The Fairfield herald. [volume] (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1849-1876, 1866-09-19
COLUMBIA, Sept. l3, 1866.

= COLUMBIA, Sept. l3, 1866.
All day yesterday was takon up in
the Senate in the discussion upon Mr..
Towncs' Bill for the suspension of the
Courts. Mr. Sullivan, of Laurcns.
made speech Of about an hours
length in opposition to tho bill. He
argued ably upon it, and declared
that fhis constituents wanted Soma
tor to give them relief in tho manner
proposed in that bill, they must send
some other one than himself. I ad-
mlrod him for that announcement.
Catering to the popular sentiment is
too much of the representative style
nowadays. The Legislaturosean. do
nothing that creditors and debtors
cannot do better among themselves.
Look for a moment at the Bill un-
der consideration. How does it com.
pare with what was known as the
Stay Law l will enclose II copy of
the original bill with the report of the
Committee on the Judiciary upon it,.
Let your readers judge for themselves
of tho merits and dcmcrits.
The Stay Law blocked directly tic
prosecution of suits. This, bill docs
tho Same thing tndirccNy.. In,the' first,
the engine is rcmovcd from the track;'
and thus tho train is prcventedtfroni
running. In the last, the, trad is TAXI
en- away, so that cvon with tile engine
attached, there is no. chance, for the
brain to move. So tho difference be.
tween the Stay Law and the present
proposed action, is twccdloAdum and
twcodlc-dec.
Tho better plan is for the Lcgisla-
turc to issue an address to the people
of South Carolina, setting forth tho
impcdiments, constitutionnlly, in the
way of any action ofthoiw, to give re-
lief in the way in which tho popular
voice seems to demand it. Yesterday
L had communication written and
ready for the press, suggesting this
course, but in looking over tho pro-
ceodings of tho House published in
this mornings issue, I find that Just
such course was begun yesterday in
that body, introduced by Mr.. Haskell
] hope such an address will be issued.
Much is said by tho advocates of this
bill upon tho distinction drawn by
Judge Aldrich in his dissenting opin-
ion, between tho obligation of tho con-
tract and the remedy, and that legis.
lation upon the latter implies no
Legislation upon tho. former. "Thc
remedy in no part of the contract"
say they. The opponents contend that
it is certainly incident toit.
1t seems to me that if special logi s.
lation is made based upon this mcc
abstract distinction, there will be no
end to tampcring with the Courts, and
eventually crippling and impairing
tho credit of tho State. Contracts and
the means of enforcing the obligations
assumed, arc certainly correlativcs.
Remedies were enacted for contracts !;
contracts are made with view to
remedies. B would not lend. G mon
ey IN any great amount merely upon
his word to refund it.. He will avail
himself first of tho remedy in SO far as
it consists in getting sureties for pay
mcnt of the amount loaned, and scc-
ond of the remedy in so far as it. con-
sists in sueing and getting Judgment,
# tie Grst fails. Now tho relation of
tho contract to tho remedy is so close
that to tonch ono produces an effect
upon the other. To illustrate.
b loaned @ hundred dollars in
July 1866, and received his note paya-
bic on the first of July 1866. The
note becomes due, but g is unable or
to redeem It,. B knew when
hetmado tho loan tho remedy could
be applied at the Fall Term, of tho
Court. But the Legislature abolish.
es that Court. Has it intcrfercd with
the contract by abolishing the reme-
dy Docs that act impair the obli-
cation of tho contract !? To my hum
bio Judgment it does.
But say tho advocates, the Constitu.