New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-03-01
House of Representatives.

The House came to order at IL NJ, Mr.. Elan,
Speaker pro tenn. in the Chair.
Prayer by Rev. DR.. Hedges.
Nr. Blackburn offered resolution precluding
suspension of the rules to take up out OF their order
bills not reported upon by committees.
Mr.. Thieneman proposed substitute prohibit
ing the introduction of bills by members until the
business on the calendar was disposed Of If
Both the substitute and the original resolution
were laid on the table. ..-
Mr.. williamson read an extract of a letter from
Senator Randel Hunt, relative to certain defcien-
ces in the report which he had received of the joint
committee of the assembly concerning the sena-
torial claims of Messrs. Hahn and Cutler, which
deficiencies consisted in the absence orinsuficiency
of proof, to be had, to sustain certain averments
of the report. On motion of Mr. Williamson, the
members of the committee were excused from at
tendance at the sttings of the House until they
can supply the omissions in the report.
Mr.. Fenner was excused from the special COM
mittee to investigate charges against employers
of the Jackson railroad, upon representing that his
engagements would not permit him to accompany
the committee on its expedition on the road, and
Mr.. Eager was appointed in his place.
Mr.. Gates, from the Committee on Claims, re-
the relief of A. B. HALEY.
Mr.. Solomon, from the joint special committee
TO whom was referred the memorial of property
holders on the GENTLY road demonstrating against
equality in municipal taxation, from which they
derived no benefit, either in police, light or road
improvements reported favorably by bill re-
quiring the common council of New Orleans to
make a distinction in taxation between urban and
suburban properties
Mr.. Solomon asked that the House proceed to
the consideration of the bill Immediately. The
city election was close at hand, and it would be
well to pass this law speedily.
Mr.. Bailey objected. He thought the bill uncon.
sttutional, and as it was very important amend
ment 40 the city charter, he moved its reference
to the committee charged with the consideration
of such amendments.
The motion prevailed, and the bill was referred
accordingly.
Mr.. Head introduced bill to ratfy and legit
mate certain acts of officials of the State within
the Confederate lines during the war, and the bill
was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
On motion Of MFR. Peterson, his bill providing
two sheriffs for the parish of Orleans WAS take1
| up and referred to the city delegation.
The vote by which the consideration of the bill
for the relief Of the State Academy at Alexandra
was postponed for two weeks was reconsidered
and the bill so placed that it will come up in it
regular order on the calendar.
On motion of Mr.. McEnery, the Senate bill "tt
regulate the sale of property seized under an orde
of seizure and SALE or writ of ieria facias,' wa
| taken up.
The bill provided (section one,) that propert
offered for sale as described by the title, shoul
not be sold for less than the full amount of the ap
praisement (secton two,) that property seized ol
an execution issued on a twelve months bond, O
on Judgment where the appraisement had beer
waived, should be offered and adjudged in th'
same manner (secton three,) that the law SHOULD
not apply to defauters of trust funds, delinquen
tax payers or debtors to charitable institutions
nor to obligations entered into since June ], 1865
and that (section fourth the law should continu
in force until January, 1868.
! Mr. Fenner contended that the second sectol
| was unconstitutional 1t was vested right of TIL
creditor under the circumstances described by tn
section, that he should have the right to sell with
| out apprasement The passage of such bill
while failing to accomplish the object sought
would greatly increase and complicate litigation
| Mr.. McEnery did not agree with Mr.. Fenner i
his constitutional view The bill simply propose
to change the remedy for enforcing contract, an
the legislature was competent to make such change
Mr.. Williamson regarded the bill as er pos
facto impairing the obligations of contract and
therefore, unconstitutional. The waiver of al
prasement was part of the contract, whether b
confession of judgment or originally before
notary public.
| Mr. Elan (Mr. Leeds in the Chair) agreed tha
an er post tdcto law, impairing the obligations Q
contracts, was unconstitutional; but he did nc
regard this as such a law. The proposition was t
change remedial measure, and the law maxim
power was sufficient to modify suchmeasures, an
apply the change to existing or prospective cor
tracts. How could constitutional objection b
made to a single changa of this character, whe
Individually 1t was competent for people, throug
amendments to theif fundamental law, or by leg
ative action, to remodel the whole judicial sys
tenn? change in the remedy did not impair tn
obligation of the contract. The contract wa
inviolahie; but to say that every step in til
administration of justice was part of tile col
tract and therefore was unchangable in its bearin
upon that contract, he argued was erroneous.
Mr. Fenner repeated his conviction of the III
constitutionaty of the bill, and that when jud
ciay tested it would prove inoperatiye--of Il
effect. 1t was not merely change of remedy.
was more. Thousands of contracts were made
which it was specifically provided that under sale
by execution appraisement should be waived
The Supreme Court had decided that such a col
tract was perfectly valid, and the legislature ha
no more right to annul that part of the contra.
than any other.
Mr.. Head meved to strike out of the second se'
ton the words, "or on Judgment where the al
prasement has been waived"
Mr.. Montgomery saw nothing in the bill til
courts could regard as unconstitutional. The rigl
to change remedies prescribed for the enforcemsl
of contracts was ndisputable, and this bill afecte
4 the remedies alone, not the contracts. Where
waiver was embraced specifically in contrac
the waiver had reference only as to remed
4 measure, and as such could be legslated on witt
out touching the essence of the contract.
Mr.. Walker did not think the constitutional ol
lection had any argument to sustain it, He quote
decision of the Supreme Court to show ths
remedial measures, forms of proceeding and pre-
scription were all open to change, and the chang
made applied to existing contracts. The section
he thought, should stand as it was.
Mr.. Head thought Mr.. Fenner's argument ool
rect so far as it related to express waivers of al
praisement. He mir. H. was in favor of til
remainder of the bill.
Mr. McEnery considered the constitutional oil
lection unfounded.F The waiver related to an e2