The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1872-06-01
OPPOSITION OF A. LEVI AND W. H..
HOUGH.

The following is an extract from II
decision rendered in honologating all
account in the succession of Lilies, by
Judge Caldwell, of the Parish Court,
wherein the question Of the validity of
Slave notes was raised, and which, it
will be seen, was decided atfirmatively
by the Judge:
cit is conceded that Hough is enti-
tied to a portion of the funds in Mitch
ellis hands, by virtue of his judicial
mortgage, as these funds We're realized
from Il sale of immovables, affected by
the recordation of Hough's Judgment.
But the counsel for Hough insists on
recovering the full amount of the ijudg-
ment, Notwithstanding it is shown by
the evidence that about AZ per cent. of
the amount consists in the price of
slaves. The Dativc Testamentary Ex-
ecutor and other creditors have made
this defence for the benefit of the sue
cesSiOn.
If this question is tested by the touch
stone of Art 12S Of the Constitution of
Louisiana, adopted in 1865, and is to he
governed by the various decisions of
the Supreme Court on the subject from
Wainwright VS.. Bridges to the present
time, it would be useless to go farther
than to strike from this Judgment Of
Hough's, AZ per cent. of its amount as
being tainted with II contract reprohl-
ted by law. But since those decisions
We're rendered, the Supreme Court of
the United States have reviewed the
same principle to be found in Art 12s,
and have decided adversely to it's con-
stitutionality.
In the case of VIM. White, ST., plain
tiff in error, VS.. John r. Hart and w.
ID. Davis, No. II, December term, 1871,
Mr.. Justice Swayne, the organ of the
Court, declared that the provision in
the Constitution of the State of Georgia,
which prohibited the courts from en-
forcing these contracts, is n nullity.
That proviso is as follows: " Provided,
that no court or officer shall have, nor
shall the General Assembly give juris-
diction to try, or give Judgment on, or
which was q slave, or hire thereof -
Act 5, Sec. 81, paragraph
The prohibition in the Constitution
of Louisiana reads as follows: econ
tracts for the sale of persons are null
and void and shall not be enforced by
the courts of this State:" Art. l2S.
In passing on the question, the Su-
preme Court say: "Georgia, after her
rebellion and before her representation
was restored, had no more power to
grant a title of nobility, to pass Il bill of
attainder, an e.t: post .fetcto law, or law
impairing the obligation of contracts,
or to do anything else prohibited to her
by the Constitution of the United States,
than she had before her rebellion be-
gan, or after her restoration to her
normal position in the Union.
1t is we'll settled by the adjudications
of this Court, that a State can no more
impair the obligation of a contract by
adopting Il Constitution than by pass
ing law. In the eye of the constitu-
tional inhibition, they are the same
thing.''
The Court further say: ''If Congress
had expressly dictated and expressly
approved the proviso in question, such
dictation and approval would be with
out effect. Congress had no power to
supercede the National Constitution"
The obligation to pay this debt
was, the law which binds parties
to perform their agreement" When
the note or obligation was executed,
and until the Constitution of 1868 was
adopted, the courts of Louisiana had
unquestionable jurisdiction to enforce
these contracts, and if their jurisdiction
has ceased, it is by reason of Art. 12s of
the Constitution. "The laws which
subsist at the time and place of tho
making of a contract and where it is to
be performed, enter into and form a
part of it as if they were expressly refer
red to or incorporated in its tcrms.-
Nothing can be more material to the
obligation than the means of enforce
ment. Without the remedy, the con-
tract may indeed, in the sense of the
law, be said not to exist, and its obliga-
tions to fall within the class of those
moval and social duties, which depend
for their fulfilIment wholly upon the
will of the Individual. The ideas of
validity and remedy are inseparab1e,
and both are parts of the obligation,
which is guaranteed by the constitu-
tion against invasion.
When the contract here i'm question
was entered into, ample remedies ex-
iSted. All were taken away by the
article of the State Constitution. Not Il
a Vestige was left. Every means Of en-
forcement was denied, and this denial
if valid, involved the annihilation of
the contract - I Howard, p. 3II; >