The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1870-05-13
NEGRO DEBTS.

Inc tlmo Oh Tho Sunreme Court was
consumed entirely yS.yestcrday, as it
will be seen 10 our opitsmizcd report
of its proceedings, in tho argument of
the cases involving the validity of
contracts for tho purchase of slaves
Mr.. Whaloy finished his argument in
support of this. proposition, as report
ed in our issue Of yesterday. Next
in order came Mr.. J. D. Popo, who,
m his usual clear, pleasing and con-
vincing manner, presented the oppo-
site sido of the question, sustaining
tho validity Of debts. Adopting the
pleasing Socratio style Of diputation,
Mr.. Pope put tho following pungcnt
questions to the court and the counsel
on tho other sido. The main qucs-
ton Is:
l. Can Congress permit or author.
ize State to violate tho constitution.
In eIueidation of this question,
asked:
/. Can Congress pass q law in VIOLA
lion OF tho Constitution They an
swcr, No.
2. Can the State and Congress to-
gcthcr pass Il law in violation of tho
constitution? They answer, Yes
We ask, how? They answer:
The State is out of the Union or q
territory. May propose the infraction,
and Congress- may confirm it, and the
work is donc.
We answer that this is at least but
law of Congress, term it what you
will.
In tho same striking, antithetical
and logiral way, he proceeded in his
argument, discussing the powers of
Congress in the admission Of State,
the province Of the judiciary, the
civil rights. of the citizen as para
mount to all political changes, etc.
Mr.. Noble followed on the same
side with an elaborate and we'll diges-
ted argument in support of these pro-
positions:
l. That tho consideration of the
bonds was property of well known
character, recognized and protected
by the constitution and laws of the
United States, and which executed
were valid, and have not been render
cd invalid by subsequent emancipa-
ton. The dangers incident to that
property were foreseen, and for q gen.
Grafton the subject of angry contro-
versy.
2. That tho institution of slavery
was not per Sc violation Of natural
or moral law in legal sense, nor was
a slave an immoral consideration of
contract.
3. That emancipation was tho re-
n N nf ho
of the United States, and tho loss of
property occasioned thereby was pun
ishmcnt, in tho nature of forfeiture,
for crimes committed by the master !;
Or was due to tho right of eminent do
naoin exercised by the sovereign pow
er of the United States and that no
legal sense, could the loss be imputed
to m outstanding paramount title
against which the vendor warranted.
4. That the convention Of. 1868 was
under a misapprehension in regard to
it's constitutional powers; that boing
convention Of L State of the Union
it had no authority to impair the OBJ
legation Of any class or description of
contracts. <. 4 ...r s,,.-..
s. That the destruction of proper
ty or of rights by the repeal of law,
or in consequence Of the vis major,
does not impair tho obligation of con
tracts valid at the time; nor does ::
defeat a right Of action acquired un-
der such contract; nor will the inter
ference Of government forbidding and
preventing performance have such an
effect.
6. That it would seem to be uncon.
stitutional for Congress to impair the
obligation Of contracts entered into
prior to the passage of the aot, ex-
.cept irf q particular case provided for
in tho constitution, namely: by the
enactment Of uniform laws on the
subject of bankruptcy. .~
Z. That the clause of the State con-
stitution in question, and every clause
of that constitution, is tho act of the
State authorities, and in no sense can
be taken to be an act Of Congress.
But if so construed, sthe clause is
still .unconstitutional, because Con-
gress cannot ad libituns impair the oh:
legation Of contracts.
8. Granting that Congress can i'm
H@A eo0 oUti Sutkoh Va CouLFdCLS, SOu-
gress aspassed no such act by reasen
of the act, of. June, 1860, admitting
the State TO Representation. The
act simply declared: that the eonsti-
tntion Of South Carolina .pas Republi-
can. Further, that Congress cannot
delegate its powers to be exercised by
EaState in relation to matter express.
ly declared by the United States CON.
stitution 10 be unlswf6l fersa State to
consider OF meddie With: g. ~
r. Mr.. Hancks4, OF Charleston; next
delivered his argument in favor OF
,thehualidity Of that clause of the CON:
estitation Pr0hibititing the, enforcing
Of contracts fortha purchase Of slaves
continuing ie1l j gp B to to the e JIG. hopr Of adjourn
!" Mr.. Hankel commenced BY putting
two questfohE 35iT&htS ;sasS i ,, ~. =
fh. 1e:D0esa tfsSofdinsacs; Of the con.
vention, whether It be- consideredtas
y declarations Of existing lsw o.. 10 The
t.snactment ofbs nav, law, impair. the
LobliRaiop q contracts ".>s,s =,
|'rlI Did the essesttaf power aHd au:
thority which enacted that ordinance
possess right tdfnapair tho soblt;
-~Ak - = .