Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1840-03-17

credited at all. And yet we are told by some,
that a security debt is not moral, but only
legal obligation. This cannot. be true, unless
it be understood by all the parties that tina Sc
curity debt is only to be paid at the end OF the
law. Is this the understanding No, neves
Does the creditor sell his property or lend hi
money, to buy lawsuit! Does he take D. as
my security, depending on that most uncertain
among earth's contingencies, the decision of a
Jury! If ID. tells him at the time he makes the
contract that he is determined not to pay
cent of it unless compelled by law, and on that
condition is accepted, it is legal and not NOR
al obligation; but if he simply signs promis-
sorry note in the usual form, or even gives his
verbal promise, without any such condition, he
is bound to pay, and to pay at the time the debt
is due, if the principal does not, for this is the
contract. am aware that to bind a security
to as strict punctualty as the principal is taking
higher ground than is usual now. But is it not
correct? Does he not promise to pay it at the
time! By what rule then, can he claim longer
indulgence than the principal! | appeal to eve
ry business man if this is not the basis of such
transactions in the commercial world. Before
the late general suspension, when the Banks
conducted business In the ordinary way, no
man who was under protest for security debt
could obtain any farther accommodations until
it was paid and even now, the security is
protested at the same time with the principal,
and when suit is brought they are both sued
together, for they are considered as equally
bound. From these facts infer two things:
first, if the principal is morally bound to pay, so
is the security secondly, if the principal is
morally bound to be pas'lctual, so is the securi-
ty; they are one. cannot dismiss this mod
ern heresy, without an additional remark. If
a security debt is only legal obligation, it
follows that any steps to evade the law are
morally right. On this principle security is
at liberty to sell off his property, put the mon
ey in his pocket and declare insolvency, provi-
ded he can escape the insolvent debtors oath;
and if the pains and penalties of perjury await
him here, he does no moral wrong to go to
Texas, and take all his ''plurl1er" with him.
To such monstrous consequences does this
error lead.
But it is said, no man becomes security for
another with the expectation of paying This
may be true: but still it does not alter the ma
ture of the obligation. He does not expect to
pay, because he thinks his friend viii not suffer
the has confidence in him. But if he is an
honest man, he intends to pay, if perchaDce the
other should not,-and there is always posi-
bility of this. 1t matters not what he expects;
if he excites expectation in the mind of ano.
Their that he Will paw, and does not correct it
he is bound to sat- It. "Butit is hard to be
broken up and r'7- 7of eveY cent to pay {
debt that neve-4 le 9 farthing." Thi:
is granted. 1t is very hard case; but it i:
what you risked when you made the debt, anC
what was implied in your promise. The
hardness of a bargain constitutes no exemption
Remember the text: ''ife that sweareth to hi
own hurt, and changeth not, !" is the successful
candidate for heaven. Because we are disap
pointed in ourfriend,we hove Ia, zht to forfei
our word and disap : others. Yet it is
hard case; and heISce a wise man, deeply reaC
in the school Of experience, and under the in
spiration Of the Almighty, near 1900 years agt
wrote as follows: "a man void of understand
ing striketh hands, and becometh surety in thu
presence of his friend. And again: He that i
surety for a stranger, shall smart for it; and h,
that hateth suretyships is sure" One NOR
thought will close this head. The man VIII
stands security for more than he has reason
able prospect of being able to pay, is just a
guilty of wrong as he who contracts debts c
bis own without probability of paying then
and for the same reason, viz: he voluntaril
excites expectation which he cannot meet
1t is not morally right for any one to stand Sc
curity for more than he is worth; for it is to
presumed that he as an honest man would NJ
contract debts without being able to pay then
! and in the event of failure, an injury is il
fiicted in consequence of this deception.
TRirdly-As it would be oppressive ar
absurd to make promises morally binding in q
cases, it is important to ascertain in what cas-
they are not.
l. A promise is not obligatory, if the pc
+ Torrance be impossible. For example, m;
= promises to do job of work for another, b
. is disabled by sickness or accident. 1fA. Sc
! a horse to B., and promises to deliver him al
= certain time, but in the mean time, the hor
dies, A. is certainly clear of his obligation.
;, But there is great need of caution here. L
. common expressions. impossible, . "cannot
; "out of my power" &c, are, in the conventio
II al language of our country,used with fargreat
- latitude than their primary meaning will jus
n fy. Thus, impossible frequently signifies, il
al not convenient; or not agreeable; or cam
,v be done without sacrifice; and sometimes il
rs a decent way of saying, will not. To expli
us my meaning, suffer me to borrow an illustrat
r. from what seems to be the order of the day
A. | A man promises to pay a sum OF money a
70 certain time; when it IS due he has not
RI money, and says it is impossible for him to
re it. Here is plain breach of promise; but
II defendant pleads justification on the groun'
&c impossibility. Now LET us put him upon
,ot trial, to see whether he is really iustiiable
bc not.Ist, w e must enquire whethershe hada
IN prospect of meeting it when he made the d
~ If he had not. he is guilty Of fraud and ia
= hood TOO. If he made unfair statements in
dor 70 ottoin crad,t nav. If he was too care