Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-04-10
Important Decision Contrasts for
the Purchase Of Slaves Cannot
Now be Enforced.
The Right Of Action on such Con-
tracts does not Survive the
Repeal Of AII Laws
SanCti0Hing Slavery.
TIE Thirteenth Article Of Amend
msHt Of She Constitution Of the
United States a FIuality on
all 0gestiOns Affecting
Slave Property.
AIRMPH1s, ApriIs 1871.


E5Hors of tie ApDeat-There are
few. if any, subjects matter of litiga-
fion growing cut of the late war,
which shook this great nation to its
centre and uprOOted the established
order of the social compact, invOlv-
inc amounts so large and in which
fire decisions Of the courts of the
couutrv are so conflicting, as that
growing ont of slavery, as It had
existed ia the country for nearly a
century.
me decisions Of the courts of the
different States are still in conflict.
In the different States their decisions
are pIaced upon different principles,
and rules of law and of right-while
as vet no decision of the validity or
invalidity of notes given for slaves
has been made by the Supreme Court
of the United States.
The Supreme Courts of Louisiana,
of Georgia, and South Carolina have
declared such contracts invalid, while
in Tennessee, Maryland and perhaps
some Others, the courts have enforced
such contracts. But in those States
whose courts have sustained the va
liditv of such contracts the cases
have received a very immature cOnsld-
Grafton. none of the cases having been
elabOrately argued.
] hand you two very able and eX-
hsustive, and, 1 think, conclusive
Opipious against the validity
of said contracts, recently delivered by
Judge ii. T.. COldWell, the able Dis
trfct Judge Of the United States Court
for Arkansas. which for force Of rea-
szoDinp. for the sOundness Of the posi-
fions taken, and for the weight Of au-
rhOrities by which they are sustained, 4,
Think are equal, il not superior, 70
10 ANYTHING vet called forth from the
legal and judicial mind OF the country
upon this great and new question.
j think these opinions would deeply
interest the people, as well as the law
yers aud judges of Tennessee, and
that YOU would do the public a great
favor bv sending them broadcast over
the State and country through your
widely circulated and ably conducted
journal. ] send the opinion in PAM
DhIpt form, and would thank you TO
place them before your readers as far
IS possible, giving the entire opinion
in one number.
Respectfully, your Ob't servant,
GID. J. PILLOW,
N THIS DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.
Henry Buckner VS.. ". B. Street, as
signee Of Walter Sessions, bankrupt.
i. Contracts for the purchase and sale Of
slaves are against sound morals, natural
Justice and right, and have no validity
unless sanctioned by positive law.
II. A remedy on such contracts may
exist by virtue OF the positive law under
vEhich they we're made, but such remedy
can only bs enforced 50 long as that law
remains in force.
mn The XIII Article Of Amendment to
fha Constitution of the United States re-
pealed all Saws sanctiOning slavery, and
The traffcin slaves and the right of aciOn
on slave contracts does net survive such
repeal founded Rs it is on the supreme
authority Of the people or the United
States.
~. The rule that statutes should not
receive an Interpretation that viii give
thsm q retrospective operation so ss TO
devest vested rights Of property, and per-
fgct rights OF action, has no application, 80
far Is relates 10 slaves and slave contracts.
in the construction OF the XIII Article Of
Amendment Of the Constitution OF the
United States.
OPINION OF THE COURT,
CALLwELL, JUDGF.-In Osborn vs..
Nicholson, this Court held that slave
contracts derived all their obligation
from the Constitution and laws of the
States in which they were made; that
the only sanction OF validity they had
rVss by virture Of these laws; that the
common law would not afford rem
fdv on such contracts, and that the
abolishment of slavery by the XII
Article al Amendment Of the COnsti-
fUtion of the United States had the
effect To repeal these laws, and that
such repeal left the holders OF such
contract without a remedy. The
s0uudness of this position Is ques-
toned, and / propose, briefly, to re-
view it.
I'd is conceded that a State cannot
Dass any law imp8iring the eObligatiOn
OF any contract into which II has en-
tered. nor can she pass any law in
pairing the obligation Of contracts be-
Tween individuals.
There are qualifications to this gen
eEal principle which were pointed out
In Osborn vs.. Nicholson. And a STATE
can no more impair the obligation Of
its own or Individual contracts, by
the repeal of the statute under which
they were made, than by an afhrma-
tive act declaring them void.
But upon what ground were the
judgments in the cases establishing
these principles rested2 Upon the
sole ground that such legislation on
the part Of the State would be in con-
siict with tl8t clause Of the COnstitu-
tiOn prohibiting States from passing
laws impairing the obligation Of con-
tracts. But for that Constitutional
provision, would Or could the courts
have rendered the judgments they did
render in these casesy
The opinions Of the judges in the
numerous cases that affirm these pTin-
ciples, afford
A CONCLUSIVE AND EATIsFACTOBY
ANSWER
10 thi question.
NoyD By what authority were the
1s[vs sa5ctiOning slavery and the
Trafic ia slaves repealed? BY an
.s-oandneut 70 the Constitution Of the
1f,f1--itod States. adopted by the people
- tba United states, and founded on
49, s1preme authority. The mo-
Inent it was adopted II became q Itin,l- jill
amentaI law, Of absolute, paramount ..
obligation. If any STATE law OF Soll- S.Il-
stitutiOn, OF any provision Ji tl0 CO1
stitUtiOn OF the United States, pfeVl-
Ously existing, cOnlleted difeCuy Oi
by fair implication with its PROVISIONS,
they We're repealed aud abrOgated.
Has IL ever been pretended that the
Limitation on the powers Of the States
were also limitations on the powers Of
the whole people of the United States,
when acting in their aggregate, SOW
ereign capacity, III amending or alter
ing their constitution OF governments
The inhibition to pass laws impair
inc the obligation OF contracts Is linz
tied 70 the States.
Tbey are, but the National Govern
mept is not, prohibited from passing
such laws.
tsNoState can impair the obligations
Of a contract: but this inhibition does
notapply TO the general government
BlOOner VS.. StOlley, 5 Mclean Z. e.
'sfhere is nothing in the COnstitu-
ton of the United States which for
bids Congress to pass laws violating
the obligation of contracts, although
such a power il denied TO the States
Individually" Evans VS.. Eaton,
Peters @. c. R., p. 337.
And the Congress of the United
States has passed laws annulling trea-
ties, which are
.rHH MOST SOLEMN PORN or CON
TRACTS THAT THE GOVERNMENT
CAH Make
an6 the validity Of such acts has al
g7sys beeH maintained.