New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-03-01

vantage of the law which he had waived.
Mr.. Mcconnell called attention to the fact that
the bill had been reported by the Judiciary Com
mittee without recommendation or expression OF
opinion and he moved that it be recommitted to
procure the opinion of that committee, which was
the law adviser Of the House, on the constitution
ality of the measure. The legislature had up to
certain point, control of remedial measures, and
no further, and that point was when the change of
remedy affected the contract, or impaired the
obligation of contract. Upon that ground the law
making power could not tread. BE was in favor
of some measure, if it could be constitutionally
devised, to relieve the debtor who was entitled to
indulgence, but he warned gentlemen against pass
ing bill SO obviously unconstitutional as this, for
IT could result in no good to the parties sought to
be relieved, since the courts must disregard it as
unconstitutional. %
Mr.. Eam, chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
explained that although no opinion had been ex-l
pressed by the committee as body, the constitu-
tionality of ths measure had been eanvased, and
| majority of the committee were of opinion that
it was unconstitutional.
Mr. Elan moved to lay the motion to recommit
on the table, and it was laid on the table. y
Mr.. Walker moved to lay Mr.. Heads amend
ment on the table, but the motion was negatived.
And the amendment was adopted.
Mr.. Head proposed another amendment, which
was agreed to, to add at the close of the section
the words after due appraisement as in the first
offering.
Thus amended the section was adopted. The
third section was adopted as it stood. The fourth
section being under consideration,
Mr.. Mcconnell remarked that it was the obvious
6acin Of fbat To fba India ot
rights of creditors until January 1868. That was
patent on the face of it, and such design was
clearly unconstitutional The obiter dictun of in.
dividual judges could be found on both sides of
this stay law question: but he ventured to say that
no decision of court could be shown contradic-
tory to his proposition, that the law making power
had not authority to change remedies so as to af-
feet contracts, to impair the obligations of con.
tracts, and not those obligations clearly i'm
paired by suspending for two years the laws for
the collection of debts? In addition to the objec-
ton of unconsttutionalty, there was another very
strong argument against the BILL the injurious eff
feet 1t would have upon credit.
Mr.. McEnery could not conceive how law
could be pronounced unconstitutional by reason Of
its duration, for short or long time, for def
mite or an indefinite period.
| L.
ing that the length of time law was to be in force
was evidence of its unconstitutonality, but il
view of the object of the bill it was evidence o
unconstitutionalty of design.
Mr.. Bailey was opposed to the measure as mani
festly stay law. 1t was intended to suspend th'
collection of debts due by people in the country tt
merchants in New Orleans. If this bill should g
into operation the old merchants of New orlean
would disappear from the stage, and new peopl
would take their places, and the planter woul
hardly find the new set so friendly or indugent a
the old ones. Mr.. Bailey also argued that sta
laws, in whatever shape they were put, were dc
structive of credit.
MIR. Waggaman saw in matter alone W
changeable laws. The laws Of man were variable
adapted to the circ cumstances and exgencies
the times The revolution from which the countr
had emerged, the disastrous effects of that revolt
ton upon the material interests of the State woul
suffice to justify the measure before the House. Til
judgment of legal gentlemen on this matter wa
hampered by technicalites. The relation of debto
and creditor had always been a source of conter
ton. It had been so for three thousand gears
The pound of flesh was often exacted, but human
ity always revolted against the exaction. The ca
for relief came from every part of the State and
| SQOulu De granted, HGntemen OF The legal PROBES
sion constantly talking Of the sanctity of cor
tracts. Were contracts always regarded as sa
cred? Was not the civil law forced to yield
the political law? The gold which wa
paid for slave was no more property than wa
the slave himself, under the civil law yet tha
slave had ceased to be property under the polit
cal law. The sanctity of contracts, vested rights
all these things talked SO much about, were sacr
feed by laws and by courts, to what was deeme
public policy. In this case before the House
might say the very existence of the bone an
sinew of the State was at stake, and highly as h
might regard many of the merchants and capita
lists of New Orleans in an issue between thel
and the agriculturist he should throw himself int
the scale for the latter. Nor did he deem it j
good taste to refer to the liberaty or patriotisl
of that class as a body, in view of the fact tha
in the present financial distress of the State n
one had been found to take the million of bond
ordered to be sold to relieve the treasury.
Mr.. Montgomery again argued the constitution
ality of the bill. 1t could not, he sad operat
nuriously upon credit, for it only applied to obi
cations incurred previous to June, 1865.
Mr.. Fenner called for the previous question
That motion pending, on motion Of Mr.. Kid
the House adjourned.
THE CIRcUs.-Ladies and children and all other
} who attend the circus in the daytime will tax
notice that the hour of performances has bee
, changed from O'Clock P. NJ. to liz A. NJ. Hal
past eleven is the hour, and the crcuswill give a
r., 1o,,, "a