The tri-weekly news. [volume] (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1865-1876, 1866-07-10

Hence any dealing with the remedy,
any change in the language of Story,
as to the 'tlmcs and modest Of giving
redress for breaches of contracts which
docs not impair this obligation as
stated, does not come within the pro-
hibitiou of the, Constitution of the
United States. The Legislature may
say, that no suit shall be brought on u
note, after six years from it's maturity.
No.onc has oyer contcnued that such
an act impairs the Obligation of the
contract. Tho legislature has equal
right and power if thoys saw fit to de-
clare by law that no suitshould be in
stitutcd on promisory notes after two
years from their maturity, or one
year, or any'shorter timo, provided it
WAS reasonqhly;long in the Judgment of
the Courts for parties interested, to
look after their rights. Such actionof
the logislaturerit is admitted on all.
sides, would affect notes made before,
as well az aftep. lit is Also admitted,
that such action would be constitutions
AL, Well, if'it is constitutional for
the Legislature in providing remedies
for brolon contracts, to- deny all REM
cdy after sin years, or two years, or
one year to the holder. of note with
out impairing the obligation of the
contract, isit not just as constitutions
alto provide that when parties come
into Court to seek ;redrcssfor breaches
of contracts, that an equally REASONS
bic tiule shall be allowed, before final
execution shall be awarded without
impairing the obligation of the. .eoH,
tract! That certainlyremnins @ing
tact by the Legislature in the onss$;Dl+,
stance as the other. If the obljgaSiai5,
is unimpaired when all rcmEdyHgtis
barred in the one case, equallyso is it,
in the other when there is only reas-
enable postponement of the compensa-
tion awarded for its breach re q,% Al Z.
Ifho was right III showing that this
act of the legislature fell properly
within that class of laws as remedies,
then he quoted ,Marshal's remarks as
not only applicable butpotent on the
question, whenhe said,:nr, ~. ur,,t
,'i"Without impairing the obligation
iof the contract, the remedy may GER
tainly be modified as the wisdom OF
the nation mayrdircct.'
,s lie also quoted rs pertinent and
having force on this question, in his
opinion, the remark Of Justice j ohm
son of the u. S. Supreme Court in
a case where hc'sMd: 80 r
.hi "The right then of creditors to the
aid of the publioarm for the recovery
of contracts, is not absolute and un-
limited, but may be modified by the
necessities of society" 2 ',
1, The policy of this act of the legisla-
,ture, Mr.. Stephens vindicated at great
length, and maintained that it was es-
sential for the creditors as a clss as it
was for the debtors.
Without it, or something like it,
the obligatiomof the. contracts of crcdi-
tors as a class though perfect, would be
almost worthless while under the pro-
vision of tic act the obligation re-
naming unimpaired, full compensation
might be obtained. ,ig y.,.
General Gobbyheld the act of the
Legislature, called "stay laws and in
stallment laws" impaired the obliga-
tion of contracts, and consequently un-
constitutional and void:
e The true doctrine to be drawn from
all the argument and authorities he
said, is this: That the Legislature had
no authority to interfere with che con-
tracts of parties neither directly by
changing them, nor,indirectly by legis-
lstipg on the mode Of enforcing them.
The Legislature can. for the purpose of
giving, efficacy to contracts, and there,
by advance the ends of justice, d deal
with the he'remedy; but this power can
never be;exercised with the7view and
for the purpose Of relieving the par
ties. from the, legal effects of the con
tracts which they have voluntarily as.
sumed.. 2 Where there is Just cause of
complaint by. either party, chat the
existing remedy promisede by the law,
'P..yL "a LtnL II LlAIIk. oGkftLyxs