The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1867-02-12
REPORT OF THE JUDICIARY COM
MITTEE

The Judiciary Committee to which vas re-
ferred House Bill No 26O, entitled "a Bill for
the relief of the people of North Carolina" have
had the same under considerations, and respect
fully recommend that it do not pass.
In an ordinary case the Committee would stop
here, but account IF the general interest felt
in this subject, and to relieve msapprehen-
sion which seems to exist to the spirit of this
Committee upon the question of relief for the
people, they trust it will not be improper to lay
before the House the reasons of their recon-
mendation.
The first and second sections Of the Bill take
away all remedy whatever heretofore allowed
for the collection o. debts. This purpose of the
bill is not attempted to be disguised, but is can
didly acknowledged 10 the title, which broadly
asserts that it is for the relief Of the people of
North Carolina The other sections inten-
ded to supply the machinery for carrying out
this design, in the shape OF heavy pains aud
penalties upon creditors, Clerks and Sherit3s, !
no violate its provisions, while the 9th section
aims to strip the Supreme Court Of its long es
| tahlished prerosative of constituting all Acts of
the Leeislature-thus giving the Bill the ''ear
marks Of that same radica!isn which threatens
such havoc to the best interests of the whole
Country. Such law as this would deude the
people for little while, perhaps, with the sem
blance of relief, but the first Court that exam
incd it would declare it null and void, aud the
people. instead Of relief, would reap Oily an az
gravation Of their distress. For it is we'll set.
tied that such law is beyond the power of this
General Assembly. When North Carolina be-
came party to the Federal Constitution, she
expressly stripped herself OF the authority over
contracts which this bill asserts The Commit
tee believe that argument is necessary to
| tablish this position, and they will content them
sci Of
Chief Justice Tapey, in the~case Of Bronson
Kinzle Others, reported 10 lst Howard, p 317.
at is difficult, perhaps, to draw line that
would be applicable in all eases between legiti-
mate alterations of the remedy and provisions
which, in the form Of remedy, impair the right
But it is manifest that the obligation of the con-
tract aud the rights of the party under it may
in effect, be destroyed by denying a remedy al
together, or may be seriously impaired by bur
dening the proceedings with new conditions
and restrictions, so as TO make the remedy hard
ly worth pursuing; and one, presume,
would say that there is ally difference between
a retrospective law declaring particular con-
tract or class Of contracts to be abrogated and
| void, and one which sock away all remedy to
enforce them encumbered it with conditions
that rendered it useless or imprac;icable to pur
sue it."
| This opinion, Of one of the most eminent
Judges of the country, could be sustained, if
| necessary, 10y authorities from every State in
the Union Indeed, the author of the Bill has
| virtually admitted its weakness, IN attempting,
as he does In the 9th section, to shield it from
| the scrutiny Of the Supreme Court. If there
were room for difference Of opinion as to the
constitationailiy OF any proposed scheme for the
relief Of the people, which nj ght be referred to
this COMMITTEE, recognizing they do, the pro-
pric'y Of some reasonable aud properly guarded
| indng euce to poor and honest debtors, they
would most cheertuy allow it to stand upon its
merits alone, leaving the doubtful question of
law to be settled by the Courts But the bill
under consideration, proposes such an un1is-
guised and glaring violation OF the Constitution,
| that it would be Impossible for this Committee
to recommend it To the House, even if its merits
were conspicuous and urqucstonable. On the
other and if it were clearly within the con-
stltuional power Of this Leyis laiare to enact it
| into law, the disastrous consequences of its
passage to almost every interest in the State,
may be foreseen with sufficient cIearness to jus
| THY It's rejection. Indeed, it is evidence of
the saving value of the constitutional prohibi-
ton upon the States, to impair the obligation of
contracts LIZ ordinary times, when there is no
tendency ia State Legislation to violate the
sanctity of contracts, this restriction upon their
powers does good, for there is no necessity
/ fo1 it, aud it is only when such dangerous aud
un"lse schemes as this are proposed, that the
occasion arises for the display Of its virtue and
efficacy IN holding men to the performance Of
their honest obligations. This bill, in its
sweeping abrosation of the remedy upon all con-
/ tracts, whether made before or since he war, or
to be made hereafter, is nothing more nor less
than Reputation. No man would hereafter
credit his neighbour except upon the precarious
security of his neighbours sense of honor when
that sense of honor had become tluntcd by that
entire disregard of all his past obligations, which
this measure encourages.
Our people could no longer procure the means
| of carrying on their business upon the faith of
future returns, and our farms would be untille
and our stores and workshops be closed, except
those Of The fortunate few who could command
cash capital. The confidence of the people 10
their Legislature and each other, would be lost,
and the final blow would be administered to our
lettering State credit. The enactment of such
a law would be taken abroad as an evidence of
our intention to repudiate our debts, and of
demoraliZed pnblic sentiment Among US, so that
our State bonds, upon which we arc relying for
the completion of our Railroads, AID the rcsus-
citation OF our lansui>hing public interests of
every kind, would be offered in vain in the mar
kets of the word, for anything but ruinous
discount. ~.
But the committee wil not attempt to detail |
all the mischievous results of such legislation. |
as in their opinion thew will annear ohvions IN |