The Russellville Democrat., 1880-06-03
JUDGE FOUND ON
 AMENDMENT.
THE


 one of our old and true citizens, an humble, honest candid man having no ''axe to grind" and no interest to serve only the best interests of the state. Below we give his views on the Flshback amendment as written to the Independent Arkansi an. No man will dare to say that Judge Pound has been bought by the bond holders-he (the man who would attempt to make such an as sertion) would be afraid the lie would choke him Tn his throat ere he could get it of his tongue. Here are Judge Pounds views of the case 1; DANvLLE, May F, 1880.
 ED. AmANsIAN: In my communica- ton of the 9th inst, think 1 proved conclusively that the legislature cannot pass law that would be binding, which impaired the obligation of con- tracts. 1 will now show from the law Of the land, that q state in convention can no more impair the obligation of q contract than can a state legislature. | Sec. IA, article l5, of our constitution of 1868, snacts that "all contracts for the sale or purchase of slaves are null and void, and no court of this state shall takecognizance of any suit found- ed on such contracts; nor shall any amount ever be collected or recovered | on any judgement or decree which shall have been, or which hereafter may be rendered on account of any such contract or obligation, on any pretext, legal or otherwise" Not withstanding the above article In the constitution of 1868, suit was broug Int | in the Yell circuit court on . lost writ ing obligatory, given for slaves, on which judgement was given in favor Of plaintiff. Defendent appealed to su- preme court of the state, and the judge meat below was confirmed.
 J. Gregg, In delivering the opinion of the court, after quoting the constitn- ticnal article above, stated, "under I the we'll understood rule that legisla- tive acts should never have retros- pective construction. if they admit of any other, we could hold the first clause of this section operative only upon the future conduct of men, but the lan- guage used in the remaining part of the section Is clearly retrospective, and shows beyond doubt. tha. the conventon intended to cut of all remedy, in the courts of tho state, upon all pre-exist- ing as well as future obligations and contracts based upon the consideration of slave property. The clauses in this section, that beyond doubt, arc retros. pective form a clear index to the true meaning of the entire paragraph, and irresistibly brings us to the conclusion that the whole section was to have such retroaction, and we prefer to meet these grave questions upon fair and legitimate construction of these clauses in our constitution, and upon s just definition of what was the meanin E and intention of the convention. rather than try to quiet our consciences and avoid responsibility by some strain ed construction to show that 1t means 8 thing that never entered the mind of a single delegate in that convention" When we assume that tke convention did intend, and, by the section refer red to, did enact and declare, that both past aud future obligations and con. tracts, resting upon the sale or pur. chase of slaves, should be held null and void, and that no court should take cognizance Of enforce any such obliga. ton. Had the state convention power to annull these existing contracts "All conceds she could prohibit the en. forcsment of such future contracts that, when assembled in her sovereign capacity, she was perfectly competen Co decide upon public policy within her limits, or to prohibi. or encourage sny kind of business or class of dealings she might deem for the best interest," of the people, regulated only by natural justice and the constitution of tn, United states"
 "PuslIc policy Is but the manifested will of the state, and the question is whether by q change in her will or pol icy, our national consultation, she car destroy a contract made under anG sanctioned under our former policy"
 Aftsr going Into an elaborate ar gument To show that no state In hei sovereign capacity or by her lsgislatur, ssn Impair the obligation Of a contract J. Gregg centlnuesl "It was claimed by council that a new constitution SUI parceeds former laws, and must contro the states internal affairs-her eourts ' hNf tEAERAs AHA FtRE%fAf to ttA' sovereign uiu snd must be obeyed But that court eS. C. sf U. S.l said, no Co. Where contracts existss under former constitution they mus l be obserVed co, and that cannot bs dsnisd, the sov srelgntY that made the constitution O isJs, is equal so the sovereignty thsl made the constitution of is6s, neither having the power to Impair a contract. "lias not every principle in tht. easl been adjudgsd by the highest court if the governmental That court, upon the most mature consideration, has de. eided, in several cAsess that a state con stituuon impAiring the obligation Of [ contract is inoperatfvs, being in con alct with the uuitsd states constita tion." S~e Pigua Braueh Bank vs kn0op. 60 How. ssni Dodge xs. wosi sey. is 10, 53i Mechanics. &c., Bank vs. Debolt. q. co, aso, Same ss. Th0m as, 70, aSi Jefferson hrsnch Bank xs f.. Kelley, Bixek, ca Franklf Branch hank vs. state uf Ohio, l fb tIii Cummings vs. state sf Missouri, Wall, zTT.m
 "In these cases. tha dscssioa depend ed upon the power er ths sovereign people of Ohio and Miesoufi, ia con vention to impair existing obligations and that court nnifoFmiy held thk& ns such power existed.
 Aftsr reasoning su said eaass nt soms length ths D., proceeded s'ia ths several c3sps i4st referred tn. the | United Ststss SanfNnle Court hold thAl