vate, leaving the matter to the General Assembly as it has been left heretofore. I had hoped that the Convention will be induced to adopt the clause as it now stands instead of making an innovation upon it. So far as respects the clause proposed, with respect to the remedies upon contracts, I do not know it will be of much avail, to do anything. It may do mischief-it can surely do no good. I have troubled the Convention long enough. Mr. GREEN, of Ross. Mr. Chairman: When I made the motion on Saturday to strike out the entire section, I stated, very imperfectly, my reasons. I desire now, with the leave of the committee, to say a few words further on the subjects embraced in the proposition. I supposed that it was scarcely necessary that we should provide, in aid of the constitution of the United States, therefore I considered the prohibition against passing laws "impairing the obligation of contracts." unneces sary. I am opposed to that clause of the section which restricts the Legislature from acting on the "law of the remedy;" and hence I desired that portion of the section should be stricken out. I think, sir, that there is a class of cases in which it might be well that the Legislature should have the power to operate re'roactively; therefore I desire to strike out the prohibition contained in the section. It is to this last branch of the subject that I shall trouble the committee with a few remarks. The subject is one which has engaged much of the attention of the profession, and should command the serious consideration of this Convention. The power of Legislation to reach questions arising on past transactions, should, in my opinion, be either expressly given or taken away. If it is given, it should be defined,if practicable, clearly-so as to leave no room for difficulty. The right to pass curative, or retroactive laws, has led to much discussion, and is still a question which arises in every case where laws of that character are interposed. And in Ohio, it seems to me, especially, as I shall show, there is a necessity that the question of power in the Legislature should be settled. illustrate my idea of the necessity for fixing definitely the power of the Legislature over this subject, and to show the evils of leaving it as it now stands, let me refer to the history of the act of 1835, to which he has alluded, and the action of our courts under it. In the year 1835, the case of Connell vs. Connell, 6. O. R., was decided. The court in that case held a conveyance insufficient to pass a wife's interest in land because of a defect in the magistrate's certificate. It did not show that "the contents of the deed had been made known to her." At the suggestion of some of the judges, the gentleman from Geauga drafted, and the Legislature immediately passed, an act declaring such conveyance sufficient, notwithstanding such defect in the certificate of acknowledgment. In the year 1843, the case of Good vs. Zercher was reserved for the Court in Bank for the purpose of testing the validity of the act of 1835, the question being the sufficiency of the deed, so defectively certified, to pass the wife's interest-the deed and acknowledgement having been made before the passage of the curative act. Three of the four judges held the act to be unconstitutional and void. At the same term of the court, the case of Meddock vs. Williams, presenting the same question, was decided in the same way.-12. 0. Reports. At the next term of the Court in Bank, (1834,) the case of Silliman vs. Cummins, involving the same question, and the court, the same three judges concurring, affirmed the decision in the two former cases. It might reasonably have been supposed that the question was res-adjudicata-three decisions of the same tribunal on the same question. But no, sir. There were interests dependent on the reversal of those opinions that were waiting their time. They looked for a change in the court. and were not disappointed; a va cancy occurred on the bench, and a gentleinan known to be right on this question was elected. The court were then divided. The case of Chesnut vs. the Lessee of Shane was then taken to the Court in Bank from the county of Ross, for the purpose of again trying the strength of the curative act of 1835; for two years it hung in that court by reason of division, the court standing two and two on the question. In the meantime, another vacancy occurring on the bench, it was filled by a gentleman who concurred with the two who favored the validity of the law, and at the term of the court in 1847 the three former decisions were reviewed, and reversed, and the law declared to be constitutional and valid. I know, sir, that in England, laws of this description are of frequent occurrence; but let me say, that the practice of the Parliament of Great Britain furnishes no rule for the government of the Legislature of Ohio. The Parliament of England is omnipotent. In the language of the great commentator on the British constitution, "it may do any thing not naturally impossible." But even there, sir, the greatest caution is observed. Cases of this kind are referred to the judges, who give notice, call parties before them, take testimony, arrange Now, sir, it is no part of my purpose to criticise the details and submit the whole to Parliament before these different opinions, but it is a subject of grave an act is passed. In Ohio the power of the Legisla- consideration how far the power of the Legislature exture is a limited delegated power, to be exercised tends in relation to the transfer of the property of perwithin defined limits; and hence arises the necessity of sons who, by reason of disability, are incapable of condefining, in every instance where power is not legiti-tracting. A married woman can make no contract, mately legislative, how far it may be exercised. unless under the authority of, and in conformity to, a I am aware, also, that there is high authority in favor law prescribing the mode in which it shall be evidencof the validity of retrospective laws in this country. ed. And with all deference to the opinions of gentleChancellor Kent, in the 1st volume of his Commenta- men who hold that in these cases the contract was comries, speaking of acts of this kind, says: "Such stat-plete, I must be permitted to say, that in this as well as utes have been held valid when clearly just and reasona-every other case, where the law alone confers a power ble, and conducive to the general welfare, though they to do an act, and defines specifically the manner in might operate in a degree upon existing rights Nev- which the act shall be done, the act is incomplete when ertheless, sir, the validity of acts of this description be- any married woman, as I have said, is, in law, incapaing daily the subject of discussion, and conflicting de-ble of making a contract. To get rid of the cumbrous cision, the power of the Legislature stands in a state of most uncomfortable and perplexing uncertainty. The Hon. gentleman from Geauge [Judge HITCHCOCK] has alluded to several instances where the Leg. islature have exercised the power of passing curative statutes, "a bad name (as he says) for very good laws" -which should be more properly termed "statutes of peace." I agree with him in the main, but in order to and awkward mode of passing the interest of the wife in lands, by the common law proceeding, by "fine and recovery," the statute of Anne was passed in England, which has been adopted with various modifications, in every State of the Union. In Ohio, certain things were necessary-among them that the Justice shull examine the wife apart from her husband-that he should make known to her the contents of the deed, &c. Now ese salutary provisions of the laws for the protection the wife, are part of and essential to the perfection the contract; and if not complied with, the contract not complete. Whether the court, in the case of oode os Zercher, were right in saying they had not en complied with, and therefore the act of 1835 ould not help the case, I shall not discuss. It happen1, however, unfortunately, that on the strength of the iscussion in Goode vs. Zercher, a very worthy man, ho had in good faith purchased and improved part of he land claimed by Mrs. Shane, was induced to comromise, and a large sum of money was extorted from im to quiet his title. Shoul a solemn act of the Legislature be left to the accidents of change in the bench? I am of opinion then, sir, that power should be lodged in the Legislature to protect the rights of parties in cases where there is no other remedy, and where it is, in the language of Chancellor Kent, “clearly just and reasonable, and conducive to the general welfare." But sir, I would have it clearly defined, and strictly guarded. This special legislation for "hard cases" is a dangerous power. Dangerous because liable to abuse. A hard case backed by an earnest, eloquent appeal, enlisting the sympathies, whilst blinding the judgment of the Legislature would be very apt to find favorThat the act of 1835 was intended to prevent fraud, when after all, it might turn out that although a "hard nd did in the case to which I have last alluded, pre-case" cn one side, it is a much harder case on the other. ent the success of a gross attempt to evade an honest Permit me to refer for a moment to the case which ontract, I do not doubt; but the history of that case has been refered to in this debate, by the gentleman hows, that owing to the uncertainty which surrounds from Logan, [Mr. STANTON.] I mean the bill which his species of legislation, an innocent purchaser was passed the Legislature in 1845 or 1846, quieting the ompelled to pay for his land twice-the very evil titles of certain persons in lands in the county of Unwhich it was designed by those who passed the law to ion--the "Price case." The facts were simply these: In 1808, Price died in Virginia, leaving a widow and Sir, these difficulties must constantly occur, so long several minor children. His father in-law, Duval, ads the power of the Legislature to act efficiently re-ministered. The personal assets being insufficient to nains a matter for the legal direction of the courts. pay debts, Duval obtained a decree of a Virginia court, It has been said, in the course of this debate, that authorizing the sale of certain lands in the county of he power of the Legislature to pass these curative Union, Ohio, which were owned by Price at the time tatutes has been settled by the Supreme Court of the of his death. Duval, the administrator, proceeded to United States, and the case of Wilkins vs. Leland re-advertise, and sold these lands at the front door of the orted in the 2d Peters, has been referred to, by (I Eagle Hotel, if I remember right, in the city of Richhink) the gentleman from Logan. Let us for a mo-mond, and himself became the purchaser, and subsenent look at the facts of that case. revent. quently he sold the lands to persons who settled upon A man had died in New Hampshire, owning land in Rhode Island. His wife proceeded to administer, and having exhausted the personal assetts, applied to the Orphans Court of New Hampshire, for authority to tell the lands in Rhode Island. She obtained an order and sold the lands, afterwards a question arising as to he validity of the sale--she obtained an act of the Leg-leave to correct him? slature of Rhode Island confirming the sale. The alidity of the act was questioned in the Supreme Court of the United States, but it is worthy of remark hat it is put upon the ground, that as the State o, Rhode Island at the time of the passage of the cura. ive statute was not governed by a written constitution, the old colonial charter being still in force,) the court would not undertake to set a limit to the power of the Legislature. Mr. STANTON interrupting, said: Judge Story, in elivering the opinion of the court in this case, expressy puts it on the ground of the power of the Legislaare; and he does not attribute the exercise of any exaordinary power; he does not say that the decision of he court was made to depend upon the peculiar conruction of that Legislature, but, that by that act, they xercised only the ordinary powers of legislation. Mr. GREEN. It is immaterial, sir, whether the gentlemen or myself is right as to that fact-it is not the point. I maintain, sir, that every man, certainly of the legal profession, has always known full well that no decree of a foreign State is or ever has been held sufficient to pass title to lands in Ohio. These purchasers under Duval had full notice. The record advised them of the want of title in Duval. They purchased with their eyes open. "Caveat emptor" applied fully to them. And the question then arises should the Legislature have interfered? I am desirous to retain power in the Legislature to prevent fraud where parties have no other mode of redress-but I desire to guard against the abuse of the power-to cut off all that kind of special legislation for "hard cases," and that most dangerous class of laws for legalizing the acts of officers who have by neglect or design failed to do their duty, and the like. In short, to confine the power, if it can be done, to the cases put by Chancellor Kent, where it is clearly right and just, and the public welfare requires it." M. GREEN continuing. I am not mistaken, Mr hairman, the court certainly said, that it was imposble to decide what power might be rightfully exercis 1 by the Legislature of Rhode Island. And in the gument of counsel, it was contended in support of e validity of the law, that the Legislature of that tate had exercised supreme legislative, executive and I ask again of gentleman, If this discussion is not dicial power. Sir, it seems to me to be clear from sufficient to satisfy them that this is a vexed question? hat I have said, that this question of the power of the Ought the rights of parties to be subjected to such ungislature over these subjects, ought to be distinctly certainties? Ought a solemn act of the Legislature firmed or denied. Take the action of our own courts to be kicked back and forward like a foot-ball, as the cases to which I have referred. The power is chance may change the members of the bench? enied by three solemn decisions-by a change in the Ought thiskind of legislation-ought any legislation to ructure of the court the power is affirmed. Gentle-be left uncertain, on a question of power, to be deciden may conjecture what might be the effect of an-ed as the peculiar opinions of the bench may deterher change in the court on the stability of the titles mine? I concur, as I have said, in the propriety of rived under this curative act. Is it safe then, to leave these laws, restricted and applied to legitimate objects; e rights of property to this kind of uncertainty?- but when passed, I desire that they may be law, and were wholly devoid of any provision upon the subjects embraced in this section-and those embracing some of the largest and most populous and powerful. In all the other States of the Union, the provision of the constitution of the United States, substantially, has been reenacted, except four. These four were New Hampshire, Tenne: se, Missouri and Texas. The constitution of New Hampshire prescribed that no retrospective law should be passed. In the constitution of Tennessee it was prescribed that no retrospective law or law impairing the obligation of contracts should be passed. In the constitution of Missouri it was prescribed that no law impairing the obligation of contracts, or having any retrospective operation, should be passed. In the constitution of Texas it was prescribed that no law impairing the obligation of contracts, nor any retro-ac tive law should be passed. not rest upon the fiat of the court. I had intended, The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. REEMELIN] had sir, if the section should be stricken out, at a proper stated, with reference to this provision of the report. time to move a reference of the subject to the Judici- that it was found in the constitution of nearly all the ary committee, that we may have the lights of the able other States of the Union. To what extent the gengentlemen of that committee upon it. I shall do so tleman intended his assertion should go, he did not preif the motion to strike out shall succeed tend to know, but the gentleman was certainly mista. Mr. RANNEY said he concurred with the gentle-ken as to the fact. He had taken the trouble to look man who had just addressed the committee, in the into the constitutions of the several States, and he had opinion, that there was perhaps no more important sec-found that the constitutions of ten States of the Union tion in the whole report than that now under consideration. The gentleman from Hamilton, who stood up in defence of this report on Saturday, seemed to think that there was a disposition to take imprudent, if not unpardonable liberties with the matter reported; but he would beg leave to say, that he had seen no spirit of unkindness manifested toward the committe on the legislative department, nor any other desire, than to make the report as perfect as possible. Certainly, he could say for himself, that he entertained the greatest respect for that committee; nevertheless, he might not be able to concur in everything which they might see proper to report. He submitted the opinion, that this Convention should never suffer any thing to go into the Constitution, which had not been first well considered. They were not about the work of a day, but they were forming an instrument to endure for many years-to govern a great people for many years to come; there- Now, why was it that this principle was omitted in fore they should consider every question fully, freely, the constitutions of ten States of this Union? It might and fairly. Of all places in the world, this was the be observed in reference to this question, that the convery last in which gentlemen should call for any "gen-stitution of the United States was superior to the auerous confidence' in behalf of his views, to be extend- thority of the State Legislature; in fact, the very ded by anybody. He would submit also, if the gen- terms of the constitution of the United States were tieman objects so strenuously to criticisms upon his re- prohibitory of the exercise of power by the State Leport, whether the gentleman ought not himself to ex-gislature; and this was the reason, undoubtedly, that hibit more deference toward it, whether he has not the provision had been omitted in these ten State conhimself been guilty of more censurable dereliction in stitutions. It was important, however, according to this respect. For if he recollected aright, the gentle. his apprehension, that this provision should be engraftman had appeared in opposition to the report upon two ed into the constitutions of the States, if for no other important questions-that relating to biennial sessions, reason than that intimated by the gentleman from and that reducing the Senatorial term. Upon both of Clark, [Mr. MASON,] namely: it was not impossible these questions, the gentleman had appeared as a zeal that the constitution of the United States might be alous advocate in opposition to the report, until the hon- tered or amended so as to dispense with this provision, orable chairman of the committee on the legislative de- and in that event, except such a provision were in the partment, [Mr. SAWYER,] had been constrained to in-State constitution, the Legislature would be without voke the Convention to save his report from its friends. restraint with reference to the power of interfering But this was not the place to repress inquiry and in- with contracts. vestigation and criticism; and when the Judiciary committee reports should come in, he now gave notice, that he, for one, would be willing to sign a release from all claims for damage on account of criticism from the members of the Convention. Indeed he courted the severest investigation of all its provisions, and he would pledge the gentleman from Hamilton, his humble aid to overturn it, if it should not meet his approbation. There was contained in the section under consideration, three distinct and very important propositions.-The first was, that the Legislature should have no power to pass any retro-active law. The term "retro-active" in this connection, referring to criminal as well as civil cases, is a much more broad and comprehensive term than the phrase ex post facto. The next provision is, that the General Assembly shall pass no law imHe was in favor of the general policy indicated in pairing the obligation of contracts. This is substanthe report, of confining the Legislature to narrower tially copied from the constitution of the United States limits than heretofore. This policy met with his entire and our own constitution. And the next provision is, approbation; and, in saying this, he did not mean to be that the General Assembly shall pass no law impairing guilty of any disrespect toward any preceding or any the remedy upon contracts. These were the three prosubsequent Legislature; but he would speak plainly. visions of the section- all of which were very imporHe did not want so much tinkering in the legislative tant-all having relation to legal proceedings, and they department; and therefore he did not wish to invest the should be considered and construed with reference to General Assembly with so much absolute power as they legal proceedings; and therefore, the objection to the had possessed heretofore. He desired this for the same views taken by legal gentlemen was obviously of no reason that he would not take physic needlessly; not force at all. For who were to decide these questions that he would question the skill of the doctor prepar- but the courts? and should we not here become faing and prescribing it, but because he did not want it. miliar with the ordinary rules of construction, which He considered that as men became more enlightened are of course familiar to the minds of lawyers? He they required less legislation, and that the legislative desired here to say, once for all, that he deprecated any power should be restrained in proportion. In a rude distinction here on account of profession or occupation. and uncultivated state of society, stringent laws would The people had sent us up here, charged with the imbe required to protect the rights of individuals, but civ-portant trust of making a new constitution; some of ilization and a correct public opinion would render a us are farmers, some are lawyers, and others of other great part of such legislation unnecessary. avocations in life, and he had discovered nothing but an earnest disposition here to make their work as per- from her under this law, and withdrawing it from the fect as possible. He could not believe that any gentle-hand of some cunning speculator who had wrongfully man had come up here as the Representative of any obtained it from her husband, through his improviparticular interest or class of men. He believed that dence. all were disposed to do their duty in simplicity and faithfulness. For his own part, whenever he was found opposing any proposition for simplification, whenever any man went farther than himself for simplifying our whole political system, he would accord to him the palm of excellence in the work of legal reform. He would look again, for a single moment, at the provisions of this section. He was in favor of all the section, as it stood, with the single exception of the three last words "or their remedies"--and here he found himself differing from his honorable colleague, [Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga.] He spoke of his dissent from the opinions of that gentleman with great deference and diffidence, because the enlarged experience of that gentleman entitled his opinions to a far higher consideration than could ever be claimed for his own. But he would cut off from the General Assembly the power to pass any retro-active law, although some gentlemen might give it a softer name, and call it a "Bill of Peace." He understood a retro-active law to be an act fixing a rule for the determination of man's rights, after the act or conduct in question was past and gone. It reached backward, looked backward and acted backward, upon past transactions. It was therefore called retro-active in its operations. He admitted that this was a new principle introduced into the constitutions of the several States, it had found a place in but four of them; but he earnestly hoped that Ohio would give it the fifth place in the fundamental laws of States of this Union. There were two things connected with the law of conveyance by a married woman. First, the substance, and secondly, the form. If she freely and voluntarily, without anv restraint from her husband and for a valuable consideration, parted with her interest; that was the substance of the thing. The next was, that the justice of the peace should see that it was done in proper form, and in order to show that it was so done he was required to certify to these facts. But if she had been compelled to assent to the contract by any undue constraint, or if she had been in any way deprived of her rights, or if a real valuable consideration had not been paid, or if she had been in any manner imposed upon in the case, she was not to be deprived of her rights. Hence the reason of setting forth all these things in the acknowledgment. But now what did the curative law propose to do in all cases where these acknowledgments were defective? Why, it came in, and with one sweeping clause declared that they should all be good. That was the objection to any retroactive provision of the kind; but now, what was the remedy? He begged attention to this question for one moment. If a man had an equitable and just right to property should he not enjoy it? Most assuredly he should. He agreed with the strong expressions of gentlemen, that it was the duty of every government to provide for the security of these rights; but how was the case to be reached? He affirmed that it was competent for the law-making power to enlarge the power of the judiciary for the purpose of doing justice to all men, so that if a man finds his deed defective, he can go into a court of chancery and be invested with all these powers which are necessary to the protection of his rights. The fact was, this could be done against a man now; but in the case of a married woman the court had held that they had no jurisdiction and from this singular absence of jurisdiction arose all the difficulty, If the chancery court had never refused to clothe the honest intention of a married woman, joining in a conveyance with her husband, with proper forms, all this question about retrospective legislation would have been done away with. He did not know but that the courts had decided right, but he could not so understand it. If they had decided right, all the Legislature had to do hereafter was to clothe the chanceilor with more ample power to do right between all men, and women too. That was all. Then where was the necessity for the Legislature to come in, and by one sweeping retroactive law to push all these cases to the same destiny? For here was A's wife, understanding fully the terms of her conveyance, and there was B's wife not knowing the terms of her conveyance, and being imposed upon. Now everybody knew the injustice of a law which would come in and decide both of these cases the same way-the one consistent with equality and the other a perfect outrage upon it. But suppose the power to be vested in the courts, every case would be open for investigation, and fraud and imposition would be detected, and relief granted and justice awarded. He desired no better instance than this to show the impropriety of vesting such power in the Legislature. Gentlemen had argued that our State Legislature had heretofore exercised this power very beneficially, in a large class of cases, and therefore it ought to be continued. But he would beg gentlemen to look again, and see whether it did not involve the exercise of a dangerous power; and whether there was not some way of dispensing with it. He was sure there was, and he trusted gentlemen would be willing to refer its exercise to some tribunal where its exercise would not be attended with any dangerous consequences. It would be seen that if the power of the Legislature were allowed to reach backward and affect men's rights, it was liable to do mischief, and that it depended altogether upon the honesty of the Legislature and the correctness of the information, whether a retroactive law should be beneficial or otherwise. Anybody could see that. He wanted no better illustration of the impolicy of such legislation, than the very instance adduced by the gentleman from Geauga. He referred to that legislation embracing the dower cases. He never had anything to do with cases of this kind, and never expected to have. He could therefore look at them, he believed, impartially. He did not undertake to say which decision had been right, or which wrong. He was bound to respect all our judicial decisions, and he did respect them. But in the first place, what did the aw do? A married woman could not alienate her property except in a particular manner, the law was placed as a safe-guard to prevent imposition and frauds being practiced upon her, and hence it provided that the should be examined separate from her husband with respect to any deed of conveyance which she might be called upon to sign; and the contents were to Mr. GREEN of Ross (interrupting) said: The be made known to her. This was deemed a matter of gentleman had not given the true construction of the ufficient importance by the Legislature to be incorpo- act of March, 1835. The object of the act is to proated into the general law of the land. And the wis-vide for cases where the forms have been complied lom of placing it there had been tested by a long exerience. He begged leave to add that there had been great many cases wherein there was great equity in he wife retaining her property, which would be taken with, but where the justice has failed to certify the fact. Mr. G. here read from the old law and from the act of 1835, commenting and showing that the act of 1835 was applicable only to such cases where the forms were complied with by making the contents of the deed known to the woman, and he only failed to certify the fact. The law only attempted to secure that class of cases wherein the full acknowledgement was actually made by the woman, but not certified by the officer. Mr. KIRKWOOD. Was it not lawful and right to be formal? Mr. RANNEY resumed. The law of 1835 does not require the fact that the contents of the deed were made known to the woman,to be shown. It declares the deed valid without any evidence upon its face, or requiring any evidence outside of it, that that fact existed. By a sweeping provision it declares all such deeds valid. It was deemed of sufficient importance by the Legislature to require of the magistrate to make known the contents of the deed. Declaring a deed valid without first ascertaining that this had in fact been done, was equivalent to repealing the law. He admitted that perhaps most of the ladies of Ohio would well enough understand what they were about when they signed a deed, but the law was made to protect the ignorant and oppressed, and in point of fact many women were under that kind of influence on the part of their husbands which might be preju dicial to their interests: and therefore the law required a separate examination, and that the contents of the deed should be made known, &c., and that if thereupon the officer failed to certify these facts in due form, then came the statute of 1835, prescribing that the title should pass, regardless of the fact whether the rights of the woman had been regarded or not whether in point of fact she was acquainted with or ignorant of the contents of the deed." There could be no opportunity for the application of legal rules, and so far as the applicants might be concerned, the whole might be one scene of corruption from beginning to end, and the Legislature remain perfectly ignorant and innocent. But such could not be the case before a judicial tribunal; and he was earnest in his persuasion that the powers of the Court of Equity should be extended so as to give jurisdiction over all cases affecting these rights of married women, so that in the issuing and acknowledgment of a deed, the married woman might stand upon the same civil platform with the man. Indeed, wherever an equitable right exists, protect it with a judicial remedy.— Let rights and remedies be co-extensive in the courts, and you will then have no occasion to arm the Legisla ture with the dangerous prerogative of exercising judicial power through retro-active legislation. He had said he was opposed to the three last words of the section. He could not think that the committee on the Legislative Department had fairly considered the extent to which they might lead. This section provides that contracts should always be held inviolate that the obligations of contracts shall never be impaired. It went on further, and provided that the Legislature shall never touch the provisions for the remedies upon contracts. What were the remedies? Suppose he entered into a contract for certain specific purposes-he then had certain legal remedies existing which enabled him to enforce it. He could bring his action to enforce the obligations of the contract in such certain given space of time obtain judgment, and proa court-under certain forms of procedure-and in a ceed with the execution and collection of that judgMr. GREEN. Might not fraud be present, as well ment against certain lands and property. These were in a case where the officer might make a valid certifi-the remedies which the law provided for the enforce'ment of the obligations of contracts. And, against cate, as where he might not? any change or alteration of them, the report certainly provided. If for instance, it were ever so much to the benefit of the State that the forms of procedure should be changed, the creditor would complain if they were made more tardy--if more speedy the debtor would complain. Mr. RANNEY. But fraud could not be supposed. Here was the remedy. Whenever the party interested found that the law had not been complied with, on account of any omission or error of the officer, he should go and ask the married woman to come in and correct the error; and, if she refused, then the other party should go to the chancellor, and show, in point of He did not mean to say that if one remedy were fact, what was the real intention of the woman, and stricken out and another one of exactly equivalent imthat the only deficiency was in the omission of the port substituted that it would fall within this constitumagistrate to state the fact-giving opportunity for tional prohibition. But there would be no motive for the woman also to come in and show before the chan-altering one remedy for the purpose of inserting a subcellor, that, in point of fact, she had been cheated and stitute exactly like it in legal effect. It would, for inimposed upon; and thus there would be set up a de- stance prohibit the Legislature from abolishing imfence upon an open issue before his honor, the chan-prisonment for debt, if that remedy had existed when cellor, and a decree would be had upon his determi- the contract was made; it would prevent the Legislanation in the case. This was what ought to be done. ture trom releasing the person of the debtor from the But instead of this, the law now came in, sweeping grasp of the creditor, or exempting the most necessaaway all distinctions, and permitting no judicial in-ry articles of household furniture from execution. It quiry into the right or wrong of the case. had been said that imprisonment for debt was abolished in this State. He denied it. A non-resident could at present be arrested for debt on a capias, without any pretence of fraud or concealment of property; and in this respect we showed no better example than the ancients, with whom the words stranger and enemy were synonymous terms. He did not pretend to say that this law had not done some good, but he asked whether to put into the hands of the Legislature the power to pass such a law, was not to give them the exercise of a very dangerous power? And whether all the good which might fesult from the direct interference of the Legislature might not be found in the courts of Chancery, without The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. REEMELIN] any of the evils which wait upon such legislation? mentioned that these stay laws were pernicious; agreed There was not a man in the world that would go far---but the gentleman did not require this clause against ther than himself to protect the equitable and just rights of all before the judicial tribunals, and he would provide that the judicial power should be armed with ample authority to protect every right, legal and equitable, under the established forms of judicial proceedings. He repeated again, that a legislative body was the most unsafe of all tribunals, to pass upon such an investigation, for in the very nature there must be an ex parte case. altering remedies to provide for that. These stay laws had been held to be unconstitutional by the highest court in this land. Then every thing that was essential to the full protection of the obligation, and enforcement of the contract itself, was provided for under this section without this last clause; and the Supreme Court of the United States had already decided on the subject in two cases, recently reported, which arose in Indiana and Illinois. |