious to the
prohibition of the Constitution"
In the case of Bronson " McRinnie, the same
Court says at (the remedy is the protection which
the Constitution mainly intended to secure And
twould be unjust to the memory Of the distinguish
ed men who framed it, to suppose that it was de.
signed to protect mere barren and abstract right
without any practical operation upon the business
of life. 1t was undoubtedly adopted as part of
the Constitution for great and useful purpose 1t
was to maintain the integrity of contracts and to Sc
cure their faithful execution throughout this Union,
oy placing them under the protection of the Consti.
tuition Of the United States. And it would but i'll
become this Court, under any circumstances, to de-
part from the plain meaning Of the words used and
to sanction distinction between the right and the
remedy, which would render this provision Elusive
and nugatory; mere words of form, affording no
protection, and producing no practical result
While have confined my remarks to the consti-,
tutional duty of your body in the passage of laws,
have not forborne to argue the inexpediency Of
the bill because of any doubt about its efficacy as
measure Of relief l have meyer known, and / am
sure shall never see, a law which cuts loose or
weakens the bonds of contract, attended with any
other results than Generalization of the people,
end an utter failure to accomplish any benefcent
and strikes deeper its roots, till finally the patient
is put beyond the nostrums Of kind nurses and de-
livered to the knife. - at 49,,
CONSTITUTION.
LouisvnLr, Feb. s.-The Legislature win adjourn