The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-02-15
LAWS lsn.AlRIxG CONTRACTS.

The United States supreme court has
once more upheld the principle that IL
an ostensible change i'm remedy essen
TALLY affects real benefits under a con-
tract, statute attempting TO compass
such change is repugnant 10 the Fed
eral constitution as applied TO con-
tracts In existence. The case In point
has an additional interest. because il
involves a question which has been
much canvassed in this state. The state
OF Kansas passed statute providing
months for redemption with fun right
of possession during that time, and for
bidding another sale of the land for
any deficiency on the first sale. The
supreme court Of Kansas held that this
law applied 10 mortgages executed be-
fore its passage. as well as to those
executed afterwards. but the United
States supreme court reversed IL and
declared that the ruling OF the state
the obligation OF contracts must not
be impaired.
The upholders Of the law fell back
upon the general rule that mere RENE
dies may be changed by legislatures
without unconstitutionalIy impairing
the obligation Of contracts. OF course.
II the new remedy Is adequate for the
enforcement Of Il right, no wrong IS
done; and neither party is deprived OF
any right. Courts are. however. al
ways on their guard against the posi-
bility Of a merely nominal change OF
remedies seriously impalrlnp substan-
tial rights. The distinction Is perfectly
clear. and If a court finds that n pur-
ported change In the remedy deprives
one subject 10 II Of substantial right,
IL viii be fulfilling It's purpose in at
least exempting him from its operation
even IL it do not declare the law uncon-
stitutlonai
The supreme court of Wisconsin has
taken just such a stand when Il de-
cided that law passed at the last ses-
sion was lnenectual as 10 existing con-
ditlons. which might be regarded as
forming an Implied contract or tac.t
right II appeared that Judgment
note had been given by which. accord
Ing to existing Law. the payee was en-
titled - enter n Judgment as by con-
fesslon 80 any time before an assign
ment Ter the benefit Il creditors. there
IL obtaining "a preference. shortly be-
fore entering Judgment by confession.
IN accordance with the warrant OF at
torney contained In the note. a statute
took effect. providing that within ten
days after the entry 81 any such 3udr-
msnt the debtor might defeat levy
Hereunder by an assignment for the
bsneft u creditors.
In hoidinx that such statute. as an.
Piled q existing Judgment notes. was
uneonSstatlena1. the sslr rene court xaia
te&f ~ tae operation az the act the
creditor WAS deprived of The beneat ~
h's iawful remedy, which was an g.
seatlai part ~ the contracts Tor securs-
ties Concea.nE thas the legislation in
gues,ioa belonged 70 the class known rs
'rvlaedlal.~ 81 was suu evident thar thu
value q tAese contracts vas nsatersal;y
le-ssened by ard through lis operation.
AID ;hesg validity and hindlaS faree
wero impaired. Existing contracts. tie
ecurt held. may - impaired ~ such
Legislation - NIL IS BY any other. II
oi3entaliy. IL Is minated that The only
insolvency law which could i1spalr IRE
obligation - exisgiDg contracts would
y general bankruptcy law rassess By
ooaSress. because the power to pass