Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1872-02-07
THE BAXTER LIBEL SUITS.
The Argument ON the Motion to SIEVE


The Argument ON the Motion to Sever.
Hon. T. r. Hall, of the Circuit Court was
engaged all of yesterday hearing the argument
upon the motion of the defendants to divide the
libel cases of Col. Baxter, according to the late
| law procured from the last Legislature.
The argument for the motion was opened by
Hon. George Andrews. He said he had not
had as much time for preparation as desirable.
His remarks were very brief and addressed
solely to the point that the law as passed per-
tanned alone to the remedy and not to the right
of plaintiffs actions. He cited authorities to
show that laws of this character had frequently
been enacted and sustained by the courts, and
produced authorities. F
COL. BAXTER'S ARGUMENT.
We will not attempt, in the brief space we
can give to this subject, to give the substance
even of Col. Baxter's argument, which was e1-
haustive and able. The main points he pre-
sented were, that the law was in contravention
of two provisions of the Constitution. Of Sec
ton II of the Bill of Rights, which provides
" that all courts shall be open; and every man
for an injury done him in his lands, goods, per
son or reputation, shall have remedy by the
course of law, and right and justice administered
without sale, denial or deLay.'
He admitted fully the power of the Legisla-
ture to pass laws changing the remedy given to
parties for wrongs committed, proUided such
laws did not clog, hamper or em6arrasS the
remedy as it existed at the time the wrong was
inflicted. The right to sue for an injury done
to person, property or reputation was a vested
right fixed and certain the moment the injury
was complete Any law that took from the in
jured party any material part of his right to
sue, or hindereG, delayed or embarrassed his
remedy was in violation of our organic law
and the court was bound so to adjudge. Laws
might be passed to change forms of action, to
transfer causes from one court to another, but if
49, hive 1hef1-
tuting one, less efficient, or more dilatory, they
were null and void. Laws changing the reme-
dy. making it more efficient or speedy were
valid because they were in affirmance of right
and the decisions sustaining such laws will be
found to be based entirely upon this principle
In support of these positions, Mr.. Baxter pro
duced nun erous elementary authorities and de-
cisonS of our own and other courts. The Constitu-
ton ofTennessee was broader in protecting these
rights and privileges than many others that
only prohibited legislation impairing the obli-
CATION of contracts. Of this latter class was the
Federal Constitution a---.et
Article VI, section s, Of the Constitution pro-
videS that the Legislature shall not pass any law
for the benefit Of individuals, inconsistent with
the general laws of the land Mr.. Baxter con-
tended that the law under consideration was for
the benefit specially of the defendants in the
cases at bar and were inconsistent with the laws
of Tennessee in force at the time of the lbels.
By his suits pending he had cemented his
remedy with his right of action and no new
conditions impairing either could now be i'm
posed. Did this law delay or impair his rem
edy? When he brought his suits the law en-
abled hirl to sue all the joint libelers, in one
suit, in this county with reasonable expense and
delay. If he recovered judgment he would
be entitled to it jointly against all the defend
ants and for sum equal to the damages in
ficted by the most culpable. He could satisfy
his judgment by the property. of any one who
had any. But by this law he had seven suits
instead of one-seven times the expense and
trouble lhe had under the old law, Would
any one say his remedy was not impaired by
the new law? ...E
Under the old law the defendants had ex-
hausted all their legal continuances, and &C
cording to the practice of the court they would
be compelled to try at this court. But under
the new law, he had seven 1eep salts, to be be-
gun at the pleading, and, therefore, the defend
ants in each case, might delay trials for years
Would any sensible man claim, therefore, that
this new and special law did not clog, en1bGr-
rGsS or delay his remedy? By the old law
his joint judgment if he recovered, would have
seven defendants. But this new special legisla-
ton divided his remedy, made him have sever
al judgments and what was worse than all. gave
him only one defendant, out of which property
to make his judgment, for in torts the law COM
PEELED him to elect and say which one he would
judgment was a satifaction of all The new law
gave him just one-seventh Of q remedy, where
the old one gave him full and complete one.
Was it not therefore iDtpairing his remedy and
depriving him of his vested right and action
He cited other special and partial features of
the law and closed by an eloquent
appeal to the court to stand up as barrier
and protect private citizens against such spec
ial, dangerous and unconstitutional laws. He
was appealing not for himself, but for prnci-
pie that was vital to the liberty of the people,
and that was of more value than thousand
lives like his. He was arguing against law
that might Cypress every citizen and that
was as unconstitutional and dangerous as it was
unjust, malicious and petty,
COL. CRozIER's ARGUMENT.
MI Baxter was followed by Col John H.
Crozier, who but partly finished at the hour of
Mr.. Crozier said the law COM
planned of was just like one acted upon by all
the courts. He gave a history of laws chang
ing the venue of actions and compared this law
to the one changing causes from the Circuit to
the new Criminal Court, from Judge L. T. Hall
to Judge NJ. i. Hall.
At this point the court adjourned.
Col. Crozier will resume this morning and
will be followed by Col. Thornburgh for the
plaintiff and we believe Mr.. Caldwell will close
for the motion. .... -.....
Relieving the Destitute.
The noble little boy to whom we alluded yes