Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1866-02-07
For the Advertiser.

s The Legislature 1850 passed In Act entitled
Gan Act to e1tendrniilf Debtors, and to pre-
Ssnstae sacriacseof pfSIerty at Ipublic SALE"
fhis:act has bcea estsnde ded by. Subsequent Leg
islatnfss, and hessbeens made of force until the
4aj SnrHm ops d ths 7o1t Session of the existing
/ Sgs4ssat As lsagls GhisAstise commonly known
Pile being directed to moro engrOsJng topio', the
validity and policyaef, this Statute were seldom
inquired into. Of late however, public attention
ha. boen TUNED to It's object snl operation, and
both. seem to DO at variance with Constitutional
obligation md Ssodnd State policy. = i
: It iuhqnssti6nably a correct principle in the
enactment sofss,atutcs operation should
he prospective; and no Statute can have retro
spective operation, eunless it be. rsmsdiali ard
thsn it must not impair contracts, or disturb
vestodefights: This doctrine is we'll recognized
in ibis State, in Finley VS.. Hunter, 2strob. Eq.
Rcp., 2l5. Other cases might be citcd and Els
| IN entail works quoted on this point, but the de-
cision ftcm our OWN Reports. is deemed sufficient
for tho purpose of. this communication. Rcmelial
Statutes are:in general intended to remedy some
defects in tho eummonslau,; and nro thencontra-
distinguished from dCciara,ory Statutes, which
DECLARE what tho common laxi.; or roiuedy some
defects,1 or hardships fntho peEai code, and arc
then mentioned, in con.rndistirction TO Penal
,Statutea,-Blac. Com. VOL p. 50. BY sec. 10,
i.At..J, Conat q, S. a., it's ordained, among
other things, that s.no State shall rcss any Bill
Of attainder, erpost facto Law, or law impairing
tho obj CATION of:oon.racts, &C." ::
From. the preceding statcments and authoriiic',
tho following propositions established: First,
That the operations Of every Statute must be pro-
spective, unlsssit. be remedial. Secondly, That
remedial Statutes can only have retrospective
effect, whom they do not impair tho obligation of
contracts, or disturb vested rights. Thirdly, That
remedial Statutes are understood as only remedy
ing SONS defects in tho common low, or lritsa-
.ing Tho: risor Of the Pcnnl Code. Fourthly,
That no State con pass law impairing the obli-
cation of contracts.
The question we propose to examipp briefly in
this Communication, is the Constitutionaiity Of
tho Stay Law, and ifs effect upon the'cOntrac' OF
individuals. : =. -.
4: A contract may bo defined to be IN agreement
4 betUecp-parties by which one of them undertakes
4 to lo or MOTTO do, n.particular thing. The law,
say, Chief Justice Marshall, "binds him to per-
form his undertaking and thi, is, Of course. the
obligation Of his contract" In tho case of stnr-
ees va. Crowningshield, in which the question ol
the Cons,tutionality Of State law, in Its eiioe'
upon the obligation of contracts, Was considered
the same learned Judge used the following Ian
guagp, "1n the case at BAR. tho Defendant has
T given his.pronissory nototo pay tho Rlaintif 8
sum of money, on or before certain day. Th'
J. contract bind, him to pay that sum on lfhat day
and this is iis obligation" ANY law which re-
leases part of th, obligation must, in the liter
r al sense Of tho word, impair it'd Wheap Rep
= l97. Tho contract in tho above case, was OF
agreement to pay money at q certain day, in th'
form of a promissory note. Two obligation!
arose from that conracts,-ono to pay money
and The other to pay itatia certain timc.- Any
interference on the psrtof the Legislature, mitl
either Of the obligations arising from the express
!, agreement Of the parties, by which tho rights o
the obliged party is in any way affected, is an i'm
pairing Of the obligation Of the contract within
r the meaning of the decision Of Sturgcs vs.. Crown
ngshield, and the inhibition of the Constitution
Of the United States, and ia unquestionably lille
i gal, and it was so determined.
{ But there is another decision of the Courts OF
SessBludIe; ~ WI
ruled "that any deviation from the terms Of
contract, by postponing or accoleraiing the porot
, of performance which il prcscribCs DC, impair
. ts obligation,"-s Wheas q. S. Rep, "a. = .
f But independent of Judicial decisions, tire
quires very little legal acumcn to discover wha
tho meaning Of tho Constitution Of tho United
States i, in this regard. It is merely the moor
poratiou in the Ghartor of the General Govern
msnt, Of q well.recognized rule of universal JUS
tice ANY Interference BY Government or any
of its dcpartments in the private concerns Of in.
dividuals, is an ignorant and unwarrsntablo as
sumption of fsuperior wisdom which philosophi
cal stntesmanship has always condemned. The
Stay Law undertakes to release party from per-
forming his contracts at the time he has under.
taken to do so; and dcfers the obligation to such
period as the Legislature shall determine. In
other words, 1t puts the obiging party out of the
tsrms of his obligation, and substantially says
that he shall perform his contract, not whom be
has agreed to do so, but when the Legislature
shall direct. In other words, it substitutes tho
will of the Legislature for tho contract of tho
parties. Is there rational being who will as
sumo to question tho impniring Of contracts by
sueh low as this! In tho, case quoted from the
! U. S. Rep, Whea, Rep, 1917, Marshsll, Ch. j.,
uass tho folloan glanguagc in regard to tho words
"imparing the obligation. of contracts p" It
would seem dilc cult to substitute words which arc
rcintehsible, orIess liable to omisconst-uction,
than those which arc to be explained" - =;
The law says that q party promising, cannot
absslye himself frsm ! !!be obligation Of his con-
tract ;.nnd law and common sense both declare
:taat ecannot delegate oils representatives The
spo~et which be aOeai not possess himself. The
Legislature however undertakes to determine, tho
obligations OF citizens contrary to- thpir. express
agreement, and to regulate and postpone tho per-
formance Of them. From whence and from
whom, is such power dorivsd7 - i;3i
In conclusion, therefore, we do not think That
there can bo any; doubt of the illegulity of the
Stay Law. There arc some persons perhaps who
mny suppose that, although illegal, it may be
oxpediOut AZ, If any thing can bo ocxpcdieIt that
is unlawful. For tho benefit of. such patties, wo
will, with your permission, Mr.. Eptron, occupy
your columns with another article showing tho
impOlicy and dangerous tendency o. all such
legislation. ULPIIN.
~ We understand (says the Marion Cre,ceni)