The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-05-19
PROPOSED Law REFORM IN ENGLAND.

proposed rule is stated in q memoran-
dunn, as follows:
The effect of the proposed standing order
will be simply TO change the onus probnndi
where It is sought TO break existing con-
tracts. Now any member of either house
OF Parliament may. without let or him
drance. so far regards forms of proceed
ure, bring In q bill interfering with OF
breaking an existing contract, and il rests
with the defender of a contract TO show
cause why it should not he broken. In
future whoever presents or brings in bill
OF this nature will have TO show cause for
interfering with q contract. and will have
to obtain the sanction of the House for the
suspension of the standing order by which
such interference Is priIna facie for hidden.
No doubt 1t will surprise most persons
to learn that the British Constitution
permits Parliament to pass law inter-
fering with existing contracts. 1t fur
nlshes new evidence of the wisdom of
the trainers of our Constitution to find
that they embodied in that instrument,
more than hundred years ago. the
very provision which it is now proposed
to engraft on the British Constitution in
the shape of n standing order of the
House of Lords. Article 1, Section 10,
of the Constitution of the United States
says:
No State shall enter into any treaty. ALI
ence. or confederation, grant letters OF
marque ard reprisal; coin money; emit
bills of credit; make any thing bus gold and
silver coin tender IN payment of debts:
pass any bill of attainder ex post facto
law. or law impairing the obligation of
contracts. or grant any title OF nobility.
The Constitution of Indiana says mo
of In to inns. oiprip th<a
obligation of contracts, shall be passed"
The constitutions of nearly all States
contain similar provision, and even IL
they did not, that in the Constitution of
the United States would be binding in
all the States. The principle is SO firmly
established and so we'll understood in
this country that no member of State
Legislature making any pretension TO
knowledge of constitutional law
would stultify himself by introducing a
bill which impaired the obligation of an
existing contract. Yet it seems this can
be done by the British Parliament. and
doubtless has been done very often.
The principle embodied in the fore
going extract from the Constitution is
of distinctively American origin and
older than the Constitution Itself. 1t
first found expression in the celebrated
ordinance of 1857, enacted by Congress
for the government of the Northwestern
Territory. The trainers of that ordi-
nance saw. that it afforded a fine oppor-
tunity for the PRONUNCIATION and estab-
lishment of the fundamental principles
of free government as they were then
shaping themselves in mems minds. One
of the evils during the period of the
| Confederacy had been the passage, by
the State legislatures, of laws changing
and overriding the civil rights and
remedies of parties to existing contracts.
The law of debtor and creditor was
subjected to constant changes, at the
will of the debtor class, who formed the
governing majority. The trainers of
the ordinance of 1857, determined to put
a stop To this evil by imposing an eff
fectual restraint on legislative power.
inserted In that instrument these words:
"And in the just preservation of rights
and property, it is understood and de-
clared that no law ought ever To be
made or have force in the said Terri
tory, that shall, in any manner what
ever, interfere with or affect private con-
tracts or engagements. bona tide and
without fraud previously formed" This
is not very happily expressed, but it COW
ers the ground. This was the germ of the
provision subsequently inserted in the
Constitution. When the subject OF re-
stricting the legislation of the several
States was first brought up in the con-
vention it was proposed to prohibit &c
| post fdctO laws. There was no OppOsi-
tion To this, and when it was ascertained
| that this expression would only include
| criminal legislation IT was agreed on all
! hands that the restriction must be ex-
| tended SO as to embrace civil cases. The
| language of the ordinance above quoted
was regarded as too sweeping. and
after some discussion the provision was
stands. 1t is doubtful If any of the jur-
lists W ho were concerned in framing the
ordinance or the Constitution foresaw
| at the time all the great future impor-
lance and extensive operation of this
wise and effective provision. Brief as
| it is, it has enabled the courts of the
different States and of the United States
to exercise vast, direct and uniform
influence on the security of property in
all the States of the Union.
Intelligent Englishmen have not failed
to note this point of difference between
the American and British constitutions.
In letter to the London Times of
March II. 1898. dated from Washington,
| ID. c., Mr. Goodwin Smith said:
There 10 the written Constitution. rooted
in popular reverence and stable almost to
the point of immob ilty. In that Constitu-
| ton IL the inestiIna able clause forbiddinR
ATTY Legislation which would impair the
| faith Of contracts. Americans start when
You tell them that IN Ireland sgrarian Leg
! islstion 10 not only impairing the faith Of