The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1867-04-09

|
for decision. and the Court, in their opinion,
say, "Can it be doubted but. the Legisa-
lures of the States, SO far as relates to their
own process, have a right to abolish impris-
4 onmept for debt altogether, and that such
| law might extend to present as well as to fu-
| ture imprisonment We are not aware that
such a power in the States has ever been
| questioned. This is a measure
which must be regulated by the views of pol,
| icy and expediency entertained by the State
| LegislatuTesq Such laws act merely, upon |
\ the remedy, and that in part only, They d. |
not take away the entire remedy, but only so
far as imprisonment forms, a part of such |
remedy" Mason VS.. Halle 1g, Wheat. $40. |
The Same question was before this Court in |
the caseof Brown VS.. DiIiahnnty, az & NJ
7l3, in which, in reply TO the position that
the rights of the plaintiffs became vested un-
-der the law as it stood at the time of tho ex-
ecution of the bail bond, and could not there
fore be impaired by subsequent law, it was
held that the mere imprisonment ola debtor,
as a means ofenfurciDg payment, belongs to
the remedy, and does, not reach the Contract
nor impairit obligations. .di5a. Il n 10 l.iql
I'm reference to other cases belonging to the
same general class, the Supreme Court of the
United States, have said, at is within the
undoubted power of State Legislature to pass
recording acts by which the elder grantee
shall be postponed TO q younger, if the prior
uetu ~ Otrecorucu WlInln tne tlInlted time; /,
and the power is the same whether the deed
is dated before or after the passage of the 4
recording act. Though the effect of such II
Ia v is to reiIder the prior deed fraudulent and i
void against sisubsequent purchaser, it is
not a law impaifiRg the obligation Of con- {
tracts Such too is the power to pass acts l
Of limitations and their effect. Reasons Of
sound policy have led to the general adop-
ton of laws of both descriptions aud their
validity cannot be questioned jackson
VS.. LaIHphire, 3 Peters, 300 The doctrine
here stated has been approved by express n
in this State, and recorling Il
lcts applicable to Judgments already OBJ ei
aimed, have been held not to impair the IN
obligation ofthe contract by operating up d
m the remedy, although new cOnditiORs N
we're imposed upon the party, without the ~
observance Of which he rw0nld lose his right {.
lready acquired. Tarpley vs. Hamer 9. y
modes g. Marshall, 3l0s ~ ,--et err rsl O.
If the Legislature may take away the
ight TO imprisOn the person Of the debtor,
Thich existed at the date of the contract,
nd at the time Judgment was obtained up "a.
n. il ina court Of law; and may discharge
i'm from custody, and release his bail, after =
is body has been actually taken in execu. ~,
on, 10 would seem 20 he difficult 20 frame ~
D argument against theIight Of the legis- ~
Iture to exempt a portion Of the property be
the debtor from liability 70 execution Tor n
s debts, andtoimake saeii exemption ap- Fe
y to pre-exisiing contracts pc
Tie Legislature Exercises this mower ~ 7 20
riding 70 ITS own views Of humanity and. 20
Und policy Bat It ii not without it, US.
'oPef limit, and it NAV 81 abused. Fverr
Irfy Is ei1titied 10 an adsquate and avsfls-