Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1842-08-11

REPEAL oP LAWS FOR RECoyEay OF pngra
See the article on this subject. copied hoa the
N. y. Commercial. a law abo,ishiny credit would
produce greater revelation in society Than any
event OF the day Bot this is curious, specula,ing
innoya,ing age, aud VIC would he surprised at
nothing. We have heard gentlemen OF distinction
IN this State. advocate such measure for reasons
similar to those assigned in the article referred to-
from the N. Y. Commercial, Augusta
LAWS FOR THE RECOVERY OF DEBTS.
We were good deal Interested. few evenings
since, in listening TO discussion between two in
'e'isent business men OF ths city, on the justice
aud eSped'eney OF repeating al, laws for the rseove
~ Of debts FUNDED upon contract. The po.i,ion
was bodily taken by Que Of them that such laws
ought not to exlsi that they are neither sanctioned
by abstract principles of right, nor recommended 10y
their beneficial operation upon the interests II SO
eiety. The other denounced this proposition as
startling, revolutionary and Destructive bn, as they
beth conducted the argument with good ,emper.
and were evidently governed by sincere desire TO
arrive at correct opinions on the suLjsc,. we heard
them with great pleasure, and, VIC think, not Who'll
ly without profit
The opponent Of the laws began by asserting that
they had no foundation IN n true understanding or
construction OF the social compact. lie maintained
chiucry Of law in etfcc, TO employ the m 'gh,y
power OF the community for the bercft e an indi
vdual; 10 relieve hun from the constu uences of his
own negligence, i'll judgment or misfortune; end
That the same power might just as properly be ex
cr;od TO relieve him from osses cccssionsd by fire.
or storm, or accident OF any kind. "What would
You think, - said the speaker, 'of n farmer whose
horses or cattle had strayed away, or whose grow
x wheat had been devoured aud ,rampl,d under
lot by his own tresSpassing oxen, in consequence
OF his defective fences, aud no should call upon the
ministers Of the law 10 assist him in recovering the
beasts, or 10 make good the loss sustained in the
destruction OF his cropi The application wcr!d lie
| secuted as absurd. And yet there is no more rea-
son why those ministers should employ the power
with which they IRE clothed, TO assis: him in Oh.
tanning sum oil money, withheld from him by
dishonest or impoverished debtor"
To this the other disputant replied that tho SIS
were not analogous. That in Tic case OF debts
there was a contrnct--n promise 10 pagan under.
taking on the part of the debtor the non fuhlment
of which had somewhat OF the nature Of fraud; an
that there was a broad distinction 70 be taken be-
tween cases OF this kind and OF mere casualty,
such as those OF the srayed horses and respassing
cattle.
"Bu,r said his antogauist, "there is no reason
Why this shadow OF lraud-th fiction of crminali-
ty-should be allowed to intervene as pretext for
calling in the civil power. In the case OF the s,rayed
horses and destroyed grain the farmer has nothing
10 accuse but his own careesSness, or it You please
it may be called simply his misfortune. In the
case OF the unplu ucOl the creditor m like manner
suffers through his cdrelessness in trusting man
without sufficient knowledge OF his ability or hen
esy; or, II you please, you may say il is his mis-
flrtune TO have trusted man who was able 10 pay
but has since become unable. Why should any
distinction be made between these two results of
negligence prof miSiorune7 Why should the state
employ its energies in making good ono kind of
loss aud not another when the causes Of both are
the samel"
because" was the reply, ain the case of the debt
there be eornauhnrc IN
payment, or the whole fabric OF society is shaken
and dsorganzeJ. Dishonest men mus, be suhiec,
10 some power that control them in this regard
or mutual trust aud confidence will bo destroyed,
and the social elements be thrown into confusior."
THAT" returned the other, as assertion which
may be disputed and therefore is OF no validity as
an argument | deny your position. | contend
that II there were no Intervention OF law TO enforce
the payment OF debts, better, stronger and
more legitimate power would come into operation TO
Keep the social elements in order. The power of
public opinion-the necessity Of dealing Justly
The man who did not pay his debt, having the
ability to do 50, or who had not the ability, would
be unable to contract debts. The value OF eharac-
ter would be more cihcacious than the law in COM
pelllng to honesty. We see that the power OF law,
to this end, IS by no means sufficient. Noiling is
easier than Tor dishonest man to evade the fulfil,
ment OF his obligations, f he chooses 10 incur the
guilt and disgrace Of taking the available measures
to that end. Aud ngain-your argument was APP
plied IN precisely the same way, against the oil
ton OF imprisonment for debt. The opponents Of
atollson conte nded that L. would unsettle all the
rclaHens OF business. But experiences has proved
th'psthe effect has bssksjgst. the other way. Bus
ness men have become moro cautious IN parting
with their money or their property on promises OF
future payment. The social elements have been
strengthened, rather than disturbed; and this good
effect would he greatly enhanced If creditors were
ei' TO their sole reliance upon the honesty and abb
lily of their debtors"
"But supposng what you say 10 be correc,-ihere
aNsNV aN.a-lr
by reason Of either dishonesty or disability, but
SIMPLY because OF a sincere belief that the payne nj
ought not TO be made; that there is Just and bind
ing obligation TO pay. Would you deprive parties
so situated Of the means by which determine the
question IN dispute between them D.
Certainly not. An amicable suit, or reference
TO disnierested men, can always be resorted to- /
contend only Tor the doing away of compulsory
proceedings. Honest men, willing to pay II thew
justly owe. but sincerely doubling their liability.
will never refuse to into suit or an arbitra.
ton"
"But suppose the debtor dec.ivcs his creditor by
ialse representations of his business his ability TO
pay and the like. Would not this be fraud, aud
would you leave the creditor in such a case with
out the means of redress 2"
"PerhaPs not. 1t would depend very much on
the nature Of the false representations, and the
means the creditor possessed 10 ascertain their truth
AS general rule, however, would leave the cree
dtor to endure the consequences Of his own credu
liiy or want Of vigilance in satisfying himsolfof the
debtors ability and integrity Gross deceit, against
which reasonable prudence could not guard should !
give the law power jurisjicion; but am sure i,
would be better for all parties II men doing BUSH
ness with cnch other OF such nature as 10 create
The relat on OF debtor and creditor were left to their
own resources, for the recovery Of demands. There
might be individual instances Of hardship, but the
general result would be highy beneficial %
Ut might be 80; but still 1 cannot subscribe to
your doctrine that laws for the collection Of debts
are unjust, even though might concede them in
eRP-di;nl. The non-paymont of a debt is n vic. !
iltlon oil the law why should not the law IKE cog
NV nee OF u, as well as Of theft, arson, or any
other violation 2"
Permit me to sugges. that your query is big. |
glng OF the question. As violation Of the law | !
admit that non payment Of a debt is properly COZ
nlzaoe by the law. But I contend that il ought |
not to be accounted violation OF tho law--that |
mere ought TO be no law upon tho suhjeet-ihOt
the existence Of such law tina, argue; not against
the enforcement Of it when it does exist"
Here the conversation was interrupted by
summons to tea.