Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1861-02-12
For the Standard.
- - For the Standa
To the LsdisLature of the State.

and integrity entertain on the same question, will,
sure, relieve me from the charge of imputing i'm
proper motives to any member of your body, when
question the validity or wisdom of your proposed
legislation. The best way to approach an honest
man of sense is to come to him in the spirit and
garb of candor In that spirit and in that garb
have before approached you, and now do so again.
Before you entered your duties, you swore
that you would support the Constitution Of the
United StateS"-or, in other words, you swore that
you would pass no Flaw impairnrg the obligation of
contracts; and the only questions land they are
addressed to your own bosoms) are, first, will the
bill for the relief of the people, impair the opliga-
ton of contracts ?secondly, if such be its effect is
it result brought about the incident merely of
power reserved to the State? is that result fix
ed, MAN, chief and only purpose in view?
am persuaded, if each of its advocates was re-
quired to answer these questions in writing, and
place his answer on the journal, there would not be
of you all who would not confess that the sole
motive for the bill to postpone the collection of
debts, and give the debtor longer time than he
stipulated for; and that the provisions in regard to
jurisdiction and pleading were mere shams-a dough-
face to keep the courts from seeing its true features
In the midst of passion and feeling do not like
to reason; the process is too slow. Passion aims at
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
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 y Jones decided in 1914
on the stay law of 1872, is unquestioned prece-
dent for declaring void all such laws as the bill IN
question: if the object of the Legislature can be
SEEM Now, gentlemen, since that decision, to wit
in 1888, there was another celebrated case (Hoke
Henderson, Dey. L. before the Supreme Court
consisting of Rutfin, CASTOR and Daniel, names
which need no praise in this age, and before you
In that case it suggested that if the Legsl ture
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 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 unconstitutional-that being its OBJ
ject. If the purpose declared in the law in
such terms that the Court could say that the act
was passed upon no other, the same duty would
then be imposd on the Court" THAT is to declare it
unconstitutioTal) but if the law be couched in
general terms that the Court which cannot in
quire into motives not avowed, 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 1t would be law because
the Court could not see its real character and there
fore could not that it unconstitutional
The argument is therefore unsound in this: That it
supposes (what cannot be admitted as suppostion)
the Legislature will designedly and wllfully 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-
verified to that purpose, that which is expressly
forbidden tG be done directly is gross and wicked
Infracton of the constitution and the so, be-
cause the resorted to deprive the injured per-
son. and are 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 con-
stitutOna uriStS, like opinions of others throughout
the Union, not less known less worthy of your
regard, might be added, till you might see Peon
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 uOlo sic jubeo. " 1t may not
he amiss here to notice an error into which even
fair minds have fallen, namely that the obligation
of contract is independent of the remedy; and so
they conclude that all provisions for remedy to
enforce it are without, and not subject to prohibit
ton against imposing the obligation. If this be
true, then 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, them and in numerous since has
been met exposed and denied to be law. In the
well considered case of Planters, Bank Q. 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 or cause but of encroaching in any respect
on its obligation, dispensing with any part of its
force. And II in protesting to alter the remedy
only the duties and rights of contract itself are
changed or impaired. it comes just much within
the spirit of the constitutional prohibition. Thus,
it a remedy is taken away entirely, or cogged BY
condition of any kind, the right of the owner may
indeed subsist and be acknowledged but it is i'm
paired. And the test 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 NcCrdcken " Hdyuood the same court says
when the contract "becomes consummated 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-
formance by the remedies then in force If any
subsequent law affect to diminish the duty or to
impair the right it necessarily bears the obliga
ton of the contract in favor of 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 contract, though protesting to
act only the remedy is directly obnoxious to the
prohibition of the Constitution"
In the case of Bronson V. AcRinnie, the same
thar oHIlc he Jphi
the Constitution mainly intended to secure. And
it would 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
he md