The Marietta journal. [volume] (Marietta, Ga.) 1866-1909, 1873-05-16

"a" AhA 49,
tracts
1.-THE remedy is a part of the obi
cation of the contract, clearer
case ofimpairmcnt can hardly occur
than is presented in the record be-
fore us.
The effect Of the act in question,
under the circumstances ofiudgment,
does not indeed merely impair, 1t
annihilates the remedy. There -
none left. But the act reaches still
further. 1t withdraws the land
from the Judgment and thus de-
stroys vested right Of property
which the creditor had acquired in
the pursuit Of the remedy to which
he was entitled by the law as it
stood when the judgment was reeov-
cred. 1t is in effect taking one
persons property and giving it 20
another without compensation
This is contrary to reason and JUS
tice, and to the fundamental prlnci-
pies Of the social compact. Calder
Us. Bull 8 Dali, 1888. But we
must confine ourselves to the con-
stitutionsl aspect Of the case. a
few further remarks will be sufii-
cient to dispose Of it.
1t involves no question which hal
been more than once fully consid
cred by this court.
| Georgia, since she came into thu
Union as one Of the original thirteen
| States, has never been State oul
of the Union. Her constitutions
rights we're for time necessarily
put in abeyauce, but her constitu-
tional disabilities and obligations
were in no wise affected by her re-
bellion. The same view is to be
taken of the provision in her organ
ic law and of the statute in question
as If she had been in full commu
MON with her sister States when she
gave them being.
Though her constitution was
sanctioned by Congress, this provis.
ion can in no sense be considered
an act of that body. The sanction
was only permissive as a part Of the
process Of her rehabilitation, and in
volved nothing affirmative or mega
tive beyond that event lfit were
express and unequiyocal, the result
would be the same. Congress cam
not, by authorization or ratification,
give tho slightest effect to a State
law or constitution in conflict with
the constitution OF the United States.
That instrument is above and beyond
the power of Congress and the
States, and is alike obligatory upon
both.
A State can no more impair an
existing contract by a constitutional
provision than by legislative act !;
both are within the prohibition of
the national constitution.
The legal remedies for the en-
forccment of a contract, which be-
long to it at the time and place
where it is made, are part OF its
obligation. A State may change
them, provided the change involve
no impairment ola sub stantial right.
If the provision of the constitu-
ton, or the Legislative act Of the
State, fall within the category last
mentioned, they are to that extent
utterly void. They are, Tor all the
purposes of the contract which they
impair, as if they had never existed.
The constitutional provision and
statute here in question are clearly
within that category, and are, there
fore, void.
The jurisdictional prohibition
which they contain with respect to
the courts Of the State can therefore,
form no impeachment to the plaintiff
in error in the enforcement of his
rights are recognized by this court.
White Us. Hart, 10 Wall, GAG; Won
Hoffman rs. The City of Quincy,
$50.
The Judgment of the Supreme
Court of Georgia is reversed, and
cause will be remanded to that court
with directions to enter a judgment
ofreversal, to reverse the judgment
of the Superior Court of Randolph
comfy, and thereafter to proceed in
conformity to this opinion.