Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1863-09-09
Judge WOOdVvard's Opinion on
the Soldiers Stay Law.

"WooDwARD, 1.-The 4th section of
the Act of 18th April, 1861, p. l.. p.
4O9. is in these words: No civil pro-
cess shall issue or be enforced against any
person mustered into the service of this
State or of the United States, during the |
term for which he shall be engaged in !
such service, nor until thirty days after !
he shall have been discharged therefrom
Provided, that the operation of all statutes |
of limitation shall he suspended upon all I
claims against such person during such /
term
''The principal question upon the re-
cord is, whether this section be constitu-
tional Although it occurs in an act
supplementary to the penal laws of the
Commonwealth, and does not mention the
military service, either of the State or of
the United States, yet it is universally
understood, and no doubt correctly under
stood, to be stay law of all legal pro-
cess against soldiers mustered into the
military service of the Government And
ii is stay for term-the term for which
he shall be engaged. The act of Congress
of 22d July, 1861, under which the first
half million of volunteers were mustered
into the service of the United States,
fixed the term at not more than three
wears nor less than six months, and the
affidavit which was filed on behalf of the
defendant. says that he had been mustered
in for three years or during the war. This
! is the same phrase that was used i'll the
] 9th section of our act OF Assembly OF
( 10Th May, 1861, in reference TO the Re
serve Volunteer Corps. and means three
years or less, or not exceeding three years.
/ The term of engagement, therefore, during
which the above section meant that the
defendant should not be subject TO civil
process was three years from the date of
his muster, if the war should last so long,
and if it should not, then until it should
end. Thirty days were to be added after
. his discharge, which would make the ut
most extent of the term three years and
/ thirty days. The reference to the dura-
/ ton of the war is a restriction of the term,
not an extention of it beyond three years
{ and thirty days. The duration OF the
war was. AZ the date of the law, and still
is, uncertain, but the maximum period of
| the stay-three years and thirty days
I bile of asccrtainment with absolute GER
tainty. 1t was suggested that the volun-
teer might re-enlist at the expiration of
his first term, and because this was posi-
bic that the term of his engagement was
necessarily uncertain. The answer is
that the statute gives but one stay, which
is to be computed from the time of the
original muster, and re-enlistment would
not renew the stay. The statute refers
itself for the term of the engagement tc
the laws that were then in force fixing the
period of enlistment. and, therefore, We
construc it according TO the tenor of thost
laws.
"Such being the significance and cficc
of the section, was the Legislature an
thorlzcd to enact it !
sWe have often said that stay laws
exemption laws. and limitation laws, or,
,, ordinarily constitutional, though applie'
, to existing and prior contracts, and w
have followed the distinction which pre-
walls in the Supreme Court of the Unite
States, between the obligation of the con
! tract and the remedies furnished by laN
for enforcing the obligation. We under
= Stdllu tiic luic ~ DC liiht "lillSl iilS iS-i'
=. lature may not impair the obligation the
may modify the remedy. But it some
. times happens that the parties contraC
concerning the rcmcdy-that they stipu
late in the body of the contract that
! case of failure of payment by q ccrtai
= day there shall be no stay of execution
or that the mortgagce may enter and sC
the mortgaged cstatc-or, that all cXemI
1t ton rights shall be waived. In sue
l, cases the rule is, that the remedy become
le part of the obligation of the contract. al
!, any subsequent statute which affects Il
lie remedy impairs the obligation, and is u
st constitutional. Brown V. Kenzie, l How
N ard, 322, and Bil!myer V. Evans, w
in 321. are illustrations of this rule. Il
time and manner in which stay laws sh;
re operate, are properly legislative question
I'd and will generally depend, said Jutl
ne Baldwin. IN jackson V. Lamphirc.
If Peters p. p. 290, on the sound discl
= ton of the Legislature according to +
nature of the titles, the situation Of t
country and the emergency which lea
sh to the enactment. Cases NAV occur wh'
IS the provisions of a law NAV be so unrt
if sonable as to amount TO denial of rig
?'' and call for the interposition of the couI
nj In Brown, Raiguel K Co Y. Gorgas
AZ WI. Ill. we had an instance of an |
reasonable stay -unrearonabr bcca'