▁prov isions ▁that ▁de alt ▁with ▁imprison ment , ▁leaving ▁the ▁court ▁no ▁option ▁but ▁to ▁declare ▁those ▁prov isions ▁as ▁a ▁whole ▁to ▁be ▁constitution ally ▁invalid ▁on ▁account ▁of ▁their ▁ob jection able ▁over b read th . ▁ ▁Constitution al ▁prote ctions ▁ ▁Lang a ▁J ▁con cur red ▁in ▁the ▁jud g ments ▁of ▁Krieg ler ▁J ▁and ▁Did c ott ▁J , ▁not ing ▁that ▁the ▁difference ▁between ▁the ▁past ▁and ▁the ▁present ▁was ▁that ▁individual ▁freedom ▁and ▁security ▁no ▁longer ▁fell ▁to ▁be ▁protected ▁sole ly ▁through ▁the ▁vehicle ▁of ▁common - law ▁maxim s ▁and ▁pres um ptions ▁which ▁might ▁be ▁alter ed ▁or ▁repe aled ▁by ▁stat ute , ▁but ▁which ▁were ▁now ▁protected ▁by ▁ent rench ed ▁constitution al ▁prov isions ▁which ▁neither ▁the ▁legisl ature ▁nor ▁the ▁executive ▁might ▁ab ridge . ▁It ▁would ▁accordingly ▁be ▁impro per ▁for ▁the ▁court ▁to ▁hold ▁constitution al ▁a ▁system ▁which ▁con ferred ▁on ▁credit ors ▁the ▁power ▁to ▁cons ign ▁the ▁person ▁of ▁an ▁im pec un ious ▁deb tor ▁to ▁prison , ▁at ▁will ▁and ▁without ▁the ▁inter position ▁at ▁the ▁cru cial ▁im e ▁of ▁a ▁jud icial ▁officer . ▁The ▁imp ug ned ▁prov isions ▁constit uted , ▁for ▁the ▁reasons ▁art ic ulated ▁by ▁Krieg ler ▁J ▁and ▁Did c ott ▁J , ▁an ▁un reason able ▁limitation ▁on ▁the ▁" fre edom ▁and ▁security " ▁provision ▁in ▁section ▁ 1 1 ( 1 ) ▁of ▁the ▁Constitution ▁and ▁were ▁therefore