Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1830-12-13
dNSB
IMPRIsONMENT FOR DEBT.
CAKKULL,
E.. s. {. u. s.

pine Society,is just published. Avery consider
able portion of the report is occupied with facts,
letters, opinions, investigations, touching impris-
Onment for debt Returns, it is stated, have
been received from nearly 100 prisons in the Uni
ted States showing hoW many persons were i'm
prisoncd for debt during the year ending De.
cember so, 1899; for what sums they were i'm
prisOned; how much time was lost in prisons;
how many were discharged by the creditor or his
attorney; how many took the poor debtors oath,
what was the whole amount of costs; and who
supported the debtor in prison. The remarks
and differences derived from these returns are in
.terestug, and We shall make an extract there
from in day or two. For the present. we Sc
cct from mass Of letters from gentlemen in va
rious parts of the United States, the following
FROM the Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER,
Letter from the Hon. Daniel Hebste., dated
May 9. 1886.
SiR-l have received your letter of the 10Th
of April, asking my opinion upon several qucs-
tons, all relative to the subject Of Imprisonment
for debt. l am quite willing TO express my ge-
neral op mems on that interesting subject, alhough
they are not so maturcd as to be entitled to in
huence other mems judgements. The existing
laws. think. call loudly for revision and amend
mcnt. Your first four questions seek to know
what think Of imprisonment for small SUMS
am decidedly against 1t; | would carry the ex-
ewp,ion to debts of thirty or forty dollars. at
least. Individual instances of evil or hardship
might, / am aware. follow from such change;
but am persuaded the general result wonid be
favorable in high degree, to industry, sobriety,
and good morals. as we'll as to personal liberty
You ask, in the next place. what think Of
imprisonment for debt in any case where there
is no evidence Of fraud. Certainly am of opln-
ion that there should be- no imprisonment for debt
where it appears that no fraud has been practis
ed or intended. either in CDntraciing the debt or
in emitting to pay it. i'n, then, il seems TO me
that " hen man doe, not fulfil a la iui premise,
he ought TO show his inability. and 10 show also
that his own conduct has been fair anG honest
He ought nat to be aIlowe, merely to Say he can
not pay, aud then 10 call the creditor to pr0rc
that his inability is pretended or iraudl lent He
ought to show why. lie does not aud cannot fulfil
his contract, and te give reasonable evidence that
he has not acted frauduien'iY; and, tl'ia being
done his person ought 80 be he'd no longer. In
the first place. the creditor Is enutied 10 the oath
of his dtbto;, and. in the next place. 10 -a,istaC.
| tory explanation If any suspicious circumstances.
There are two sorts of fraud, either of which.
when proved. ought TO prevent liberation Of the
person. viz: fraud in contracting the debt, and
fraud in cOnceaing, and making way with. the
means of payment And 10 the usual provisions
OF the bankrupt act ought to be added, tnat no one
shall! be discharged who's proved to have lost mo
ncy in any species ofgaming; and shall inciudc.
i'm this class, all at CatuTerS ia LOTTERIES. iiaN-
inc rendered his own oath. and made Just eXpia-
nation Of any circumstances OF Suspicion, II there
be such, and not having lost money bv gaming,
the debtor ought 10 be discharged at once: which
answers another Of your questions: for the detcn-
ton of thirty DAYS. before The oath can be taken,
appears 10 me wholly useless.
You are pleased to ask whether. in my jud--
mpnt. Christians can. with good conscience.
impriSon either other Christians or inhdeIS. lie
would be very little of Christian. lhlnS. who
should make a difference, in such IA case. aud De
willing to Use degree of severity oward> Jew or
Greek. which he would not use towards one ct
his own fai'h Whether conscientious men can
imprisnn any body ford debt, whoa they do not be-
hsv, dishonest or fraudulent. is question which
every man. while the law allows sach imprison-
ment. musr decide for himself In answer to
vonr INQUIRY. whether have found it ne, essiry
: Ia use such coercion. in regard to debts ut my
own. have 10 say that never Imprisoned any
man for nv own debts under auv circumstances;
nor have |. IN 1--WE aad twenty Years profession.
al nra,,icr ever recommended ii TO others. except
in eases where there was manifest proof. or NO.
lent and unexplained suspicion. of intentional
fraud.
Imprisonment tor debt, my dear sir, as it is
now practsed. Is. in N, judgment, great evil,
and. il seems 10 me. an etfectual remedy for the
areer part of the evil is obvious. Nineteen
twenleths of the whole Of it would be relieved.
in nv opinion, if imprisonment for small debts
were to be abolished. That object | believe TO
be attanahle: and to its attainment, think the
main attention OF those who take an interest in
the subject should be directed Small'credts are
often riven, on the confidence of being able tn
collect BY the terrors of the Jail; great ones sci
dom or never.
Three simple provisions would accomplish all,
in my opinion, that may be considered as abso-
lutely required to Just state OF the law respect
ing imprisonment for debt in Massachusetts
l. That no imprison" ent should be allowed
when the debts, exclusive Of costs, did not amount
to 50 dollars.
. That there should be no necessity of lmpri-
sonment for thirty days. as preliminary 10 tax
iny the poor debtors oath; nor any longer dc'en-
A rt,n- mn