Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1871-05-26


Justice Woodbury. in the Planters Bank vs.
Sharn, which aprjearS to me to be eminently
and easy Of application, lie says one
If the tests that contract has been impaired Is
hat IFS value has By legislation been diminished,
il IS not By the Constitution 10 he impaired II
all This is not question Of degree or manner
or cause. Int Of cncroaching in any respect on
its obligation dispensing with any part Of its
force. Can it be pretended that tried BY
either one of these rules that the contract II
this case has not been impaired II the law Is
sustained no: on Is impaired blu. rendered Ut
trrlv worthless, its value not only diminished
hy icsislation but wholly destroyed But 10 re-
ti,ru to SturgiS ana Crnwncnsh:c!i. II has
been seen that according" to the authority OF
that case that future acquisitions arr liable inr
contracts. and that to release them iroln tins
liability impairs their obligation. l. 1t lo>>!
lii. that future acquisitions. the result of indus
FRY. talents and integrity are liable Ia c0nract:
and that To release them from snch liability Is
- imnair their Obligation but that the !l,t &c
urisitions arr mol 81 liable that the c!r,!-
tor ha, .u,h \ .era>p upon the future earn
mos 81 III. ,l,:E.or that the stat cannot
loosen Iii; hold though ii, elirrj would
l., in contrayrntion of her highest policy.
ia chill the enterprise. destroy the industry
and rrstri;n the talents Of her citizens and yct
that the bower - impotcnt aS II future arqu-
sirious is without restrain! H. IL the ebt"r
property in possession? | canlot think 81.
! have laid treat >trc>, upon the case III Slurgcs
W. Crownlrshid if have misunderstood what
the court intended 20 decide IN that case II l.
nv fault or my misfortune if on the other
hand | have properly construed the language
Of the court. | trust | shall hc excused tur
having given very great weight IL an opinion
delivered BY Judge Marshall and c0ncurrcd IN
bv Story and Washington and indeed the en-
tire court. 1t seems 10 !uc that all the cases
in support of laws Of this class far IL they rest
u,,on the distinction between the obligation nt
the contract and the remedy I" enforce 1t. trace
back 10 this case and in my judgment >ub>e-
oucnt cases have pushed the Idea II 4 point
never intended and altogether unwarTantcd ~
that case They arc at best bat pursua>Hc
authority though some vi them. a. Tor instance
the case in III kernan.are entitled To serious con
siieration though the effect Of that case is some
what diminished by the fact that the Court "t
Anpeals reyerScs the decision Of the Supreme
Court OF the state.
The other theory relied upon Is that
Statc may from motives, OF public policy
excmpta part Of the debtor property from
liability Tor his contract: that this power re-
sides III all States: that ii is wise and
salutary power; that it has existed and been
exercised in all times and among all clv-
lied nations. and that humanity itself requires
that it should be exercised This would seem
20 be strong reasoning as To the policy Of such
laws and would perhaps be conclusive if nd,
dressed t. the legislature Of eli unqualified
,nvcrientw. The States Of the mon arc.
however, not Ut liberty to consider solely what
would in their Judgment be the wisc@t course 10
pursue in order to advance the true Interests ii
their citizens. but must contine themselves
even rs to questions Of State policy within the
sometimes narrow limits prescribed by the con
sttution OF the | $. amt motives Of humanity
must Weld to the hard text Of the written law.
1t was to the different ideas Of true policy CT
tcrtainel by the various States their descendant
views a. to the sanctity I'll contracts and the
frequent act: OF Legislation tending to hinder
tie enforcement OF them that we Owe the pro
vision under consideration. II 1t Is Il question
Of mere policy it proves too much; the L"gisa
turc and nor the courts must determine matters
ot mere policy. and if the Legislature can as
matter OF police exempt 81. oQQ from the claims
of the creditor who shall limit its power: may
it not as well exemps ten or twenty 81 az hun
drcl thousand dollars; the argument if sound
would be utterly sphver,iyc OF the nLHgattpn of
contracts and leave the contract a dead letter.
1t is Tot a question Of expediency but Of power.
1t is true that the principle ha: been relaxed
To some extent and IN the case Of Bronson ".
kin2e. Ist Howard the court says that ARTICLES
Of household furniture. the tools Of 4 mechanic,
&c like wearing apparel may De exempted
by State authority This paragraph thus in
terjectcd into the opin!or0t the court in that
case i. tn" leading authority on this subject
and la been stretched to 4 point that would
doubtless astoniSh the learned j;"dgc who Ut
tered it, Now it Is IL be observed that Judge
Tancy cnumcra;c:: in that cas- :" >p,'t thu
property which may Justly be exempted he
limit the power not only BY an enumeration Of
the articles to which it is applicable. but BY
his illustration also when he says like wearin.
apparel that is articles Of prime and absolute
necessity. Such :: power thus exercised doubt ,
less docs ltsil: in the States. ~ il it iii not
mig int we'll De conceded Ia them IL, il could be
4 matter or but little Importance at hest And /
il will as" be- observed. with all respect be il
said. that EVEN this relaxation is 4 mere obitcr
dictum upon point not before the r1llr but |
nevertheless Untitled t" very Great RESPECT This |
question i the precise matter involved in the
rasc of Moss " Gould before referred 10 i I:lw |
Of New York enacted that necessary Iotl>.-
hold furniture and working tools and team owned !
by am person being householder or having Il |
family for Which he provides nthc value not
exceeding one hundred and fifty dollars should .
be exempt As before remarked the court IT,
;cr>in@ the Supreme Court Sustained the law.
Jut admitting the correctness Of the decision
md how very far it falls short n the l;tw under
consideration. I'm this case too it will h. oiI>crv
ii that the exemption i ot'propcrty ot' prime
necessity enumerated by the ac; I" >y''c". la
delivering the opinion Of the Court. Judge
)enio say> Taking the maSs of contracts and
he situation and circumstances Of debtors Is
hey are ordinarily found to exist Ii" one would
probably say that cxcmpting the team and
household furniture Of householder H. the
mou!s of one hundred and fifty dollars from
,vy on OK ocution. would sensihly affect the eff
cheney Of r.,ucdir> for the collection OF debt
lourh case might possibly happen. when
be exempt property. would constitute all that
10 debtor possessen 1t would seem from
MS quotation that the Court thoughtit of too
tile consequence to Justly it in annuIling an
ct of the Legislature. and applied TO- it the
laxinl. ''dc mjdinlis NOR c,H".' Ter. here l.
l. r III ,.bi,.b would