ferred on the federal government, and the states nience to which it might subject some of the states, are prohibited from exercising a similar authority by imposing upon them as citizens, obnoxious fo-or where an authority is granted to the former, to reigners, who might become naturalized in another which the exercise of a like power on the part of state, without any previous residence, or without the different states would be absolutely and total-any regard to character, by the mere formality of ly contradictory and repugnant. It is not pretend-taking an oath of allegiance.

ed that the grant of the power under considera- If the argument ab inconvenienti applies to the tion is exclusive in its terms-or that there is an case of naturalization, it has no bearing on that of express prohibition on the states from exercising bankruptcy; for, in this case, each state would be a like authority-but it is supposed that such exer-legislating principally for its own citizens, and cise would be so totally inconsistent with the one other states could not be injured by any system it granted to the government of the union, as to be might adopt. But this construction, even in the necessarily comprehended in the third class of ex case of naturalization, where the argument in favor clusive delegation. If it be really so, that the pas- of an exclusive power is much stronger than in that sing of a bankrupt law by a state, to operate, as it of bankruptcy, has not only been strongly contronecessarily must, within its own limits, be absolute verted, but is opposed by a judicial decision entit ly incompatible with the power vested in congress, led to no little respect It is the case of Collet it would be conceded at once, that such an act and Collet, in the circuit court of Pennsylvania, in would amount to a violation of the constitution of which the three judges, one of whom had been a the United States and be void. Let us see whether member of the federal convention, decided, after the consel have succeeded in establishing this po-solemn argument, that the federal states still enjoy sitio... a concurrent right with congress on this subject,

It must be allowed by all, that at the time of "which, however, cannnot, they say, be exercised making the constitution, each state had a right to so as to contravene any rule which congress, in pass insolvent and bankrupt laws. As it was desir-their wisdom, may establish." The most strenuous able, in a country so extensive as the United States, advocates for the exclusive exercise of every unand every part of which was more or less commer-qualified power granted to the general government, çial, that the laws relating to bankrupts should be seem not unwilling to admit the se veral states a uniform, so also it was an object of great impor- participation of such power, if it can be exerted tance that none of the larger commercial states consistently with, or without derogating from the should at any time be without some code on this express grant to congress. It has not been shown subject. A system of the first kind, that is one how a bankrupt act, passed by a particular state, which should be uniform throughout the union, can interfere with the exercise of a power residing could not well be brought about but by delegating elsewhere, to promulgate a uniform law for all the the power of rendering it so to congress. Great states. If similar powers had been granted to the difficulties however would lay in the way of a sta government of the union, respecting the descent of tute, whose provisions should pervade the United real estates, the recording of deeds or the celebraStates; and as these must have been foreseen, the tion of marriages-will it be said that the several states might be willing and desirous of retaining states must have remained without any laws to gothe right of passing laws of this nature until con vern the transmission of landed property, or that gress could agree on a general plan. Nor can the no deed could be acknowledged or recorded, nor a court perceive any contradiction, absurdity or re- valid marriage solemnized, although congress pugnancy in these several powers existing at the might for years omit to prescribe rules on these subsame time in the general and in the state govern-jects? The object of this grant could have been ments-in such subordination however, that the no other than to place some where a power to corexercise of the authority vested in the former rect the mischiefs which might arise from the difshould, for the time, suspend all exercise of the ferent states passing on the same subject, not only power which resided in the latter, and operate as dissimilar laws, but such as might be unequal in a repeal of any laws which might have been pre- their operation on the citizens of other states. This viously passed by the several states. It is an uni- end of the grant will be sufficiently and effectually form rule which congress are to prercribe. But if attained if, when the evil arises, congress bring inthey furnish none, how is it an interference for to action the authority vested in them. From each state to legislate for itself? Neither the terms them only can a uniform system emanate; but sysnor spirit of the instrument are thus disturbed. It tems, greatly varying it is true, all of which, howseems designedly to have been left optional with ever, may be salutary, may be established without the general government to exercise this power, any derogation from or interference with a right that if the embarrassments which lay in the way residing elsewhere to introduce uniformity on the were insurmountable or very great, they might omit same subject. Nay, from these very provisions, to do it, and thus leave the states to take care of however discordant, might be selected materials themselves. If it had been intended immediately for the one which it was committed to the general to divest the states of all power on this subject, government to form. Neither can the passing of and to compel congress to act, the terms of the ar- such laws by the states be regarded as a resump. ticles would have been much more imperative than tion of power by them, in which case, it is said, we find them, and probably it would have been they should produce an express grant of it. This accompanied with a prohibition on the states. No argument proceeds on the presumption of a previous writer on this part of the constitution has gone far-relinquishment on the part of the states of all right ther than to say that the power of naturalization is to interfere in this matter, and is thus taking for exclusive-because if congress bave a right to or granted what is the whole question in controversy; dain a general rule, the states can have no right to for unless such transfer has been made, which is prescribe a distinct rule. This construction is sup. not admitted, no reassignment of it by the general posed to follow, not from any inconsistency there government can be necessary. No court of the U. would be in each state passing a naturalization act States will be suspected of feeling any disposition for itself, if congress did not bring into action the to countenance encroachments by the state legisla power delegated to them, but from the inconve-ture on the legitimate authority of the government

of the Union: but in cases of doubt, and where the of a law impairing the obligation of contracts that limits of separation are not very distinctly marked, can well be imagined-while the defendant conand especially where the powers exercised leave in tends that it is quite as certain that insolvent laws full force and animpaired throse given to the general were never intended to be embraced by this progovernment, the tranquility and harmony of the vision of the constitution. The latter is the opi Union will be better preserved by allowing to the nion of the court; but instead of regarding it, with states a reasonable share of legislation on the subject the defendant's counsel, as a question of little or in dispute, than by strenuously insisting on a total no difficulty, the court has not come to this con-exclusion. Congress, themselves, must have enter clusion, but, after much hesitation, owing not only tained an opinion that the different states have this to its intrinsic difficulty, but because it is welt right in the present case; for on no other principle known that the most respectable opinions to the can we account for their leaving the United States contrary have been expressed elsewhere, the court so long without a uniform system of bankruptcy. will proceed to assign its reasons for the judgment Great and pressing as the call for such a system which it has formed. has been, the obstacles in the way of one that To arrive at the true meaning of any article of shall be uniform, and in that shape agreeable to all doubtful import in the constitution, a better mode the states, continue to be so numerous, that but cannot be adopted than the course which is genelittle hope is now indulged that any will be soon rally pursued for the interpretation and understandadopted-but great and serious as these difficulties ing of ordinary remedial statutes: That is, to recur may be, it would almost be the duty of congress to the situation and history of the country at the to disregard them, if there existed no where else time; to its contemporaneous exposition, if it has a power to correct the mischiefs which must ne- received any; and to the general understanding of cessarily be felt in many of the states from the the community, especially if such understanding non-user of this authority. The inference which shall have been long acquiesced in by all the states has been drawn at the bar from this silence or and all the courts of the union. Keeping in view inaction of congress does not appear correct. It these rules, let us inquire what were the kind of is considered as equivalent to an expression on laws to which this prohibition was principally their part of their sense against the wisdom and designed to extend. There can be no doubt that policy of all bankrupt laws, and that none ought by it was intended to be corrected some, if not all, to exist any where. Keeping in view the power which of the evils which had crept into the system of congress have, on this subject, it is more natural legislation of many of the states, and had excited to interpret such silence into a declaration of their a considerable alarm for the security of private opinion of the inexpediency at present of any uni- rights. In many parts of the union all confidence form system, and that the several states still retain in public faith was extinguished. This had been the power which has been contended for, and can occasioned by frequent interferences on the part therefore take care of themselves. This would of some of the legislatures in matters which were not be so great an imputation on their wisdom, as not believed to fall within their ordinary and legiti to suppose they can entertain an opinion in op- mate sphere of action. By recurring to the hisposition to the sense of the whole world, that is a tory of the times, and the reasons assigned by the commercial state, such laws are mischievous or friends of the constitution for the insertion of this unnecessary. The opinion of the court, therefore, article, much useful information will be obtained, is, that this law, if a bankrupt law, would not on and we shall be at no loss to discover to what species of laws it was then thought that the interdiction was principally supposed to extend.-During a long and arduous struggle for independance, much individual misery and distress were unavoidably produced. Driven from their homes, and cut off in many cases from their ordinary pur suits, the resources of many were either exhausted or so much impaired as to induce the legislator on various occasions to listen to the pressing calls which There is not perhaps in the constitution any ar- were made upon them to devise some mode for their ticle of more ambiguous import, or which has oc- relief. Various expedients were accordingly resort} casioned and will continue to occasion more dis-ed to, and the practice of interfering between crecussion and disagreement, than the one under ditor and debtor became so very extensive and so inwhich the present difficulty arises, or the applica-considerate, as in many instances to place the former tion of which to the cases which occur, will be at-entirely at the mercy of the latter, and that too untended with more perplexity and embarrassment.der laws which were apparently introduced with no Laws may be passed which so palpably trespass other view than that of affording to the debtor a on this article as to leave no doubt on the mind of temporary relief from the pressure occasioned by any man; others again will be of so questionable a the then situation of the country. Bills of credit, character as to render it not very easy to form a sa-and paper money were issued, and by legislative tisfactory opinion concerning them. All the other sanction were substituted for gold and silver in the restraints on the separate members of the confe- discharge of debts. Creditors in some places were deracy contained in this section of the constitution liable, without any adverse proceeding on their part, are conceived in terms so clear and intelligible, to be cited by their debtors, and to have the sums that rarely will any hesitation exist as to what will due to them tendered in a currency whose deprecia. amount to violations of them; but to decide whe-tion at the time produced the most glaring injus On their refusal to submit to this mockery of ther a law impairs the obligation of a contract will tice. generally be a task of some intricacy, and it will justice, the public securities, which had been thus not be surprising if, in the discharge of it, great offered, might be deposited with some public offi diversity of opinion will arise. This has been cer, and the creditor was forever barred from any treated as a very plain case by both parties. By recovery. In other cases payments were authoriz the plaintiffs we are told that it is the clearest case to be made by instalments. In some states the th

that account be void.

Another constitutional objection is made to the defence which is set up in this cause. The law under which this discharge was obtained, having passed subsequent to the date of the notes on which the action is brought, is supposed to "impair the obligation of contracts," and therefore to be void, either in the whole, or so far as it may extend to debts incurred previous to the passage of it.

terest which had accrued during the war or a part which now composes a part of the United States: of it was remitted, while elsewhere not only a paper It must have originated wherever we find the currency of no value, but almost every species of practice of it, and perhaps it is not hazarding too property, was made a legal tender, and no stipula-much to say that it is universal, not only from a contion however solemn, to pay in the precious metals,viction that the encouragement of trade required it, afforded any security to the creditor. The courts and so are the recitals to many of the acts; but, of justice in many of the states had been closed al-from those indelible principles, which are implanttogether, and the creditors thus withheld, at least ed in the breast of every man, and which proclaim, for a time, from every appeal to the laws of his in a language not to be misunderstood, that in evecountry, while his debtor might be squandering ry country, where imprisonment for debt is allowed, the property out of which his demand ought to have there must and ought to reside a power somewhere been satisfied. Geographical limits had also been of compelling creditors to abandon their hold of resorted to, for the purpose of introducing the most the body of a debtor, who shall fairly and under odious discriminations between creditors them-such restrictions as the law may provide make a selves. For those who resided within the British complete surrender of his property, to be divided line, and those who were without those precincts, amongst those whose debts some unexpected turn distinct remedies were prescribed, and the scales of fortune has rendered him unable to pay. In such of justice so unequally graduated, that while the cases, his future acquisitions, although here there latter might recover the whole of their demands, may exist some diversity of opinion, should also be the former, if they sued, where commpelled to re- his own, or he will be restored to his freedom and ceive public certificates of one description or other, family, not only without property, but without of so little value as scarcely to indemnify them for credit, and in many cases with such a heavy load the costs of suit which they were obliged to pay.Very great liberties had also been taken with Bri- future acquisitions as must stifle every exertion to of unextinguished debt and so many liens on his tish creditors, many of whom complained, and too make any. His freedom, in such cases, will be a justly, of the impediments which continued to be mockery, nor will such a state of servitude to his thrown in their way even after the return of peace. creditors often prove of any service to them; for, These frequent interpositions, in private concerns, sinking under a burden from which he sees no pro during a period of great public and private suffering, pect of relieving himself, his ambition and efforts and for many of which the condition of the country will be limited to the gaining of a bare maintenance and the great object at stake, might seem to offer for himself and family, knowing that neither he nor some apology, became so common, so intolerable, and so inveterate, in many places, that it became no Casy matter, even after the restoration of peace and the acquisition of our independance, to lay them aside. There will therefore be in the statute-books of several of the states, after the termination of the war, many provisions of the same meddling and obnoxious character, which either changed the nature of contracts, or suspended the payment of them, or authorized it in a way contrary to the plain engagement and meaning of the parties.

they can ever be benefitted by any surplus. But whatever considerations may have first called into practice a power of this kind, it is sufficient for our present purpose, that we find it in use in perhaps every state of the union, under some modification or other, at the time of the adoption of the constitu tion, and that the laws passed on this subject very generally, if not universally, provided not only for future cases of insolvency, but for those which existed at the time. If this be so, and that it was By laws of this description, which had become been known to the friends of the constitution, who so to a very great extent is not denied, it must have too dangerous and oppressive to be any longer borne, exerted themselves in favor of its adoption; and very extensive and great uneasiness was produc-yet no arguments drawn from that source are to ed, and against them was raised a corresponding be found in the debates of any of the conventions, and almost universal expression of indignation and in favor of the prohibition. Nor is it recollected regret. Accordingly to all the objections made that those who were hostile to its adoption, ever against the prohibition on the part of the states, to objected to this feature of it, because of its liability pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts, we to such construction, and yet such objections wouk! find the friends of the constitution every where, have been heard from more quarters than one, if it and again and again urging the necessity of it, in had then been thought susceptible of the interpreorder to put an end to the evils which had flown tation which the court is now expected to apply to from acts of the kind which have been mentioned, it. It may also be observed, that if it had been and which had, after the rovolution, been extended thought necessary at that time of day to tie up the by designing and influential men, to many other hands of future legislatures in relation to this matcases so as to encrease, instead of diminishing the ter, it would have been more natural to have comalarm which had been excited. To such acts we mitted to congress a power of establishing a unifind them constantly ascribing the decay of com- form system of insolvency as well as of bankruptcy, merce, the ruin of public credit, and the almost or to have transferred to the general government entire extinction of confidence between individuals, an unqualified and express power in the premises; and pressing with vehemence the adoption of this for it cannot be credited that a people who had article as one of vital importance, and as the only been so long accustomed to laws of this kind, would guard and preventive against the promulgation by have consented to deprive the state legislatures of future legislatures of similar acts in derogation of the power of passing them, without at the same private rights, however great the emergency might time delegating to that of the union some control be deemed.-But on no one occasion do we hear over the same subject. Dissatisfaction may have of any complaints against the power of passing existed and been expressed at the abuses which insolvent laws; this practice had not arisen out of were committed under the sanction of such laws, the calamities of war; it was brought with the first for not more effectually pretecting creditors against American colonists from the mother country; it the frauds of their debtors, and such dissatisfaction was adopted, in one form or other, by all the is often heard at the present day; but never was the British colonies in North America, without an ex-right or propriety of an interference in this way ception that has been discovered as to any one called in question.

No. 23 OF VOL. XII.]

BALTIMORE, SATURDAY, AUGUST 2, 1817.

[WHOLE NO. 309.

Hæc olim meminisse juvabit.—-VIRGIL.

PRINTED AND PUBLISSED BY 8. NILES, AT THE HEAD OF CHEAFSIDE, AT $5 PER ANNUM.

the supreme court of the United States on the ef fect of a practice in fixing the meaning of the const!. tation, would not permit the court to listen to it. In the case referred to, a usage of only ten or twelve years, and which bad once been interrupted by an act of congress, was deemed to settle a question, in which was involved the very independence of an important and co-ordinate member of the federal government, and that too in opposition to what, many will think, as probably did the judges them. selves who decided it, the plain and obvious, letter and spirit of he constitution.

To the practice of the states antecedent to and at the epoch of adoption of the constitution, and to the silence on this head of those whose attention was direct! called to this article, may be added the uninterrupted and undisputed usage of all or most of the states from that day down to the present time. Yet, after the lapse of near thirty years, "during which time scarcely a chasm or intermission is to be discovered in the usage of the state where the court is now holding, it is called upon to pro nounce all its insolvent laws, so far at least as they operate on past debts, and ail discharges under "them of sech debts, as repugnant to the constitution,| But aside from this contemporaneous, and univer. and therefore void. Without adverting to the se. sat expression of public and private sentiment on rious consequences of such a decision, with which this subject, the court is not very certain that the court has nothing to do, how, it may be asked, it would have regarded a law of this nature if the is the uniform practice which has been mentioned question were of earlier date, as "impairing the ob-to be accounted for, but from a general and univer-ligation of contracts." sal understanding that such practice was no depar This objection goes only to such of these laws as ture from any of the obligations which one state had affect antecedent contracts. It may very safely he contracted with the others? Can we believe that assumed, that most, if not all of the insolvent laws before time was allowed to organize the general go. in this country, fall within this description, and an vernment, and while the instrument of its formation interposition by the legislature in this way seems was undergoing the examination and criticisms of absolutely necessary, if not inevitable, wherever able and industrious adversaries, any state could imprisonment for debt is allowed. Such laws canhave passed laws of this character, not only without not therefore be regarded as contrary to the first animadversion, but execute them without any ob principles of the social compact, or opposed to jection from a numerous class of citizens who are in those sound and wholesome rules of legislation general not the most inattentive to or ignorant of which were intended to be preserved pure and in their rights? Would not a clamor on the part of violate by those who made the constitution. A pow creditors have been heard from one extremity of the er to pass such laws necessarily results from an anof the union to the other, against such usurpation of tecedent state of things, and from the existence of power if it had been viewed in that light? And if a system, which, if left to itself, without occasionál the legislatures of the several states could not have controls on the part of the legislature, would probeen brought back to a sense of duty by remonstran- duce permanent individual distress and ruin, and to ces against the exercise of such a right, would an extent, highly injurious, not only to the state not applications have been made to the courts of itself, but to the very parties, who might, in the justice, to arrest by their decisions the progress of moment of passion or disappointment, resort to it as such gross and frequent violation of the constitution? a mean of coercion :-This attribute of sovereignBut not only have these laws been passed without ty, for as such it is regarded by the court, it was a constitutional difficulty being ever suggested by better that the state should retain, than to have reany member of the legislature, at the time; but fre- linquished to the federal government. By the for quently as they must have been brought to the no-mer it would be exercised within a less extended tice of the courts of the different states, and some sphere, and of course with not so much danger of times of the federal judiciary, it is not until very re-injury to the parties concerned, as if the same duty cently that the present objection has been heard of had been performed by the congress of the United Congress, too, in the only bankrupt law which they States. If then the passing of laws affecting in this ever passed, introduced a provision, that it should way, past as well as future, debts has been in use not repeal or annul the laws of any state, then within this state ever since its independence, and in force or which might hereafter be enac ed for for many years while a colony, an if such practice the relief of solvent debtors"-many, if not all has not only been acquiesced in but was absolutely of which then in force, will on examination be found to be retrospective. Either, then, these laws are not within the prohibition, or if they are, and the terms of it are so obscure as to have hither to luded the research of so many who must have had an interest in its discovery, it is the very case in which a court ought to rely for its rue sense in general practice which has been so long submit e

necessary, may it not be fairly presumed that every contract within this state, or to be enforced here, is nade under a ful knowledge of such practice, which must now be deemed a perfect right; and that this being known and understood by both parties at the time, the creditor has no right to conplain, if his debtor shall one day be liberated by vir tue of an insolvent law which may be in force at It has been said that a practical construction is the time of the contract, or which may be afterwards of no importance when a question arises on public passed, not from the obligation or payment of the aces of so important and solemn a nature as a written debt, but from personal confinement, on condition compact between several independent states. The of making payment as far as he is abie? The curt instrument, it is said, should speak for itself. Bu if there be any thing in this remark, a decision of VOL. XII.

to

has proceeded on a belief that most if not all of the states has been in the habit of extending their x

tion of this nature. It is some proof that laws of this description are not regarded by congress as any violation of contract, merely on account of their retrospective influence. The contract in truth remains in full force, while payment thereof by the policy and humanity of most civilized nations must in case of misfortune be sought for out of the estate of the debtor, who, as well as his future property, is in general released.

After all that has been said, the court considers this question as one of considerable difficulty, and regrets that it has not yet received a decision at Washington, which would produce uniformity of judgment at least in the courts of the United States.

insolvent laws to all debts without any regard to the time of contracting them. Time has not been afforded during a very busy term to examine the statutes of the different states, even if they had been within reach of the court, to see if there were any exceptions. There may be some difference in these laws, as to the mode of proceeding, and in the effect of a discharge obtained under them. In some cases the debtor is alone the actor in obtain ing it. In others a part of his creditors unite with him; by some again the person only is exonerated, either from all his creditors, or from those who have sued him. By others all future acquisitions as well as the body are placed out of the reach of the cre ditors; but the principle on which they proceed is But if these constitutional objections are removed the same in all, that is, a right in the legislature to it is alledged that the contract being made and relieve insolvent debtors from imprisonment by being payable, in Boston, cannot be affected by any some general law. The degree of interference is discharge obtained under the laws of the state of of no importance as it affects this question. Every New-York. Under this head of argument the court kind of interference, however limited in degree, has been reminded of a rule, which it is presumed, must, on the principle in which the plaintiffs rely, when properly understood, will be acknowledged be a violation of the constitution. If these laws by every one; that is, that the lex loci contractus had been of the odious character which is now at must be resorted to in order to ascertain the meantached to them, is it not probable that at least some ing of every agreement made abroad. This does one state would have checked the further enacting not proceed from mere comity or courtesy toof them by an article in the bill of rights prefixed wards other nations, but from the immutable printo its constitution? No such limitation, however, is ciples of justice, which would be violated by apto be found, nor any expression bearing on the sub-plying to a foreign contract, when deciding on its ject. Referring those who may wish to pursue the obligation, and affect any other law than that of the enquiry for the laws of the other states on this sub-place where it was made-for how palpably unjust ject to their several statute books, the court will would it be for this court to pronounce void a bond only notice some of those which have been passed executed at Canton and payable there, because by it by the colony and by the state of New York. In should be reserved a greater interest, which might 1755 a general act for the relief of insolvent debtors be lawful there, than seven per cent. per annum, was passed. In May, 1761, another passed requir- which would render it usurious in this state? This ing the assent of three fourths of the creditors in is the meaning of the rule, and it is a salutary and value, which expired in 1770. From that time until just one. But out of it have arisen some dicta, 1784 no general system was in force, but many acts which are ripening very fast into decisions of the were occasionally passed for the relief individuals. most mischievous tendency, and between which In 1784, a general system was again adopted si and the rule itself it is difficult to perceive any milar to the one which had expired in 1770. In connection. It has been said that the nature and 1788, another general insolvent law passed. This validity of a contract must be settled by the law was revived in 1801. In April, 1811, the law passed of the place where it was made, so also, it cannot under which the present discharge was obtained, be affected by any discharge of the debtor under which permitted the debtor alone to petition, with the bankrupt or insolvent laws of the place where out the concurrence of any creditor. In 1812, the he resides or of the country to which he belongs, last law was repealed, and the consent of three or in other words, that a contract made in a foreign fourths of the creditors again required. In 1813 state, and with a view to its code, can only be disthe system now in force was adopted, which re-charged pursuant to, that is, as the rule is now ap. quires the co-operation of two thirds instead of plied, under the bankrupt laws of such state. Ac three fourths of the creditors. By not one of these cordingly, suits have recently been maintained laws are debts previously contracted, excepted from against bankrupts and insolvents, whenever they its operation. Let it also be remembered, that have been arrested, by process out of the court of frequently as the attention of the council of revi- any other state than the one in which they became sion of this state, composed of the governor, chan- so. Thus a citizen of Pennsylvania has not been percellor and judges of the supreme court, has been mitted to sue in New York a debtor who may recalled to this subject, this objection has never oc-side, and have been liberated under a law of the curred to them, watchful and able as they ever have latter state, but if he can be found in Massachubeen to discover and check every aberration in the setts, or elsewhere, his certificate it is said will be legislature from a correct and constitutional course of no avail, provided the contract were made in of duty. But if it be on account of their relation Philadelphia, or elsewhere in the commonwealth of back, that insolvent laws are regarded as impairing Pennsylvania. This is not exactly the case here, the obligation of contracts, bankrupt laws are liable but as these decisions are supposed to have a conto the same objection; and such was the character of siderable bearing on it, the court will be expected the only one which congress ever passed. Now, al to express an opinion on them. It has no hesitation though there be no constitutional restraint in terms in saying, that it considers them as forming a part on that body from passing laws interfering with pri- of a class of cases, which, it will one day be lamentvate contracts, it is not to be presumed they would ed, should ever have found their way into the comknowingly give their sanction to any act of this mercial code of this country. They appear to prokind. Nor, even in passing a bankrupt law, would ceed on a misapprehension of the rights of indethey have done it in a form liable to so serious an im-pendent nations-but principally on a mistake in putation, if they had believed they were impairing applying the lex loci contractus, as well to the rethe obligation of contracts, especially as that power medy as to the construction and validity of the might have been exercised free from every objec. agreement, contrary to all the adjudged cases on