The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1866-06-21
COLUMBIA.
Thursday Morning, june u, 1856.
The Stay Law.

We have been, Oh one or twa occa
sions, asked what were our views on
the late action OF the Court Of Errors,
pronouncipg the stay lay, unconsti-
tutional.'>
We do not know that our opinion
is worth anything, but, as we give it
daily ON number of subjects, at the
m oderate fee OF eight dollars per
annum, We do not see Why we should
withhold it on the question ut issue.
Our opinion is simply this: That the
DECISION OF the Court was right, and
having, early in our career rs jour
nahst, made the Constitutions of the
United States our chief article of
faith on most of the questions we
might be called to discuss, we now
refer to it Oh this point. In the first
article, tenth clause, of that. instru-
ment, we find written and commanded
by its trainers, that 'eno State shall
pass any law inpairing the obligation
Of contracts.
To our minds, this is simple, but
clear and emphatic language, and, as
South Carolina adopted and ratified
this Constitution, in less than one
year after it had been adopted by the
deputies of the people in Convention
assembled, we cannot perceive how
the Legislature of this or any other
State has any right whatever to pass
any law subversive of the above arti-
Gle. We, of South Carolina espe-
cially, who have become deservedly
noted for our firm adherence to the
provisions of this honored instru-
ment, should be very chary of even
seeming to trench upon it's wise and
patriotic behests.
But beyond this positive prohibi-
ton of the fundamental law of the
land against any interference with
private contracts, there are various
considerations which should weigh
with all our people. La the first
place, the debtor of this State to any
creditor in another can be sued in
the United States Court, and his full
fllment of the obligation enforced.
The State law against the collection
OF debts would be not only disre-
garded by that tribunal, but would
be justly pronounced unconstitution-
al And little reflection must con-
vince any thinking mind, that law
which keeps the home creditor out of
his dues, and leaves the door wide
open for the foreign creditor, is not
only contrary to the Constitution, but
contrary to erery rule Of right nnd.j JUS
tice 6et,ceen man and man.
But again, it may be held, and
probably is so held by many, that the
stay law does not impair the obliga-
tions of contracts, inasmuch rs the
validity of the debt is kept intact,
and that the law merely prevents its
collection for the time being. But
another moments reflection will
bring to our minds many ways in
which the creditor might lose his
debt because Of its existence. Death,
misfortune, or the destruction of the
property upon which the debt was
originally based, might forever bar
the creditor from recovering that
which was justly his.
The argument that the enforce
ment Of obligations, in the shape of
debts, at this time, would be cruel and
oppressive, has nothing whatever to
commend it. The fact that a North
erner, or any other creditor out of
this State, can collect his dues. even
at the sacrifice Of property, strips it
Of any weight it might possibly have
And we hold that the creditor has
rights as we'll as the debtor, which
are guaranteed by the Constitution
and laws. A merchant may have
several debtors whose aggregate in
debtedness, We say, for the sake of
illustration, reach $4,000, while he
owes the New York wholesale mer-