Year: 1864

" ALA w ALA, Oec. Il, 1OO4.


EDS. STATESMAN In your last issue
notice criticism on the Special Contract
Law of Oregon and the recent decision of
Judge Shattuck in the case of Bloom rs.
Stephens In my opinion the decision is
right and the criticism wrong. The case as
reported shows that Stephens specifically
promised and agreed to pay gold and silver
coin to Bloom The case further shows that
the notes were due and that Stephens ten
dered greenbacks to Bloom prior to the pas
sage of the Special Contract Law. In al p
swcr to Blooms complaint, Stephens pleaded
the tender in greenbacks. The question be-
fore the Court for its decision was the valid
ity of the tender aforesaid The case shows
that the Court held the tender not valid,
but the reasons are not stated. The reason
| would assign is this: The obligation of
Stephens agreement bound him to pay
Bloom in cola; but the offer to pay in legal
tender notes vas not an offer to perform the
obligations of his contract any more than if
Stephens had agreed to break FIVE acres of
land for Bloom and then offered instead to
build him FIVE rods of fence


The Court decided that the Special Con-
tract law is not inconsistent with the consti-
tuition and laws of the United States In
this, think, it is right. 1t does not i'm
pair the obligations of contracts, but is
remedy in the hands of the Court to com
pei the specific performance thereof; hence
the law is purely remedial That the legis-
lature has power to make, alter, or repeal
remedial laws no one having any knowledge
on the subject will deny. 1t does not con
flict with the law OF Congress making green
backs, for that Law does not forbid A from
paying coin to B. 1t will be plain if we on
ly remember that the idea contained in a
tender to a creditor is that the debtor offers
to perform the obligations of his contract
If the debtor does not so offer the tender is
not good. The legislature sometimes fails
to give the party aggrieved full and COM
plete remedy atlaw. For example, A prom
ised to deliver to B, for value received, one
thousand bushels of wheat, on the first day
of January, 1864, but wholly failed. AS
the law now Isl A can sue for the value Of
the wheat but not for the wheat. Could not
the legislature give the remedy to compel
the delivery Of the wheat


The words " en post fdct0 laws, found in
the federal constitution and elsewhere have
no reference to civil procedure, but refer
alone to criminal matters For example A,
in October, Gid an act lawful and right for
him to do, but in January following the leg
islatnre passes a law making his act crimin-
al and Furnishes him for it. Such law
would be er post facto. l..


So far as these Specific Contract laws
are concerned, we think they are needfuf
and proper. Persons should be compelled
to fulfill contracts legitimatey made, and
when man contracts to pay debt in gold
or silver, he should live up to the contract,
Or be compelled to do so by law-where
law can touch him. But the point we wish
to come at, is (and we suppose al" can an
swer it satisfactorily: can a contract be
made valid by the Oregon specific contract
law, which was not binding until after the
act was passed We must infer that the
contracts to pay in particular currency were
not binding before the contract law was
passed, for otherwise there could have been
no need for a special law. We admit the
law took effect from and after its passage,
and that it can compel the fulfllment of con
tracts made after the law took effect, but is
the law retrospective in its nature, and can
it compel the fulfllment of coatracts made
prior to its passage