Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1866-10-25


ed-some before the war, some during the
war, some for lands, some for slaves and
other perishable property, some in security
ships. Some are of long standing, and
consist in great part of interest accrued by
the run of time, some more modern, some
for property deprecated in value by the
operations Of the war, some for merchan-
dize at advanced rate of profit laid on, some
for monies loaned for accommodation, some
for monies loaned as an investment for the
sake of the interest accruing, some for secu-
rity in Bank issues, some for property en-
hanced in value by the war, &C., &c.
Again. Some of us lost more or less in
every species of property by the war; others
increased their estates more or less by the
war. Some persons gave their personal
services to our country and received poth'
ing therefor in return, or were manned or
died. Others remained at home and spent
all their time and energies in securing
what they had, or increasing their estates
Now, Mr.. Editor, in the face of all this
matter, l make the question, viz: Are
persons who made their debts before the
war, now bound in good faith to make good
to creditors to the full, their promises to
pay? | answer, No.
! l Because. All the credit which has
been given by creditors to debtors, was Civ
en- by virtue of the faith of creditors being
predicated Oh the property which he saw or
believed to be legally owned by his debtor /;
and this consisted 10 lands, slaves, merchan
die, manufactures, bonds or claims, joint.
company stocks, and some other personal
property. Otherwise, no credit had been
given.
2. Because, all the promises to pay on
the part of debtors, we're made on the fact
of his faith in bis ability to pay, and this
ability rested on bis being legally possessed
of lands, slaves, merchandise, man nufactures,
bonds or claims, joiut-company stocks, or
some other personal property. Without
this faith 10 an ability to pay on the part of
the debtor, he never would have made his
promises to pay. So then credit was given
and promises to pay we're made, and both
we're based on the same platform. The
basis of credit, and of promises to pay, hav-
ing been hurt or totally destroyed by the
operations of the war, and that too, with
out the agency of either party and against
the wills of both, the result should fall on
both alike as parties to contract.
1t will be said, however, all debtors,
when contracting debt, do, ipso .tacto,
assume the risk of loss in part or of all
their property, and with that loss an inabili-
ty to pay, No claims, therefore, may be set
up DOW for remission or discharge of liability
in the present case.
l answer: Not so. True; debtors did
assume to run the risk of loss of property
by water, fire, adverse trade, robbery, theft,
fugivity, or death, in slaves, &c., but in
burglary, robbery, theft, fugivity, &c., the
debtor had the protection of the laws of the
land in which we live, both to deter aud to
punish all offenders, and for recovery of
his property; but debtors never did assume
to run the risk of robbery and destruction
of his property by water, fire, force, death,
by irresistible and irresponsible invading
armies, nor of the emancipation of slaves
by military power, in the very government
which recognized their property in slaves.
Yea, more, which government made their
property in slaves The want of this as
sumption, therefore, does take away from
debtors, in part or in whole Gas the case
may be) their obligations to make good to
the full, their promises to pay.
Again. 1t will be said, to discharge
debtors, iu part or in whole from the pay
meut of their debts because of their losses
of property in slaves, &c , is to saddle their
losses only Oh their creditors.
answer: Not 80, in all cases. 1t is so
onlyin cuses where debtors owned no proper
ty but slaves, and rightly so on the showing
above. Besides, the case before Us is one
of mutual misfortune, in which both parties
are equally interested, the faith of both
parties predicated on the same basis for
payment, and 10 which neither party acted
nor wiled action in the production of the
loss. 1t is quite as much the misfortune
of creditor to hold, or possess bonds of
promises to pay, as it is of debtors to have
lost their ability to make good their PROM
ises to pay.
| have already shown that the estates of
some debtors may be nothing altered by the
war. In such cases, they have no claim
for relief, but payment to the full. The
estates of some debtors have redeemiug
features, viz: whilst confscation Gas l
call it) has been made of all property in
slaves, and robbery, &c., has been visited
on many, there has been no con6scaton of
cotton, and the gold value of cotton has
been very much enhanced by the opera
tions of the war, whilst great part of the
means of others have been consumed in
living at the high rates of food, clothing,
60. These may of right be held 10 more
strict account in the reckoning of their
debts.
MIR. Editor: Again put the question;
are persons who made their debts before
the war, now bound in good faith to make
good to creditors, to the full, their promises
to pay? Again, l answer No. The NOR
ality of the case (if not the civil law sus-
tains me iD my decision. In morals, the
spirit or binding force in all contracts is