Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1861-01-29

SO1lUZ you HOulU nave 10 DItuE your actlcl
in the Circuit Court on accounts that were
made under the old Law over one huudrs 4
dollars, because that law entered into The
contract If the remedy is part of the con-
tract YOU might sue immediately, and ncf
RAFT until the time arrived for its execution.
aud instead of looking at the rem edies at.
forded at the time the suit was Instituted
you would have to go back to the time when
| the contract was made-and rem edies would
be as diversified as the coutrocts to which
they are applied. This, if it be true. would
prevent the enforcement of contract only
at the place where made, and a Contract
made in Tennessee could not be enforced in
Kentucky. because it was not made under
the laws of Kentucky. A contract 10 ade in
, Louisiana to be enforced in Tennessee. when
yoa came here you could collect 8 per cent
interest, because that is ellowed in the form
er State
The idea that the remedy is part of the
contract Is an abstraction, and 1 need not
pursue it further to show it's impraeticabili-
ty and absurdity. You see it cannot be car
ried into practice, hut will settle this point
by high authority. Story on the Constitution,
d ge 235. says: although the law of the
place ACT supod a contract and governs its con-
siruction, validity and its litigation it con-
stiutes no part of it. The effect of such
principle would b. mischievous abridgment
of Legislative power over subjects within the
proper jurisdiction of States, by arresiing
their power 10 repeal or modify such laws
with respect to existing contract" This
settles the question as far as the law
of the place being part of the con-
tract. Story upon the same page holds
that the obligation to perform the con-
tract is coeyal with the cOntraet-but be
fdrther says: The remedy acts upon the
broken contract, aud enforces a pre-eyisting
| oblig atom" interpret this to mean, that
the remedy does not attach at all until the
contract is broken, and if repealed before
it attach, it would not be retrospective In
any respect nor impair any vested right.
A law extending the stay would be part
OF the remedy, No one can doubt the au-
| thcrity of the Legislature to prescribe the
| remedy on contracts that are made after the
law has passed. Such law would be pros
pective and there could be no Constitutional
objection to such one. IT Judgment is
rendered under the provisions of the first sec
ton of this bill upon a contract made after
it's passage all will admit that it would not
be impairIag any right--if that be true we
have a right 10 change the pre-existing con-
tracts: the law draws no distinction as to the
remedy on antecedents and subsequent con
tracts.-Parsonss on Contracts, Page 704,
holds 90 That as to the remedy there can be
no difference between a debt existing before.
and Que contradict after the law is made"
| Clearly placing them upon equal footing.
| II you can change one you can change the
other. The Representative from Gibson,
| (Mr. Williamson in his remarks quoted from
| Peck's reports; Townsend vs.. Townsend,
| page Is, as follows: 'The Legislature may
alter remedies, but they must not so far as
regards antecedent contracts be rendered less
| eficacious or more dilatOry than those or
| dained by The law in being when the con-
| tract WAS made" This IS a'cdse arising I'M
der the .w OF 1919. declaring that execution
| should lie stayed for Nv years If the creditor
| would not take the paper OF the Bank of
! Tennessee. The decision was made in 1921,
| and if that is the law now, the measure is
| clearly unconstitutional.
Some gentlemen have said that we swear
We support the Constitution as we understand
1t, and not according to the Interpretation of
the Courts that the Legislature is CO.
ordinate branch of the Government and it is
sovereign in its sphere. This declaration
! has been made by a very great man, but
| bow submissiveiy to the decision of the high
| est tribunal of our State. Fortunately the
| law quoted is not the law Of the land. You
| We're not told that the decision now quoted
| was over-ruled, or comes in conflict with a
more recent decision reported in Hum
| phrey. The Legislature has, if substantial
justice and public policy demands it, right
to repeal the acts of its predecessors. So it
| is with the Supreme Oourt-they can over
| rule the decisions of former court, and the
| last has precedence.
The case of Woodfin vs. Hooper, is case OF
| the application of the &C.. sa. law, which gave
| imprisonment as remedy TO enforce con-
| tracts, and according TO position assumed. be-
| cam. part of the con- ract. Hum, page
| 81, Judge farley said: No one will doubt
| that the legislature can vary the nature and
extent OF remedies, SO always that some sub
| ~taniive remedy be left. Nor can il be doubt
| I'd that the | gislature may prescribe the
| terms and modes in which rem dies are to b..
! pursued. At the time this contract WAS made
| impri>onmrnt was q remedy, and the legisla-
| ture repealed It as to past and future con-
| tracts, and the law was sustained by the
court. You can readily perceive hat this de-
cision comes in conflict with the case OF
| Townsend VS.. Townsend, which holds that the
| legislature cannot effect the remedy so as to
make it / SIS etficacious or more dllatury than
| The law existing at the time the contract was
| made. Inprisonmentis certainly the most ef-
| fcacous remedy tn enforce CONT act, but il
| is against the spirit of CO. Institutions. Cases
have arisen where MN have had means to
| liquidate their Indebtedness, but could not be
| reached 10y execution, and Tor fear of impris-
| onment acted the part of honest men and paid
| their debts. Imprisonment for debt is GER
tainly the most tfeciual remedy, and | have
! high authOrili' Tor the assertion. Parsons.
| ON Contracts holds "Imprisnnment is the last
and most eff ctual remedy According to
| the ruling of Common Sense, if you can
take away the most etieetual remedy, you can
take away lie least effectual, for the greater,
| always, includes the lesser. In many cases,
he taking away imprisonment for debt, you
destroy the remedy in toto, for the deb, Or
| may have no property out which the debt can
be made. The legislature have passed laws
barring suits after certain time thts
| have been decided constitutional. The law
was few years ago, that note under seal
never run out of dale, but it was changed
by the code, and now six years is the linn
itation. | need not argue this question, that
the law is, that the remedyecan be changed
| without impairing the contract; and SO some
remedy is lett, The contract is not violated. L.
you have two remedies, the legislature can
take one away. This bill proposes only to
extend the stay, and if we can stay eight
months, why not twelve. There is substan-
tial remedy left. Only a little delay is want
ed to allow the people to be at rest until
another crop has matured. l will vote for
this bill without any companc,ion OF con-
science.
As 10 the policy of this measure, have
never seen a similar one in operation, and
can't Judge of it's effects. | am satisfied
that the people desire it, and l. as their rep
resentative, am willing to give it to them,
and lift operates badly i will tell them to lay
it not to my charge, for l voted under instruc-
tons. The price of slaves. mules, horses,
and every species of property, has deprecated
at least one third, aud property sold for cash
under the hammer brings little or nothing,
and the Shylocks are following the Office rs
through the country to their execution sales
like the Hyena in the wake of an army, aud
are amassing immense fortunes out of The dis
tress of the people. 1t woald be better that
executions were stayed now. for the property
of many debtors sold ii the present crisis
would not iiquidate their Liabilities. but With
little time would be able 10 pay cut. aud has e
competency left. We have bill before Us
of ba