The daily clarion. [volume] (Meridian, Miss.) 1863-1866, 1866-01-03

limited and prohibited, and the laws are
void
The Constitution of the United States,
section l. article 10, has this provision: NO
State shall pass any bill of attainder er post
facto law, or law impairing the obligations
of contracts" Here, too, the power TO sus-
pend laws given by the 10Th section, article
l. of the Constitution of the State OF MIS-
sssippi and which is but law of the State,
is limited to the passage of such laws. as do
not ''impair the Obligations of contracts
Are these acts of 1S0l and 1865 laws I'M
pairing the obligations of contracts, with
| in the meaning of these provisions of these
Constitutions, or are they only laws affect
| ing and regulating the remedy! If the for
ner they are void if the latter they are
valid.
Immediately after the close of the revolu-
tionary struggle and before the Legisla-
tures of the Colonies and States, III their i'll !
i dependent character, under the severe pres
| s1l Re then pending, had passed many laws o1 |
the character prejudicial to private. right
among them laws well known under the APP |
4 pellation of tender laws, dpprdisemeht tdUS
and suspension ld,cs, We're from time to time
enacted which Frustrated all private credit
and private morals. By some of these laws
due payment of debts were suspended, DEBTS
We're in violation of the very terms OF the
contract authorized to be pald by lnStal-
ments at different periods. property OF every
sort either real or personal might be tender
ed by the debtor i'll payment OF his deptS
and the creditor compelled to take the
property of the debtor, which he might selze
on execution, at an appralSement WnoLy us
proportionate to its value. Such grievances
and expressions, and others OF like nature,
were the ordinary results of this Legislation
and continued down to the formation OF
the Constitution. They entalled the most
enormous evils on the country, and intro
duced "A system of fraud, chicanery and pro
firacy which destroyed all private confl-
e iDlu uStT and pOtprOFISP. 10 rPIIeNe
; the country of this great evil, and especial
q ly to guard it against recurrence OF II, the
h foregoing provision was inserted III the Con-
e stitution of the United States, aud has been
copied into that of Mississippi, and most sat
h istactorily has it achieved the purpose con-
l. templated our judicial history will album
dainty establish
h 1t is the civil obligation of contracts
J. which this provision of these constitutions
is designed to uphold and protect from VI
A. olation by the Legislature ; that Is the oD-
st l.gation which is recognized by and results
ID from the law of the State i'll which 1t IS
S made. Generally speaking, when we speak
to of the obligation of contract, we include
- in the idea some known means, acknOWl-
rt edged by the municipal law, to enforce 1t.
5 | When all such means are absolutely denied,
tt the obligation of the contract Is understood
rs to be impaired though it may not be COM
H. pletely destroyed
H. What may properly be deemed impairing
VS. the obligations of contracts i'll the sense ol
IL the Constitution 1t is perfectly clear that
e- any law which enlarges, abridges, or III any
manner changes the intention of the par
he ties resulting from the stipulations IN the
,ir contract, necessarily impairs it. The manner
a. or degree in which this change Is effected
can in no respect influence the conclusion
it for whether the law affect the Validity, the
rs constructions the duration, the discharge ol
re- the evidence of the contract it lmpalrs IT.
III obligation, though it may not do so to th'
.y same extent III all cases. Any deviation
of from its terms by pOStponing, or accelerattnS
of the period of performance, which 1t pre-
ne scribes, imposing conditions not expressed
III the contract, or dispensing with the per
ro- formance of those which are Il part OF th
of contract, however minute or apparently I'M
of material i'll their effect upon it, Impair ii
Dn- obligation. Although there Is no distinction
ey, between the eblig3tion ot a contract, and
OF reIuedy upon it, Yet if there are certain rem
by edies existing at the time when it is made
So all of which are afterwards wholly eXti
tor guished, or suspended by new laws, so tha
CHI there remain no present means OF enforcing
"" its obligation, and no redress, such an at
rts olitiun ~ suspension of all remedies Opel
ate ating presently, is an impairing of the obi
ay CATION of the contract.
ion Every change and modification of tn
remedy does not involve such a copss
Gu "n@nce.
on
- o one VIII uOuDJ UldU IIlc I-CSsIol't''NA
dp- may vary the nature and extent OF the rell
9f edics but some present substantive remed
for i'll fact must be left.
nd, The Obligation TO perform a,
ion arises and grows out of the agreement
md the very moment of its creation-it oT3
mates with the contract itself. The remed
act acts upon the broken contract, and but el
les forces pre-existing obligation.
re-" Nothing" says the Supreme Court OF IL
1ro- United States, in the ease OF Green VS. Bl
II ,nl,nT
for more clear upon principles OF law an
of reason than that law which denies to ii
a. owner of land a remedy to recover the po
~ session of it. when withheld by any perso
y of however innocently he may have obtalnt
INTO it, or to recover the profits received from
;cor by the occupant, or which clogs his recover
of of such possession and profits, by condition
in 4 and restrictions tending to diminish II
~ | value and amount of the thing recoVere
,on, impairs his right to, and interest III Il
property If there be no remedy to recoV
the possession, the law necessarily presum
nit a want of right to it. If the remedy atford'
re- be qualified and restrained by conditions
e of any kind the right of the owner may l
for deed subsist and be acknowledged, but
in is impaired and rendered insecure, aceord11
to the nature and extent OF such restrl
lese tionS
t of Chief Justice Sharkey, in the case OF Coz
will nercial Bank of Manchester, VS.. the State
ar Mississippi, 4, Smedes Il Marshall's Rep 81
hat SAYS: Cone of the tests, that a contract b
wer been impaired, is, that its validity has,
eX legislation been diminished. 1T is not
ty." the Constitution, to be impaired at all II
con- is not question OF degree, or manner,
ther cause but Of an encrOaching, i'll any respe'
tate on its obligation, dispensing with any part
and its force"
to Again he says in the same case, THE ma
of ner or degre of the change does not intiuen
d of the conclusion whether the law affects t
avs validity, the duration, the construction, t
e to dischorge, or the evidence of the contra
nent it is the same thing, Any deviation from
det- terms by postponing or accelerating the ]
rop- riod of its performance, which imposes &C
pull ditions not expressed, or which dispens
the with those which are a part of it, hOwey
sOrs. minute immaterial, impairs its obi!
N of tions"
Sc in Chief Justice Taney, in the case of Brt
egis- son VS., Knsie, How, Rep 3I7, S. c. IA, C1
pced tis' Decisions s. c. L. S. p. 633 in deliveri