Year: 1866

TRICT.


In former communication I attempted
to show the moral responsibility of the
debtor in regard to his contracts made be-
fore the emancipation Of slavery, and pro-
missed to review the subject in its legal as
pect. l confess to feeling of great diff
dcnce in entering upon the discussion of
this division Of tue subject, in the presence
of such profound legal bearing as your
District affords. A Judicial tribunal is the
proper one to which the subject should be
referred ordinarily, but the extraordinary
condition OF the country renders it entirely
appropriate that the people should take
counsel together upon matter which in


wolves each individual, and the general in
forests OF the whole. We arc without le.
gal decisions TO Which to refer as prece-
dents OH this subject. 1t is something new.


We must therefore, analize it a6 initio.
The first question to determine is, what is
a contract? 1t is creature Of the law-t
exists only in contemplation of the law


Its extent, its duration, its terms ale all
determined by the law-nor, in this sense.
has it any moral significance whatever.
The law enf"rces contract never because
OF the promise to pay" simply, but be.
cause Of the 'value received" of the payer.
Property then is the basis OF all contracts
it is the legal obiiyuiion of the contract.
Ii two OF US are about to contract, the pay.
er will only contract to an extert proper
t'onato to the amount oi property the
payer has, and if he has nothing, the ex-
tent OF the contract VIII he proportiopate
to the probable earnings of his labor. We
have shown, therefore, that the legal obi
CATION Of the debtor CONSISTS in the prop
ery which he has at the time the contract
is made, and may thereafter have, and
which the creditor and the law both recog-
nlzc him as HAVING, and for which the law
makes him responsible. What now is the
plea of the dettor 1t is that the law can
not decree against him, except for the remain
der of his debt. after leducl;ng an amount
equal to tho proportion Of bis property
which !: has destroyed. TO show this to
be the law is to establish the plea. The
President issued his proclamation aholish-
ing slavery throughout the United States.
Congress approved this proclamation, and
so amended the Constitution as 10 contain
the same provision, thus making the abo
lition OF slavery the constitutional, funda-
mental law-not statutory provision or
enactment, bnt the organic law Of the
land. The State Of South Carolina ratified
the same provision in her Constitution, thus
making the abolition Of slavery the organ.
ic law Of the State. We are not permit
ted 10 question the Constitutionalty of this
law. 1t is the constitution itself and we
dare not oppose it. We held it at bay for
four years, and were at last furced to &C.
knowledge it, however reluctantly. If the
question had rested alone with the destruc.
tion of property by the act Of the public
enemy, the debtor would have been left
free to regain hi' property at future day
by his own exertions, or not, on his own
responsibility but the law having not on
ly sanctioned the act of the public enemy,
but made the destruction universal and
complete, renders it impossible for him ever
to regain it.. What is the relation Of this
organic law TO contracts existing at the
time Of its advent Does it furnish any
new rule of Interpretation Does it alter
their terms OF requirements So far as we
can perceive it adopts the existing rules of
construction at the time they were executed.
If the "ler loci contractus" the law of the
contract sohere made is invariably the rule
Of construction. is it not equally true of the
law of the contract a0hen made. This
same law, as declared by the Court in the
late case involving the constitutionality Of
the stay law, says that every means exist
ing at the time the contract ia made, by
which the creditor is enabled to enforce his
contract, is implied in the contract and be.
comes part of the same, therefore to stay
process is unlawful, is the reasoning of the
Court. Then, by parity Of reason every
species of property existing at the time the
contract is made, and every law in relation
to that property. is.a part of the contract
the legal obligation Of the contract; hence
if the law destroys that property, that .le-
gal obligation, the argument is reduced to
the following propositions, that either. the
destruction Of the property is unlawful, or
that the contract is broken. But the for.
meE proposition cannot be true. We can
not salkibat- the destruction Of the proper.
~ is unlawful; it is the law Of the Con.
atifn,;on Sfsole - IL -,