Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1866-02-21
Judge Aldrich sustains the Constitu-
tfonaiists of the Stay Law.
From the Charleston Courier.

ttOUdlIStS VI VIC Ethy No"s
From, the Charleston Courier.
THE STATE IS. JonS Z. CAREw, SHERIFF.
Charleston, January Term, lSG6-4ldrieh, >.
This case was sub,nittedto me upon o rule
ON Mr.. Carew, the Sheriff of Charleston Dis
trict. The rule, the return the:eto, and the
grounds .of appeal, which will appear in the
Brief, will sufficiently indicate oil that is
necessary to full understanding Of the
case.
have not been enlightened by argument.
The learned counsel, Mr.. Lord, who moved
the rule, supposing that, as the point submit
ted involved constitutional question, the
case would necessarily go to the Court OF
Errors, ,couterted' himselfwith furnishing me
with the authorities upon which he intends
to rely for tho support. of::his motion. .
MY library was burnedb by Gen. Sherman's
army when.it passed through Barnwell, and
have not had the opportunity to examine
the cases submitted. My brethren of the
Bar have kindly gver me the use of such
books as they havesaved, and | wilLnow pro-
ceed to give the reasons which govern me in
discharging the rule, regretting that ! have
animation. am not satisfied; 81 ffii6 question
Of such general interest and so great impor-
lance. to simply indicate my judgment with
out giving the reasons for my opinion.
The cases cited are as follows:
Slurges rs. Crownins held, 4 Wheat, 200 {;
| Keot's CON-, Ajrg. p. 4l9; Green vs.. BID
die, 8 Wheat, p. /; Ogden VS.. Saunders, II
Wheat, p. 2l3; Brush VS.. Kensie, l Howard,
Ill; IA Curtis, 62S; McCracken vs.. Hey
ward, Howard, COS; IS Curtis, 22S.
The first Act passed b. the Legislature
was presented by me, and was prepared In
the Solicitors room at my instance. 1t was
somewhat altered from the original draft, apG
was adopsed with but little discussion. did
not then, and have not since, carefully exam
ined the constitutional question here raised.
propose now briefly to make that examina-
ton.
The whcle argument turns upon the single
proposition, that the remedy is a part O the
contract. Ifthis be'true, the ruling that4
have m ade is wrong and must be reversed,
The only books and cases that baYe been
able to consult are kent'S Commentaries and
Sturges VS.. Crowninsbield, and Ogden vs.:
cited in Marshall in, the Federal
Court. The question is.very fully examln-
ed in these authorities, and while am tree
to say that have never considered Chan
ce!lor Kent as very high authority on constl,
tutional law, yet am quite prepared 10 y'eid
nv iudrmentto the force Of his reasoning
whenever it is convinced Of the truth Of his
nronos;t;on. Tho fact that the distinguished
iurists, whose opinions are collected IN these
cases. differ in their conclusions, is very
strong reason why, on 80 Important ques'
ton. I should exercise my independent Judg-
Etthe time the firstsAct was passed by
tho Legislature popularity called the Stay
Lou--this constitutional objection vas ra!s
ed, and at each subsequent enactment The
came exception has been taken, although
do not now remember thatit@ has been; ear
nestly pressed or fully argued. 4 thought
then as l think now, that the remedy 1san
incile,a to TIC cqttraet, but no part 81 ts the
:c,mtrqct. 1T is, truethat 8 contract. 10 ltseli
lesaI, once entered into, cannot be destroyed
he SUBSEQUENT legislation, because that would
he directly in the teeth not only Of the Con;
stitntion of the United States, but OF our>owna
State, for both Constitutions have the same an :
provision: ,"No State shall pass any Blll " oi
attainder, expost facto law, OF. law lmParing
,heiobIinatior of contract'--Const. United
,S,otes Sec 10, Art. l. "Nor shall any. Bill
IF aiaiuder, expcst acto'law,or law'irppar-
;nr fbe obligation of contracts, ever be pass
sd bv. the General Assembly"-Const., So.
~. 17on, Art 10 Sec. g. Const. So. nCa5
1865. Art.9, Sec. 2. ~ - az -
Wien the State says TO the Creditor lin a
lime of general distress you may not add 10
tLe calamity which overwhelms theJand, oy
uarrassins with law suits aud Sheriff 3 sales
.bose who happen to be- inyour debt does
sucI a mandate impair tue obligation of the
,sntract? A in November promises to pay
3 one hundred dollars, sixty days alter date
In December the Legislature passed thessiaw'
snt;sled lsAn Ae. 10 extend relief to debtors,
and TO preTent tho, sacrifice, OF, property al
.,nbHc sales.''s The Act suspeIds the RENE
~ and afso suspends the opera fion OF tie
statute Of limitations. Now what is the,o6
lira.;on of that contract? That tin-sixty days
B will pay to A the hppdred dollars' Ina, Ina!
il the whole obligation, nothing moro ana
.aothins less. As anincident to this contract
LSouever, if B. does moi, pay tho hundred COZ
Flara, as therein stipulated, A has the right to
sue him. and B runs tile risk ct costs, ano
sale of his property by tbe Sheriff bu. II y
this right to sue. and this danger Of costs and
;sale, a part of the obligation Of the &c contract
OF ouls the legal incident, remedy 10 Il she
contract2 Who can obligesA to sue Z Ihe
tIsw cannot. B canuot.s No power-can com
.lshim, To- institute q slit .for. thegeniorce
nent 6f bis contract IF the remedy be
part Of the contract it is equally binding
upoh the creditor and debtor, upon both par
ties do the aersenisnt, I have said, the asb
tor cannot compel the creditor TO sue It ht
.oon,tb; it might, felieseshin. from hopeless IN
tsaleeney, afdaenab.etbimsby ansnrrsnder o
eli iilse sefFsas 90 ccmfnence Life ;aneg Hitd
Drcspect of asiii5ziia his fsssssiunA as1s'