The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-03-23


cannot - questioned TIE tire an3 man
rer of tAstr operation the exceptions -
{ theE3. and f5e acts from watrE the tine
limited shall begin 70 ru1 will generally
dsre-sG On the sound 9lscre.taa og the leg
islasu-s. according 20 the natars o. ire
titles. the situation OF the country and
the emergency which leads 20 their enact
.nezt- Cases may occur whore the pro-
visions Of a ls~ may be 20 unreasonable
as 10 amount 20 the denlal % a right,
and call Ter tAe lnterposttton 81 The
court } Pct -,
The oal1gation of The Contract between
tfe parties n his case gas - perform
1he premises AID undertakings contained
therein. Ene FigAt of She plaintiff was TO
damages for tHe ors4cA thereof 10 bring
s0s- ami onZata Judgment, 30 take eut
AMI prosecute an execution againss the
defendant tiIi the Judgment was saELstisss.
pursuant 70 the existing Laws ct Iusaois
These laws givlnx these rights we're as
perfectly bin5irg on the defendant and
as much par< OF taa contract as X they
had been set forth in is stipuiatioss in
the very words cf Fhs law relating 70
judgments and executions. IL the de-
fendan, had made such an agreement as
20 authorize a sale % his prcperty, whtesa
should be levied on ny the sheriff. for
such price as should ne bid for il az a
fair public sale on Teas1gFa BILE notice Il
would have conferred a right on the
plaintiff which the constitution made in
y5olabIe: and x can make no difference
whether such right Is conferred by the
terms or Law OF the contract. Any stlbse-
Quenf law which denies ots,ructs. or i'm
pairs this right by superaddiug a eoadE-
ton that there shall be no sale for any
sum less than the vaige of the property
levied on, to be aseerrained by appraise-
nseut, or any other mode of valuation
than a public sale, affects the obligation
NJ Fttsz ErYfF a b fTs-
az the other. for IL can be enforced only
by sale of the defendants property. and
the prevention oE such sale is the denial
OF a right The same power In a stale
Legislature may be carried 10 any extent,
IL IL exists at all; IL may prohibit a sale
for less than the whole appraised value.
or for 'hree-fourths. or nine-terr,hs as
we'll as for two-thirfs: for II the power
can be exercised 20 any extent, its exer-
clse mus; be a matter OF unconfroitahIa
discretion. in passing laws relating TO the
remedy which are regardless Of the effect
OF the right OF the plaintiff This was the
ruling principle of the case OF Bronson VS..
kinzie. l How. al. which arose on a
mortgage containing a covenant; that in
default OF payment. the mortgage might
enter upon. sell and convey the mort
gagged premises, as the attorney OF the
mortgagor: yet the case was not decided
on the effect and obligation of that coy
enant. but on the broad and general prin-
ctpie that state Law which professeily
provided remedy for enforcing the con-
tract of mortgage effectually impaired
the rights incident to and attached 10 Il
by the laws in force at It's date was void
No agreement or contract can create
more binding obligation than those fast
ened by the Law. which the law creates
and attaches 10 contracts: the EXPRESS
power which a mortgagor confers ON the
morTgagee TO seil as his agent is not more
potent than that which the law delegates
TO the marshal 10 sell and convey the
property levied on. under an execution.
He is the constituted agent Of the de-
/ PENDANT, invested with all his powers for
those purposes. The marshal can do nm
der the authority of the law whatever he
could do under the fullest power of at
'orney from the execution debtor: and no
/ state law car prohibit It. II follows that
the law OF Illinois now under eonsidera-
tion. 50 far as 1t prohibits a sale for less
than twd-ihirfs Of tho appraised value
/ OF the property levied on. is uneonsthu-.
uonai and void"
No reason obtains why the law in the
/ above case is not equally applicable TO tho
cases contemplated by senate bin No &
The latter is even much more favorable n,
the Judgment debtor than the statute of
Illinois above referred 10. and tnvaies To
greater extent the rights of existina,
contract creditors under the laws of this
state now y force. The following cases
decided in the supreme court OF the United
states show the uniformity with which
that tribunal has adhered TO the general
principle OF law. as laid down in the cases
above cited Fletcher VS.. Peck Cranch
Rep 81 Green VS. Bidaie. Wheaton Rep.
p, L. Sturgis ys. Crownenshield, whea-
ton Rep. f22: Bronson US. kinzie, l How
ard 81; Curran vs Arkansas I3 Howard
3il; Freeman VS.. Howe 81 Howard 45f:
Ia Nxfh n.
vs. Hart. i3 Wallace SIS: Waiter VS.. White
head Is " allace 3i5: Gum VS.. Barry 10
Wallace 6l0; Edwards vs. kearscy. ss L.
s. Rep. 595: Pennimau's case. IO3 L. s.
Rep. ia; Louisiana VS.. New Orleans. i12
L. 5. Rep. 25: Antony W. Greenhom. l07
L. 5. Rep. 1e9
While I am convinced that senate bill
No. is unconstitutional for the reasons
above stated so far as IL relates 10 exist
Ing contracts and judgments. Ii might be
valid as to all contracts express and i'm
piled made after Il became a law by ex-
ecutive approval II is also probably true
that IL might be valid as TO all judgments
hereafter rendered in actions ex delicto.
although the tort was committed prior 10
tha passage OF this bill.
Mr.. Cooley. in his treatise on cons;!tu-
tiouai limitations gives his general views
on this subject as follows:
"A legislative act may he entirely valid
voil as to others. a Law might be
void IA violating the obligation Of exist
ing coufrarts. hut valid as To all contracts
which should be entered into subsequent
TO its paesare and which therefore would
have no legal force except such as the
law itself would allow In any ensh case
the unconstitutional law must operate as
Tar as Il can. and IL will not be held IN
valid on the objection of a Tary whose in
tevee,z are not affected by II In any manner
which the constitution fcrbids. II there
are any exceptions 20 this rule they must
Re Of cases only where II is evident. from
q Contamination Of the statute and of the
y.l-rasa 20 hp accomplished by +. II at
II would not have been passed at all
ex-,sr- as an entirety. and that the gen.
eral u1rtose Of tho legislature will he de-
featad II II shall he held valid as 20 some
rases and void rs to others" Cooley on
Constitutional Limitations. 5th edition. p.
elT
TIE learned author states tho exceptions
% tie rule above set forth as they rust
30 asrertained by the judicial department
cf sha government whose inquiry Is Tim
t.a4 nv what fs indicated on the face or
,l7a at As 10 the intention of the lcgtsia-
fts~s aua Nv s,leh facts as are within the
realm ~ judicial notice AMI knowledge.
= ,xasIls se conceded generally that the
executive as an integral part % the law
making power has much wider range %
trotsf~v before him. What vas the gen
t~aI purpose 10 b@ accomplished by the
legislature tn the passage az this hlliT
Vont9 the Legislature have passed the
h4ri = - operation IN their judgment was
f-1s ..s,r, frr3 70 such contracts as were
made after it received the approval of the
g-7-a~ror and upon which here
sf-a~ Judgment might be ven-