The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-13

W ploHOuHce elbn6T Inc one OF bne OUnct aD
solutely null and void, functions imposed BY
their oaths and plain duty as Judges, and ex
erc'sed by them over thousand times. IN.
says: Now, /, in my ignorance, being ne
| tdacyer. have always believed that the consti
tuition of the United States had no authority
to exercise any control over the action of the
States, ercept IN regard TO those questions
| 1chere the p0Uer icGs expressly granted or CON.
| ceded By The States IN the compact ITSELF" and
although no tawgef,, l take issue with the
gentleman, and deny that the general govern.
ment possesses the power of preventing q
State from repudiating or scaling it's debt or
has the power to compel 1t to pay either the
| interest or principal of the same" Upon the
| first proposition of an . sd. G. L." REPLIES
that the constitution is supreme, precisely
| because the power over contracts and the
remedies for their enforcement was expressly
granted or conceded by the States in the com
pact itself when in section 10 the Stat said
| mo State shall pass any lar impairisQ the
| obligation of contracts" and in article g..
| that "the judges in every State shall be
bound thereby tmeanlng the constitution.
| anything in the constitution or lars of oau
State TO the contrary Notwithstanding, and all
officers of the several States shall be bound
by oath or affirmation to support the con-
stitution, and by acts OF Congress this
oath Is to. be taken by every officer
of the, State before he can as
sumo thee duties of his office. (See
United States Revised Statutes, section 1856
LII IN. " has a correct view of the Federal con
stttution, on this point, then he Is o greater
statesman than jefferson, Madison, Hamil-
ton, Clay, Calhoun or Webster, and he asserts
the existence of @ pretension that the great
est sticklerS for States rights never attempt
ed to claim. The latest author on State
rights, whose views are In strict accord with
the principles I'D. g. L. has always advo-
Gated, b. j. Sage, Esq, does not even insinu-
ate the existence OF a power to annul sol
emn contract with impunity by State. One
citation ought to be sufficient to dispose of
m. s" laektof law learning. which ID. G.. L."
thinks Is more assumed than real. There was
a "Brutus' once who pretended to be a Ounce,
but he headed revolution Of the people
against tyranny. Mr.. Madison, In the FEEDER
dttst, page 242 speaking of this article, said
"Bllls OF attalnder, er post focto laws and
tdtrs lmpnfrtng tie Ottt0utt6t Of eortrtfts, are
contrary to the first principles of the social
compact and to every principle of sound legis-
lation The two former are expressly pro-
hibited by the declarations prefixed to some
of the State constitutions, and all of them are |
these fandamentai ckartsrs." ' Our slppe own w
experience has taught us, nevertheless,
that additional fences against these dangers
ought not to be admitted. Very properly,
therefore, have the convention added this |
constitutional butTark in favor of personal
security and prirdte rights, and | am much |
deceived If they have not in so doing as faith
fully consulted the genuine sentiments as the
tH
The sober people Of America are weary of the |
huctuatlng policy which has directed the |
public councils. They have seen with regret |
and with indignation that sudden changes |
and legislative interferences In cases affecting
personal rights become jobs In the hands OF |
enterprising and influential spectators and |
snares to the more industrious and less in
formed part OF the community. They have
seen that one legislative interference is but
the first link OF q long chain of repetitiops
subsequent pl bnip I'm IL,
produced by the effects Of the preceding. |
They very rightfully infer, therefore, that |
some thorough reform is wanting which will |
Danish speculations on public measures, in
splre general prudence and industry, and give |
q regular course to the business OF society
The last part OF this quotation proves that
there were thousand IN g." whose States
claimed the right to violate contracts and re-
pudiate debts in the day when the constt,l- |
ton was being formed and this sacred clause
In fayor,of personal rights, of preserving the |
fruits OF labor to the poor man, was inserted |
as grand reform measure, demanded by the
danger those inspired men foresaw and pre-
d1cted would every now and then, through |
the ats OF demagogues, excite the people of |
q State to attempt. This article was ayowed-
ly inserted as a constitutional bulwalk In
favor OF personal security and private rights,
and an additional fence against the danger OF |
overturning fundamental principles" This
doctrine, by the Interpretation of the Supreme
Court, has repeatedly been reproduced. Thus
they have said: III contract, when made,
was valid, under the constitution and laws OF |
, State, as previously expounded by its Judi
3ial tribunals, and understood at the time no |
subsequent action OF the Legislature or the |
uttidiuy, will be regarded by this court as es-
,ablishing its invalidity." Wall, 294; /
Wall, IT'S; 16 Howard, 432. This decision ap-
plies to q constitution as we'll as to an act of |
he Legislature or State decision Of the 7
judiciary.
"The remedy or means Of enforcing a con-
frn ot hat
which the constitution protects, against be-
ing impaired by dng tar passed by @ State.
Nothing is more material to the obligation OF
contract than the means of enforcement;
he ideas OF validity and remedy are insepa-
able, and both are parts OF the obligation,
which is guaranteed by the constitution
against impairment. The obligation of a
contract is, the law which binds the parties to
perform Their agreement Any impairment of
he obligation OF contract 1.-THE degree of i'm
,airment Is immateriel) Is within the prohi-
,ition OF the constitution. Whenever such
'esult is produced by the act iu question, to
hat extent it is void" 1.-THE States are no
more permitted to impair the efficacy of a
contract III this way, than to attack its validi-
y in any. other manner. Against all assaults
coming from that quarter, whatever Quise
hey may assume, the contract is shteLded.by
ne constitution" 1t must be left with the
anne force and effect including the SUBJ
tantial means OF enforcement which exist
u when it was made The guarantee
II the constitution gives 1t protection to that
,xteDt." Q6 Wall. 3l8, 4 Wall. 535J In another
;ase the Supreme Court of the United States
Inswers the notions OF M" by saving of
similar arguments upon class of defenses
nterposed in the answer and In the argu-
nent 1t is not necessary to spend much time.
The theories upon which they are based are
1elous. They are based upon the idea that
efusal to pay an honest debt is institiable
because 1t would distress the debtor to paw it.
voluntary refusal to pay an honest debt is
! high offense in a comm ercial community,
md Is Just cause OF war between nations"
. Wall. 121, 4 Wall. 535. Judges Swayne and
clifford said: "The aflirmance OF the iudg-
nent will be to give judicial sanction to q
fraudulent Reputation of an honest debt"
What I'D. G. l.. meant by republican form
u government Is embodied in the theory that
personal rights" must be secured or it fails
o be republican, and that State that can re-
,udlate her solemn contracts Is a piratical
government and not fit to associate with
IJF nil nd nat