Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1858-10-15
The Judgeshfp in the 9th Circuit.
For the Patriot.

For the Patriot.
MEssRs. EDrToRs-Ge1tlemen 4 writer in
the Union and american, over the signature OF
"CANEY FORK" is charging S. NJ. Fife, Ed,
candidate for the vacant Judgeship in the
Sixth Circuit with having while in the Legis-
lature, favored imprisonment for debt" In
his communication of Wednesday last, allud-
ing to the bill which he says contains the doc
trne of imprisonment for debt" he says
that ..Mr. Fife denied in his speech at Car
thage that he introduced the BILL and tries to
make this impression in his circular" He
then asserts positively that Mr.. Fife did intro
duce the BILL and refers to page 25S of the
Senate Journal of 1850, to establish his
charge, and thus to prove that Mr.. Fife, in
DENYING that he was the author of the bill
stated an untruth. Now, we have examined
page 25S of the journal, and from said page
find that Mr. Fife introduced the following
bill. which is printed directly from the origi-
nal copy now on the file in the Secretary
OF States office:
CAPTIoN-Senate's Bill, No. 1913, 10 facili-
tate the collection Of debts:
SECTION l. BE II enacted By The General 4ss7a-
blu of The State Of Tennessee: That when bill
of exchange bond, note, or other instrument
for the payment OF money or any valuable
thing purpOrts to have been assigned or en-
dorsed, such assignment or endorsement shall
lie held prina facle evidence that the same was
40 assigned or endOrs d, subject, however, to
be rcbuttcd by proof. Provided, if the defen-
dant will by plea or oath deny such assign
ment or endorsement, the presumption in tay-
or OF such assignment shall be removed
The above is a verbatim copy of the bill. 1t
Was introduced by Mr.. FTTE and is the only
bill reported on page 25S, as having been i'll
troduced by him. And this is "CANEY FORK S"
bloody ca M law! Is there any thing re-
motely connected with Imprisonment for debt
in this bill? Evidently not; and am at a
loss to see how Carey Fork should base his
charge upon it.
The only other bill on the Journal Of the
same session, on which such a charge could
be pretended to be based, is a bill introduced
by Mr. Brashear, page "a. 1t is intended to
afford q more efficient means for the cOllec
ton of small debts. 1t provides in substance
that where any creditor, having a claim of
not more than $50 against a debtor, he shall
have the same remedy against such debtor
that IA creditor for larger amounts now has in
the Chancery Court. 1t is well known in the
Chancery Court cognizance is taken Of no
amount under $50. If a creditor has a claim
for above that amount he may file his bill in
the Chancery Court, and compel debtor
who is attempting to conceal or cover up his
properly by fraudulent assignments, deeds of
trust &C., to answer on oath and disclose
whether or not he has any effects so conceal
ed, and if so where and how. The bill OF Mr..
Brashear was intended to provide the same
remedy for smaller creditors. The law was
intended for the benefit of poor men. Large
traders. having heavy debts due them, can
go to the Court file their bills, and compel
their debtors to disclose, OH oath, where and
how their effects are concealed. This the
poor man, having a small debt due him, can
not do.
To illustrates: Suppose a large manufactur-
ing establishment, having many workmen en-
ployed, should suddenly suspend operations,
having first made a fraudulent assignment of
all its effects. Large creditors of the estab-
lishment may reach their claims by bills in
Chancery, forcing the members of the suspen-
dcd firm to disclose on oath what effects they
have But the laborers in the establishment,
who have small debts against it, have no
remedy upon oath, and must lose their debts.
The bill of Mr.. BRAsHEAR was to give to them
the same redy Us the large creditors have, and
thus to place them all on an equality. For
the bill Mr. Fife voted, as also majority of
the Senate. Among the rest Gen. Zollicofer
aud in his next race, he explained the law TO
the people and made votes by it.
But whatever may be the provisions of this
bill, it was not introduced by Mr.. Fife, as
Caney Fork asserts. but by Mr.. BraShear.
Therefore when Mr. Fite asserted at Carthage
that he did not introduce the bill, he stated
the truth, and the statement TO the contrary.
by Caney Fork, is shown 10y the journal to be
utterly aud positively untrue. Considering
these facts, and the utterly groundless char
acter of Caney Forks charges aud assertions,
We can only conclude that he has attacked
Mr.. Fife, without any grounds whatever, 10 in
jure his election. This is done too, on the eve
of the election, when sufficient time is not
left, in which to counleract its effects. This
is, to say the leas; Of 1t, very unfair mode
of warfare--a most unmanly advantage
sought to be- taken of Mr.. Fite.
Respectfully, JUSTICE.
yellow Fever aI New York.
- 1,l-.-...x,, kas a.,l.,,iftad 20 H. Ha.t,h