The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-03-23
IEIOBY THECOIERNOR
Holds the Deficiency Judgment
Bill Unconstitutional
AS TO EXISTING CONTRACTS.
ms Being So, the Bill Weuid Give
No Relief 20 Debtors.
bur 1t Would Hasten Foreclosure Suits
and Prevent Renewal OF Ioans~The
General Appropriation gin and the
Aagt okanogan County Cascade
Road BIZ Signed.

isoad BIZ Signed.
Olympia, March 12--special THE gov
ernor has vetoed senate Bill No = nv
TAYLOR. relating TO deficiency 1ufxrnents
st,a gives his reazoas fer the veto In the
following message:
State of Washington.
Executive Department
Olympia. March - 1885.
Hon. J. III. Price. Secretary Of State
>" transmit herewith senate hill No.
= emitted. An act 10 regulate the sale Of
property Under executio. and deerees.''
together With my objections thereto.
nave carefully considered the proyis-
iohs OF this bsfl and am irresistihly led 10
tae conclusion that so far as the same is
intended 10 operate upon existing judg-
meuis. or upon existing contracts, express
or implied. which have not yet merged
INTO judgments. IL is unconstitutional ard
Folet because II contrayenes section ii.
arlssle ], constitution Of the United States.
which provides that NO state shall
pass any law impairing the
obligation az contracts" and also section
Is. article /. OF oGf state constitution,
which declares that NO law impairing
the obligation OF contracts shall ever be
passed
II there were anything on its face To- in
dicate that the bin was intended TO ope-
rate only upon contracts which should be
entered into subsequent tn It's approval. or
10 judgments arising I'm actions ex deiicto,
no question could possibly arise as 10 its
consfitutioaality, whatever might be said
OF the wisdom OF the policy involved with
ITS enforcement. That the legislature in
tended 20 give this measure a retroactive
operation, and have its provisions apply
to existing judgments. and upon pre-exist-
nh x~b .fr~ks =, T+a 10.
converted into judgments. is evident for
the reasons that IL Is generally made ap-
plicabie 10 all judgments. and contains no
saving clause I'm favor Of judgments or
contracts heretofore rendered or made:
and, also. because the bill Internationally
repeals all acts and parts of acts in con-
rict with it's provisions and declares an
emergency, for the reason that the pres
ent Law relating tn the sales of property
under execution Is oppressive and un-
just"
Ii is undoubtedly true that In modes OF
proceedings and forms to enforce con-
tr1ts and Judgments rendered upon con-
tracts. and prescribing the remedy gen
orally. the legislature has control and
may enlarge, limit or alter them, pro-
vided IL does not deny "A remedy, or so
emsarrass II with restrictions and eondi-
tions as TO seriously impair the value OF
/ the right"
The highest courts Of last resort also
generally hold that the laws in force.
/ when contract IS made affording the
creditor party a means of enforcing IL, or
providing a remedy for breach thereof.
arc a part OF the contract In such sense:
and they further hold that a law na ssed
after the contract was made whish an
nuls such laws, or enfeebIes them to such
an extent that the creditor is deprived
OF his remedy. or clogs the remedy with
conditions or restrictions so as TO weak
en- its efficacy, Is invalid.
The supreme court of the United States
In the case Of McCracken vs. Hayward
: Howard Rep. p. Cos. held that a stat
ute Of Illinois. which prohibited prop
eFty from being sold on execution for
less than two-thlris the valuation made
by appraisers, pursuant 20 the directions
contained in the statute. impaired the OBJ
legation Of contracts. ard was iTiopera-
ton upon executions issuing on iudg-
ments founded on contracts The stat
ute provided in substance that where any
execution duly issued and levied on any
property the officer levying such execI-
tion should summon three householder-.
TO be selected as therein provided which
househoiafrs. after being sworn should
fairly and impartialiy value the property
levied upon. having reference 20 it's cash
value. and inaorse the valuation uuon
The execution. or separate paper at
tached thereto signed by them and that
should not ne struck off unless two
thirds of such valuation should he b.1
therefor. Other parts OF the statute are
not necessary % he stated
After the rendition or the Judgment
and IN the United States circutt court
In which the case was pending. the con-
stttutiopality ~ the statute was raised
and Tho court was divided IN oplaion rs
70 whether the Illinois statute which
had been aiontei by the court as ore ~
its rules regulating the sale of real prop
erty under execution. wRs Invalid as i'm
pairing the obligation Of contract. and
the case vas certified u the supreme
court ~ the United States for itS deri-
sion The latter court in disposinE %
the constitutional question announced
the legal principles involved In that ease
as follows:
"In placing the obligation of contracts
under thc protection ~ The constitution
It's framevs looked 70 the essentials of the
contract more thar 20 the forms and
modes Of proceeding by which Il was 20
he carried Into execution. Anuutltnes all
state legislation which Impaired the phli-
ga:}an. tt was LETT 70 thu states - rs~e-
So .itn and shape the remedy 20 enforce
T. The obligation ~ contract consists
IN It's hlndIag foree on tho marty wh5
makes II. This depends or tha laws IN
existence when IL ia made. these are nc~-
essariiy referred ~ In all contracts. an1
the obligation - perform them lv she
ore party and tire right acquired ~ tNe
other There can he no other standard
~ which - ascertain tho extent - eth
c~ than that which the terms nf tee ror-
trace indicate. according 20 thclr settled
legal naes ming Wien II becomes con-
stirsuate3 the law .sesnes the asstv anI
thc ri~ht. c0rlpels ore party - perform
fhc th4aE contracted for. and gives fne
other a r3gh; 30 eufarce the performance
Nv the remedies then iu force I: any
subsequent lsg Affects - diminish me
.gaty o~ 20 Impair the right. it ueeesear-
tg bears IN the obligation q she contract.
fn favor ~ one party % the injury % the
ntaer Hence. any law which, sa 'ss ov.-
,-atsaa. amounts - 4 denial or chst~,ac-
fsor az sN@ rights arcvUiG< by a corfract.
thoIGH processing - act on th~ rasrsay.
IS t}rro1lv oADoxjoas 80 she prohibition OF
tns constitution.
.~rat3 prsreiria : - clearly s-a<as1 a~f
fally settled n the ease - Troosan vs
k5nzie GeclSa5 az the last teru7. : How.
S3I that nothing remains 70 ba added 80
*ne reasoning of the cogrc, or requires a
reference 20 any other authority. tnan
vhat - therein referred ~ II ts. how
,e.e~ rot - 30 understood 'Aat ~ thai.
or cry former decision Of this coGrT. al