The tri-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1866-1868, 1866-06-21
RALEIGH. June 10th, 1886. :

received, and the request therein eoh'aineo
is cheerfnlly complied with,
Yours respectfully,
RALPH P. BUXTON.
To Messrs. FoY, MCDONALD, HODGE, HAIR
RIsoN. LOGAN, McIvER and ALEXANDER
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
SPEECH OF HON. RALPH P. BUXTON
OF CUMBERLAND,
Delipered in the Conoention Of North Carolina
onthe 18th of June, 1866, upon an Amend
n,ent to the State Constitution, Sec. 80, pro-
posed by him IN these cords:
"No PERSON SHALL EVER BE IMPRISONED
losS FOR DEBT"
Judge Buxton said:
Mr.. PRESIDENT THE proposed amend
ment in my humble opinion, announces In
brief terms, sound principle which from Its
great practical Importance, and humane
character, earnestly hope may be incorpo-
rated in the organic law OF the State
There is no subject, which every where and
in all ages has more occupied the attention
of law makers, than the question of the
proper adjustment of the conflicting claims
of creditor and debtor. In times anterior to
the Christian era the creditor had full sway
he held in his hands the power OF life and
death, and as the insolvent debtor was re-
garded by him as criminal OF the deepest
die, life was taken in expiration, and the life
less body denied sepulchre Time anchor
ated in some degree the wretched condition
OF the debtor-I still refer to the Heather
age. Life was spared, but the unrelenting
creditor was allowed to sell into slavery not
only the debtor, but also his wife and child
rem The benign influence of Christianity
abolished these atrocities but still, severl-
ties, amounting to cruelty, were practiced
upon debtors; they were regarded as culprits,
treated as such, and pinned in prison until the
genius of British Liberty opened the prison
doors and bid them go free. Thus the prin-
ciple contained in this Ordinance is of
English origin and is borrowed from the
ancient English Constitution. By that great
unwritten charter of English rights, the
right of personal liberty was guaranteed to
every subject, as right superior to every
mere private claim, and not to be forfeited
except upon commission of criminal offence.
It was not considered consonant with the
spirit of the Constitution that freeman
should forfeit his freedom on account of a mere
pecuniary claim held against him by sub
.iect In addition to his private right to per
sonal liberty, it was considered that the
public had an interest in his enlargement
superior to every mere private claim-that
the sovereign had direct and paramount
title to the services of every subject, whether
those services were to I've rendered in the
camp, or in the workshop, or in the field in
prison he could render none.
But, sir, the poor debtor was not long suff-
cred to enjoy his theoretical immunity from
arrest Creditors always were an enterpriz-
ing class-prompted by interest, to say
nothing of Yindictive feeling, they were I'M
firing in their efforts to regain their lost
ascendency Their efforts, aided by the
astuteness of counsel and by the connivance
of the Courts were at last successful; and
they succeeded in battling, not changing this
: humane provision of the Constitution. Thus
in spite of advanced civilization, in opposi-
ton to the benign spirit of Christianity, and
in the very teeth of direct provision of the
English Constitution, the English debtor
once more found himself looking through
the grating of a prison. How this astonish
ing and untoward result was effected is
familiar to the legal PATERNITY brief OK
PLANTATION of the Dao1uS operdnd5 may not be
uninteresting to the uninitiated.
Previously to any statutory enactment on
the-subject, the only mode authorized in the
Courts of Common Law for compelling ap-
pearance, satisfaction of judgment in
action of debt was by distr'ingds-a process
directed against the property, not the person
of the debtor; under which process, by sue
cessive distrainings, appearance was COM
erty exhausted when either of these latter
results was attained, it was considered that
the end of the law was reached and that the
plaintiff should rest content. In an action.
however, for an injury accompanied by force
and therefore involving q breacllsof the peace
different rule was acted on. In this case
an arrest was allowed and the defendant
heldto answer The distinction between the
two cases was well defined, well understood
and for q lnnCr OH ,a1 oil
the Courts. The Court of Common Pleas
was the first to make innovation upon the
constitutional rights of debtors Proceed
ing on the old idea that the debtor was in
some un,lefned way a criminal-and the
mode of procedure perhaps suggested by
that ldea-this Court permitted the creditor
to prefer fictitious accusation against his
debtor, in which he charged him with the
commission of a known criminal offence. as
for instance, with forcible trespass: this
charge entitled him, by the usage of the
Court to cGpiGs for the arrest of the de-
fendant; after the debtor was in safe custody
upon THIS charge, an etiGnl clause as it
was called, was added to the complaint, and
the Declaration alleged that the defendant
not only had committed the forcible trespass:
out also owed the plaintiff sum of money
the real gist of the action. On the trial. no
evidence was offered as to the alleged tres
SOoo
species of legal hocus pocus, the debtor was
Juggied ont of his liberty by the Court of
OF Common Pleas.
The Court of Kings Bench originally of
exclusive criminal jurisdiction, next infring-
ed upon the rights of the poor debtor. It's
process, being criminal, was directed against
the person. When in course of time it be-
came ambitious of extending its jurisdiction
to civil causes, it too listened to a false suo-
gestion Of breach of the peace committed
ny the defendant; and when by its BIZ an
-Asddteses it bad authorized his arrest u,on
Q false charge it detained MIN in CUSTODY to
answer the real demand-a sum of money
due the plaintiff Thus by usurpation and
chicanery united. the debtor was imprisoned
by the CoulO of Kings Bench.
The Court of Exchequer, which originally
concerned merely the Kings revenue and be-
lore which the Kings debtors were called to
account, by summary process also Joined
Ine conspiracy against private debtors; and
not having the right to punish either feigned |
=, ieal trespasses and breaches of the peace |
adopted different expedient. In its writ.
y quo gaanus it allowed its sutton TO sno.
gest, without the slightest foundation eff