The North-Carolina standard., 1844-12-18

which wns adopted
Resolped That The Committee on Finance be
instructed to enquire INTO The expediency fabol-
ishing the Literary and Internal Improvement
Boards. and thatife powers of said Boards be
invested in the officers Of State, and the duties
thereof be required to be performedby them:
Mr. Cameron presented bill 10 incorporate the
Fayetteville Litrary lnstitule Mr.. Boyden a
bill 10 alter The lime Of holding the Superior Courts
In The 9th judicial Circuit and 10 alter The time
lofs holding the Courts Of Pleas and Quarter Ses-
fsicns and to dispense with Juries at two terms OF
said Courts in he several counties in The 9th Cir
cult; Mr.. Boyden a bill 10 establsh1a uniform
practice throughou the Stale on suits upon bonds,
bills and promissory notes-which bills were sew
orally read the first Time and passfd. sc
| The Commons having agreed 10 the proposition.
oGihe Senatelo vote for Comptroller, and inform
I'd tha, the name of Thomas Jefferson, ESQ., If
Rutherford, is added to the nomination, the S. nate
proceeded TO vote for that officer. The following
is the joint vote
For w. F. Collins i33 Z
For Thomas Jefferson 2t
Mr. Thompson, Of Wake, from the Committee
appointed TO superintend the bnlloting, reported
that Mr. Collins was duly elected.
THE WRIT OF ELICIT.
The Senate then took up on its second reading,
the bill to abolish the Writ of Eiegit--a writ un-
horizing tho Sheriff to deliver TO the plaintiff all
the chattes of the debtor, and the one half of his
land, until the debt or damages be levied, npon a
protractrd and animated debate. between Mrssrs.
Waddrll, Shepard, Edwards, Wood6n, Francis,
Boyden and Joyner.
Mr.. Edrcards opposed the bill He said the
writ of EIegit perhaps the only writ that could
be used so as TO compel corporations to pay their
debts, and he was not willing to cut IF any RENE
dy which the law gave US against corporations
IF gentlemen urged as a reason for repeating this
writ that it had been, or could be, used TO oppress
and harrass poor debtors, let them propose such
amcndmt mis- to it as would prcvcln ths-but let it
have full force against corporations.
Mr.. JOyner denied that this bill was designed TO
relieve corporations. It was, he said intended for
The special benefit of The poor man. [How these
Federal leaders lore the poorll
Mr.. Francis opposed the repeal ofthe writ,and
showed how it could prevent frauds by holding
the property against mortgages and trusts Why,
he asked. at this day, were we called upon TO
abolish this remedy, and perhaps the only one,
against corporations This writ had come down
to US with the main body ofour laws The Com
missioners who revised the laws in 1886 conclu-
dcd TO retain it-they had done so-nnd why strike
it out now2 What reason was ofcrtd2 Had it
been used against the Rail Roads, or did gentle
men fear its operation, knowing what it could do
with corporations 1t was denounced as an en-
gine of oppression, because it was so framed us to
reach Rail Roads, and compel fraudulent
porations 10 pay just debts. Gentlemen could
never get his vote 10 screen these Companies.
Mr.. JVaddcH advocated at considerable length,
and with much ability, the bill under conSidera-
tion. The gentleman from Haywood, said he,
seemed caught up with sudden fury against Rail
Roads. He was surprised at him. He had ex-
haust,d his powers Of invcclive, which were great
against corporations; and after all, what did ii
amount to? This extraordinary tempest could eff
feet nothing, and was gotten up in the wrong
place, for this writ. which had been defended by
the gentleman with so much ardor and learning.
could moi touch corporations The law was not
only explicit but exclusively directory as 10 other
wrts against corporations and the writ of destrin-
gas was the proper remedy He argued that the
writ of elrgit was opprcssively ustd against ndi
viduas; that 1t ought to be repealed because it op.
ernted as secret ein binding the property Of the
debtor from The time Of the rendition of the iudg
mcn and he snid il had been used in this State for
no other purposes He denied that he had anv
desire 10 screen corporations and said if ans such
purpose had led TO the introduction ofthe bill, he
did not know it, Mr. w. also read the report up
on the subject made to the Commons by Mr. B. F.
Moo-e, the Chairman Of the Judiciary Committee,
and passed compliments upon the legal attainmen,s
of1hat Chairnan.
Mr. Francis reioincd He said, among other
things, that Mr. Waddrlf had not, and could not,
meet his arguments, and he again called upon the
gentleman TO give him some reason for repeating
this writ He had no desire to repeal for the mere
purpose of showing that he had been legislating
and however much he might respect tho leaInrd
Chairman of the Commons Judiciary Committee.
all the legal aainments that could be mentioned
could furnish him with no reason for voling for or
against any law.
Mr. Boyden expressed his surprise at views of.
fered by the different gentlemen who had prcced-
cd him. He should vote against abolshing this
writ--not because it was supposed to apply to cor
poralons for the writ of destringes he considered
the proper remedy against ,hen-but because it
was one other writ to enable the creditor to
and save his debt. Flo expressed his surprise at
the opinions advanced in the report of Mr.. Moore
He denied the position therein assumed that the
writ ofelegit could overreach bona Gde purchases
under the IT, ta, and ventured to predict that when
ever the question should arise as bttwecn these
two wrs, the latter would prevail. Mr.. Boyden
then wcntinto an explanation of the nature and
powers ofthe writ of elegit, and said in concl;l-
sion, he hoped the Senate would refuse to abolish
it. He concurred with the Senator from Hay-
wood that some good reason must be offered for |
the repeal or alteration Of any law; and as such i
reason had not been offered in the present Instance
he should vote to continue the writ, and. in its
very language should give the plaintiff his
choice i
-TTba Scnoto ,,,oe 81 - !. 4 ..asxl l. 4