The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1865-10-03
SUPREME COURT OF THE U. s. IN
OF PRIVATE DEBTS.
from the Standard

FROM the Standard.
No State shall pass any law impaising the
obligation OF contracts.--Constitution q. s.,
Art. l, Sec 10.
There is perhaps no prohibitory clause in the
Constitution, which, from the foundation of the
Government, has been more generally the SUBJ
ject of discussion, or given rise to more protrac
red litigation, than that which, prohibits the
States from passing any law inpairing the obi
cation of contracts. As the meaning and intent
of this clause has often been called in question,
and is subject of some interest at present, it
may be we'll to review the decision of an author
ity from which there is constitutional appeal.
| allude to the Supreme Court of the United
States. It's decisions'in this matter have been
from the first clear and uniform.
This clause of the Constitution was first
brought in direct discussion in the celebrated
case of Fletcher u.s. Peck The Legislature of
Georgia by an Act Of Jan. 7th, 1895, author
lied the sale OF certain tract of wild land be-
longing to the State, aud a grant was made in
pursuance OF said act to a company of individ-
uals under the name of the Georgia Company
1t being we'll ascertained fact that the Legis-
lature had been bribed-members having re-
ceived sums varying from $40 to $500 each-to
pass said act, the succeeding Legislature which
assembled in 1896, declared the act and the
ing founded in fraud and corruption. The U.
S. Court being appealed to, held-That grant
. from State is as much protected by the opera
ton of the provision Of the Constitution as the
grant from one individual to another; and the
State is as much inhibited from impairing its
own contracts or contract to which it is party,
as 1T IS from ln.pdtrtng the obligation of con-
tract betsoeen taoO indioiduals. The act of the
Legislature of 1896 was consequently held as
null and void. 1t is maxim in the Law, GEO.
temperance erpoSttiO est DOtentiSsfna IN lege."
While the decision Of the Supreme Court, as
: the final pow authorized 10 decide the intent
Of any part of the Constitution, must forever
settle the matter legally, this decision within
nine or ten years of its formation by tire able
jurists who then composed the bench, and who
were cotemporaneous with the Constitution
itself, must 60 far to settle in our minds the
actual intent of the trainers of that instrument.
In the great case of Dartmouth College u.s.
Woodardrd, in which this inhibitory clause of
the constitution received the most elaborate dis
cussioD, and in which Daniel Webster so emf
nenty distinguished himself, Judge Story went
so far as to deny the power of the Legislature
to dissolve even the contract Of marriage with
out a breach on either side, against the wishes
of the parties. A man has as good right to his
wife as to the property acquired under
rage contract, and to divest him Of that right
without his default or assent, would be as fla
grant violation of justice as confscation of his
estate. In Green Us. BidUe it was observed
by the court that the objection to law on the
ground of its impairing the obligation of con
tracts could never depend upon the extent Of
the change which the law effects in it. Any
deviation from its terms, affecting the period Of
performance, imposing or removing conditions
however minute or apparently mmaterial in its
effect upon the contract.or any part parcel of
it impairs its obligation. A change merely in
the legal proceedings by-whch the performance
OF the contract is enforced, provided it does not
in any way affect the contract itself, is not con-
sidered as impairing the obligation of contracts.
In the case of .Sturges U.s. Croaoninshield the
defendant was sued in one of the Federal courts
upon two promissory notes, given in March,
1911, and he pleaded his discharge under an
issovent act of New York, passed in April,
fe1f. This insolvent act was retrospective,
and discharged the debtor upon his surrender
ing his property in the nanner therein pre-
scribed, without the concurrence Of any credi-
tors, from all pre-exstirg debts, and from all
liability and responsibility therefor. The court
ruled that the New York act of April, 1911,
impaired the obligation of contracts, and was,
consequently, nc bar to the suit.
When the plea is brought forward that the
loss OF certain species OF property destroys tire
obligation to perform all contracts We are tempt
ed to ask with ShyIock, "Was it so nominated
in the bond 2" Was it understood when pro-
mise was made to pay you.a thousand dollars
that should the party so promising lose half his
property he should pay you nothing? *
TO all honest men it will be evident that how
ever loss of large part of their property may
affect their ability to perform their contract, it
will not in the least impair the obligation. For
others We may well bespeak an attention to the
above case of Sturges Us. Cro,cntnshiela.
CAMILLUS.
PROBABLE ABOLITION OF THE FREEDMEN
BuRE Au.-The President is utterly disguised with