The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1895-12-12

Course Of the Campaign Great Howl in
Kansas Over Martins Decision of the
Mortgage Redemption Law-General
News of the State of Kansas
Topeka, Kan. Dec. n.-(Special.)-
Cy Leland is getting in his work al
Washington as the following dispatch
Cyrus Leland, the Kansas member of
| the national Republican committee, is
| made a member Of the executive COM
| mittee, which is something of a dis
tinction in national politics. Some
| years ago he was offered a place on the
| executive committee, but he was forced
| to refuse il, owing to the fact that ne
| could not remain in New York three
| months during the heat of the cam
paign. 1t is understood that some of
| the national leaders, who will most
| certainly conduct the campaign next
year, have indicated that they want
Leland with them in personally con-
Quoting the next presidential cam
paign. AS a member of the executive
committee there, he will aid the ma
tional committee with his advice and
experience in western politics, and, ac-
cording to the general plan of handling
matters he would be given general
direction of some of the states in the
west. In this position he would be
able to aid the west in their general
work, as they would have friend at
headquarters.
MORE LEGISLATURE TALK.
The howl over the decision of the
supreme court in which Judge Johnson
alone dissented is growing. 1t is even
thought that 1T may help to get the
legislature in special session this win
ter, that the legislators may repeal that
part Of the law relating to prior con-
tracts, as it is the decision on this part
Of the mortgage redemption law that
has stirred up such a muss.
A L. Williams, general attorney of
the Union Pacific Railroad company,
says that Chief Justice David Martins
decision, affirming the constitutional
ity Of the redemption act, as applied
TO contracts made before the passage of
the act and overruling the previous
decision of the supreme court, is both
unfortunate and incorrect. '1t is I'M
fortunate" General Williams says, "be-
cause IT will work injuriously both to
the state at large and to a host of I'M
fortunate debtors, who at present be-
Ieve they have found a deliverer. II
VIII cast doubt upon a great many
titles based upon sales and deeds made
in conformity with the original opinion
Of the supreme court, and will, again
cause money loaners to fight shy of
Kansas, and in the end every title made
upon the theory that this law was con-
stitutional will be held valid. By the
time decision Of the supreme court
of the United States is made reversing
this decision (as it unquestionably
wild, the statute of limitations will
have run out against good legal
grounds for setting aside some of these
titles and giving debtors an opportun-
ity to save their property.
THAT the decision is wrong is abso-
lutely not open to controversy. Judge
Martin admits in the decision that if a
mortgage in Kansas was similar to a |
mortgage in Illinois, the decision in |
Bronson VS.. Kfnsley in First Howard. |
would be conclusive against his posi- |
ton, but he attempts to defend his |
ruling by pointing out the difference |
which undoubtedly exists between the |
Instruments in the two states, and by |
pointing it out clearly and correctly. |
The mistake, however, is in supposing
that the difference between the mortg- |
ages in the two states creates any diff |
ference IN the principle of law involved. |
1t Is immaterial whether the security |
given for the payment Of a note is a |
upon real estate or the pledge |
Oh a jack KNIFE. Whatever remedy
the law gives for the enforcement OF |
contract at the time 1T is made, en-
ters into and becomes a part of the
contract, and if 1T is diminished in the !
slightest degree it impairs the obliga-
ton OF the contract, and a great deal
or hne-sun reasoning has been expend-
ed IN pointing out the difference be-
tween the obligation of the contract
and the remedy for it's enforcement"
RIGHTS IMPAIRED.
With its strong good sense the su-
preme court of the United States has
said from the beginning that II the law
of does substantially i'm
pair the rights of the parties to the
contract, 1T impairs the obligation of !
1he contract, whether in terms it is ad-
dressed TO the remedy or not To H.
ustrate: The mode of proceeding in
he courts of the state, such as the is
'uance OF summons. service of the
same. definition of pleadings. the time
n which pleadings may be filed, etc,
ire uHqueSllOHdOly part or the RENE |
iial statutes, and may be changed at
he pleasure Of the legislature, provfd-
d they do not impair the obligation of
/ contract A note, secured by mortg-
lge, is given today. The law provides
hat the defendant. upon being sued.
hall answer the petition within twenty
lays after return day of the summons |
suppose the next Legislature provided |
hat the defendant could have ten years
n which TO answer. the plaintiff ten |
more in which 10 reply. and the defend
mt ten years more in which 10 derur |
o the reply. Would such a law impair
he obligation OF the contract? Most !
ssuredly il would. because II DESTROYS
:; and yet such an amendment would
Q, strictly speaking, addressed sinp-
Y to the remedy afforded by the courts.
md II goes without saying. as pointed
ut by the supreme court, in the case
{ Hayward VS.. McCracken. in second
Toward. that in the very nature of |
iings, where the right to legislate upon |
subject OF this kind is given. there
oes with il an uncomfortable descre-
on on the part of the legislature. 5
II have so far only mentioned Bron- {