The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1865-11-28

I
: and really merit no forbearauce from th
p people, out OF whom they always make ID
/. last dollar their charters VIII allow them
i take. Debts CRESTED since 1851 have bee
incurred By the parties, with q aull know
a edge o. the uncertainty Of basiness rausas
b lions, or The safety or value Of pr0perty. az
o that class OF debtors cannot plead any Ell
q euse ior an embarrassment, that euttls
? them to special relief.
? The 18th. and last section provides. tbs
judgments rendered b. q Justice % "a
Feace shau operate a5 lien upon the res
estate o. the debtor from the time sue
! Judgment j. registered iu the Office OF %
County Register This provision Is insert
Cd ior the purpose Of securing the plainsil
! in bis lien upon the land Of The dclendan,
without forcing the Plaintiff b recover b
judgment IN higher court which woull
| oe obtained a. a greater cost 90 the par
; ties.
have been thus tedious and delailed
Mr.. Speaker in my remarks upon eacl
section Of tbe bill. because feel the deep
est solieitude that Senators should under
stand and pass il. Nov. 81 the Senate VII
nduige me in q remark or two upon D.
eoust.iutionality OF The measure. Will sub
nllt the whole subject Co their consideration
We are told that this bill in some Of it
provisions is Unconstitutional. We are az
sworn % support that sacred instrument
aud have no disposition to violate it ID
any way, ami other Senators, Z am sure
are equally Fixed "a an honest purpo-c 4
maintain and support it But during my
limited experience Ia Legislative assemblies
| have thought that this objection Wa
sometimes made BY the opponents Of d
measure, Tor the purpose OF charming the
fears OF the timid, when the measure itseli
had merits that would, without these tech
meal appeals secure iis passage How Of
ten has the Constitution. that is made ior
our security and protection, been used as d
eudgel for our destruction. and for the de-
strucuon Of measures thai those who op-
| pose thea wish 90 defeat. But I have no
such thoughts and indulge no such appre-
I henslon On this occasion. / ieel that there
/ val be no technical or Unfoundcd opn9si-
! ton made 20 this bill / am no lawyer
and 20 not make any pretcnsions as a con
/ sututlonal expounder. but ] know the PEG
/ pie need the relief this bill proposes, and
! think we have the constitutional power TO
pass Il, and thus believing, 4 unhesilaungly
say, that q is our duty 10 40 so, and save
the country from hopeless bankruptcy aud
ruin.
The Constitution declares in Art. I, See
-
pairing the obligation Of contracts, shall
bemDie' This Is the clause of the Con-
stitution relied upon by the opponents Of
this measure to defeat il. ] Deg leave 90
say that this clause does not touch this
question, OF in any way apply 20 any pro-
vision OF the bill now before the Senate.
We do not propose to "impair the obliga
1 ton Of the contract" We DO not 3 ropose
70 make the debt any larger or smaller bv
this Bill We 90 not propose that a note 90
be paid in money shall be paid IL E sh
notes or produce. We do not propose thal
new names shall be put upon toe note, or
new or additional security be given. by the
party OWING the money, % secure is paw
ment; o. that the parry holding the note
shall be forced % strike any name from il
We do not propose that any man shall be
forced 10 give his note where the contract
stands upon an open account, shat q note I
shall be cancelled aud an open account sub
stituted therefor. No, SIR, we propose none
Of these things in this bill, neither do We
propose in any other way Or manner what /
ever 90 "impair The Obligation Of The con
tract" But this bill does propose 10 change /
the remedy for the co lee ion Of debts, ami
the enforcement Of the contract and also /
change the time iciru execution shall ISSUE
TO sell property for the payment OF deb.s, |
intetests Of both psrties. But says these !
constitutional object0rs, thar is uncoustitu- !
tional. don't think SO How does that /
"impair the obligation Of the coutract2" I
We certainly have the right under the Con
stitutiou 90 say trbcn an execution shall ia |
sue upon q Judgment; without heing liable
10 the charge Of having Impaired the contract /
up1E which the judgm- "a Ess f0ulded. 70
is the Constitution that gives US the power
70 enact laws, giving the party the remedy
by which he takes the Judgment and the
execution 70 issue upon t., and il Is strange
reasoning TO say thas the Constitution does
not give Us the power % say ric1 and
how the execution shall issue. This
right has been exercised BY the Legislature
ever siUce Tennessee was State. The az
rument of those genuemen who raise lhis
question is, that when A gives his note 20 B
forSIOO due on a certain day, that any law
passed BY she Legislature that prevents B
ir N making pay the money on the day
the note is due, uupairs the Obligation Of the
contrect. What is the law now governing
the collection Of debts, and what mas 30 been
ever since the organization ol our judicial
system On the day the note falls due "A
feils 10 pay t. B brings his suit. " hat
then Does B issue his execution the next
day, OF the same day, and make the money
No: he first sues out his writ. and that Is re-
turned when four months have expired. Is
that Unconstitutional, because p is delayed
in getting his Judgment until the court
meets A then enters his plea, and 81 he
has no legal defense, b then gets his iudg
ment. He then gets his execution issued, and
the sheriff has four months more % get B
his money, which we are told he would have
received months ago 10 the Legislature had
not made Law impairiug the obligation Of
the contract, for he contracted % pay this
very note long since Does any senator on
this floor pretend to say that the law qivinr
party his day in court, and specifying ieAcn
his day shall end and specifying ricn the
execution shall issue, il unconstitutional
The Legislature certainly has she constitu
tional power 70 cay that the courts shall
meet once IN two months, or once in each
year, 10 they may think best for the public
good. But according 20 the argument Of the
gent emen, we have no constitutional right
70 do this, because il would delay some
hungry creditor in bic remedy 20 sen bis
neighbor's property % collect his debt aud
thereby impsir the Obligation Of the con-
tract between them Il this doctrine pre-
walls, the whole legislative power Of the
country, 80 far as the meeting Of She courts
is concerned, are subordinate to-nOt the
constitution, but the creditors Of ths State,
and controlled BY them.
But, Mr.. Speaker, our books are full Of
statutes providing for the time when and
how remedies shall be used. aud when they
shall expire, for the enforcement Of our CON
tracts aud redress Tor our wrongs. There
are statutes Of Limitation fixing the t,ma
when You shall sue or not sue ia certain
cases. Stay iaws are and have been upon
our statute books for balfa century, stsving
executions for either four, eight or welve
months, and ifany Of theie slatutes have
ever been reg ,rdsd as 'impairing the ohh
CATION Of contracts, OF uncons itutioua I
havs never seen any such decision. n we
have the constitutional right 70 pasa law
staying execution eight mo0ths, We certain
" have the same right and couguuiioual
pover u pass biz staying execution upon
thee cid debts for three years. And II We
have the c0uatitutiaual light % pass q law
requiri & the defendant % give - unity be-
lore he can reserve the benefts Of the stay.
we also have the cons itutional right 70 give
the defendants the beneGto. the stav without
requiring him 70 produce additional securi-
~. The courts never have, within nay
knowledge, decided these remedial ttsf-
utes az unconstitutional upon any ground.
But, upon the contrary, we have decision
directly 10 point, very recently made. which
LAAA Is n AlIAA SUI Gun IiaHlN a-H.ar Oh
Of the question. Last September the su-
preme Court Of Tennessee, sitting as Knox
vile, composed Of three Judges, distiu-
Euisbed alike for their legal earning and
ability, expressly decided that the Legisla-
lnre bad tbe constitutional power % pass a
statute declaring the remedy for the csIlee
tion Of debts, aud that toe change OF the
remedy did not "impair the oblfastiop az
the contract" II q substantial remedy w.
given. The Legislature Of 1851 usrse5 al
set giving tHe defendant 10 q indrmept
twelve months STAY Of execution. ne
oourt IN The decision referred 70 said TAI
ttaf aet vas constitutional, became it p-o-
vided substantial remedy ior the creditor.
goleh % ne only restriction imposed upon
ne LeEiaiature. They distinctly declared
that tne contract vas one thing and ne
rerne4y prgF ided 10 enforce g wss rnothe-
thing. To change the reuedy does not.
therefore, il any way change tie contract.
This decision ought 10 pes 10 rest 10 once
and forever thu question 81 constitutionaiity.
The Supreme Court is the highest I'D cial /
tribunal IN TIE STATE, and iis decis.1na are [
The supreme lac a ne idnf 4 viii not, |
therefore, lake up the time of che senate In /
any further remarks upon this branch of /
the subject.
We are al, By. Speaker, deeply Impressed /
with he act that the caudtion o. the
country Gala loudly for relief, sna hope !
that 40 Senator VIII feel thai be ls dong De
duty IN turning deaf ear 20 those appeals.
III this bin contaias pr9Fiaioas insi are OBJ
as-.nH