The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1868-01-22
JANUARY %. 1868.
- r-s For the Standard.
TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF
s NORTH.CAROLINA.

1.-the reconstruction acts are constitution
al and the Convention acts upon that basis. |
then North Carolina is not now a State, and
therefore that clause of the United States
constitution forbidding any State from
passing . law impairing the obligation of
contracts does not apply, because it applies |
erclusioely to States of the Union, and can
not by implication embrace any other. 1t
may be admitted that while Congress might |
pass law setting aside one proposed by a
territory impairing contracts, yet it would
he not because contrary to the constitution,
but because the legislation of territory can
be controlled by Congress. 1ri ~
The declared object of the reconstruction
acts is tc form a constitution and govern
ment for the State. When this is done,
| all the laws, and the old constitution of the
| State, will become dead, null and void, and
of course all the officers. Governor, Judges
| andall, will go out of office vi
| The new State will begin with new
constitution, new laws new Judges &C..
and until some laws are passed to create
and organize the Courts. there will be no
remedy. This of itself will not only impair
but totally destroy the obligation of all con-
tracts, and unless some laws are passed to
|
contracts. Now the remedy being gone.
| the refusal to give one cannot impair con-
| tract according to all the constructions put
| on this clause of the United States con-
stitution. This is entirely different from
the case where a law giving II remedy al
| ready exists for the enforcement of a con-
tract, which is said to he part Of the con
tract. and the suspension of which is said
fs,1 I'll L.,
been of that character This was the case
| of The stay law of 1861 suspending exist
ing remedies, and on this ground the
case of Barnes ps Banes was decided
! But suppose the Convention pass an or
dinance denying all remedy on contracts
| up to given time, say 1st July, 1868,
and give remedy on all future contracts.
and this ordinance should he (as don't
believe it can. be) declared unconstitutional.
what then? Simply that the ordinance would
he null and void, but nothing more. There
would still he no remedy, and it would he
| with the State to determine whether it would
| give one or not. for Congress has no right
to control the Legislature of any State in
the Union. p fa ~
The question, therefore, to he submitted
to the Convention will not be, whether the
Convention can impair the obligation of
contracts (as none will then exist hut
whether it shall provide one. This will be
entirely for the action of the Convention
and beyond the control of Congress In
| Jones cs Crittcnden which is the leading case
on the subject of stay laws, the Coult say
| it is the undoubted right ot any Legislature
| of State in the Union to regulate Its judi
cial system, and in substance, that when it is
established, and to modify it at pleasure
even if it denies or impedes remedies, and
that Congress has no right to interfere-and
that such IL right will never be admitted. In
a recent case our Supreme Court decided
that the effect of the war, was to take away
all legal remedy, because there were no
| courts. Ofcourse then when North Carolina
becomesa new State with new Constitution
and before she has organized Judiciary,
established courts, there will be no remedy.
50 that all contracts will be effectually i'm
paired by that state of things, and can never
in doing so, it will he exclusively for the Con-
vention or the Legislature to determine what
it shall be-in the language OF Jones us Crit
tenden to regulate it as she pleases
What the Convention las such) of 1865,
could do, the present can-that Convention
impaired the obligation of contracts by the
abolition of slavery, because slaves as proper
ty were Just as much liable for debts as
lands are, and if that Convention as it did,
could exempt slaves from execution this can
exempt lands But it will he said that the
people assented to this, the slaveowners, and
therefore the cases are not parallel Now it
is undeniaDle that that was not voluntary
but in truth compulsory, because it was not
the free act OF the slave owners s-and al
though nine e-tenths of the people if not all,
would not now. if they could, re enslave the
colored race, it is equally true that they new
er would have emamcipated them of their
own free choice. without compensation
And although the act of abolition was sub
mitted to the people and ratified, yet the
people voted under the same influence as the
/ Convention did. Besides number of the
people did not vote at all on the question of
| ratification, while a few voted against if, and
if the act or ordinance Was unconstitutional
none could he bound by it except those who
assented But the answer will be that great
moral, social and political considerations re-
quired emancipation, and these are para
mount to that clause of the United States
Constitution prohibiting the impairing of
contracts; that for the peace of the nation, the
good and well being of the black man, the
decd had to be done, and must override all
other considerations. Is not the peace of So
Getty, its very existence, may say. the well
being of the white man, involved in this
question, and when il the collection of debts
goes on we see that nearly all the property
of our people will be sacrificed and the peo.
| nd 4
now as high considerations addressing them
selves to the Convention of 1863 to save the
white man as there were to influence that OF
| 1865, in behalf of the black man2 If there
fore the peculiar circumstances of the time
could justify the act Of the first Convention,
those of the present hour being equally
pressing and important can equally justify
the present Convention. m
This view of the subject assumes that such
an act as been recommended would he a
violation of the constitution fOrhidlng i'm
pairing contracts, hut / have entieavered to
show that such is not the case. and have
only use,i this argument to show that those
who justify the act of the Convention of
1865, under the peculiar circumstances. can
not condemna similar act by the Convention
of 1868. .... .+s
| l have endeavored to show,
1st. That the Reconstruction Acts being
valid. North Carolina is not State.
2nd That therefore the constitution of
the United States relative,to the inipairing
of contracts does not apply to her as ter
ritory. ..} .ig
3rd. That upon the adoption Of the Con-
stitution of this Convention, "old things
will pass away and all things will become
news new government, a new judicial sys-