The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-10-10
'ANTI-sTAY Lawn AND CEREBRAL DR.
DER No, 10.

To NE Editor Of the Charleston Daily Neos
have conclusively shown in my former articles,
l think. that the assertions of "Anti-Stay Law, {"
that the Stay Law, OF force in South Carolina, is
the +" cause OF capital being shy of seeking invest
ments in this State" and that sbut for it all. our
local debt would have been settled" are wholly
unfounded, and are based on facts which exist only
in his imagination And in reply, I have shown
" the real cause of capital being shy Of seeking in
vestments" here. and have also traced the fact,
thatthe indebtedness of the country was not re-
moved during the war, to it's true cause. Inow
propose to notice a few other points which your
correspondent has made, and then to dismiss the
subject.
In his second communication, he again dwells
upon what he calls 'sthe persistent policy of pro-
crastination," which, according to his views, has
fatally infected the people OF this State, and de-
plores its consequence, ia long credit system
which has brought the Hayne and Meeting street
jobbdng trade to ruin plunged our planters and
their unfortunate but always credulous victims,
the factors, in bankruptcy" sc.
Is the "Hayne and Meetingstreet jobbing trade"
tbs only business that has suffo red and is now
Frustrated Is the case Of jobbing merchants an
exception2 Is this not q common calamity which
has befallen the %coAntry2 Or does he think that
the "jobbing trade" stands upon grounds Of pecu-
liar favor, and that. those engaged in it who have
had ruin brought upon them, are the only persons
in tho State who deserve sympathy and are emit
tod to bewail their misfortunes ? I beg pardon
he does not mention the poor factors in the same
connection, that guileless class of the commercial
community who have been the simple, always
credulous victims" OF the cunning and fraud of
the cool and calculating planteri Well, this is
something new, and, to use q slang phrase, this
is rich factors 9 victims" of p~lantersl I
Your correspondents imagination must have
been unduly excited hy reading Owns Metamor-
phoses. he has transformed the dove into the
kite, and made a lamb of the wolf. If 1t were not
ridiculous, this charge would be scandal. The
writer, however. may console himself with the re-
Election that this accusation against the planters
will only have the effect to excite a smile wherever
1t is read. ~
Again, "Anti-Stay Law says, when their (mean-
ing debtors) 'Acts" are declared unconstitutional
they crowd themselves on the military, and have
done by ''order that which the Court says is
wrong" #E& "a -4$Ss
The Acts of the Legislature to which he refers
are, it will be observed, characterized by him as
the ''Acts" of debtors. Now, this ia going very far.
much farther, I contend, than the history Of this
law authorizes one to go. 1t WAS, as is swell
known. passed in 1851, without opposition, or the
f~aintest possible, in the popular branch Of the Leg
~islature, and by a large majority In thessnate. By
c~ommonscopsent it remained on the staslte book
until the session OF 1855, when it's passage was re-
sisted for the first time after it's original enact
ment. ,sInthe meantime 1t had received the sane
ton of the Reconstruction CONVENTION in septem-
Der, 1865. 1t had been acquissced in by the peo-
pie, and by all departments of the Government,
during all this time. In May, 1856, a case was
brought mp from Charleston to the Court of Errors
for the express purpose of testing its constitution
atty. The case originated in a rule against the
sheriff Of Charleston, and was decided without ar
gnment IN favor Of the law. The Court decided
the Act to be in conflict with the Constitution Of
the United States, 80 far as it was intended to
apply to contracts made before it's passage. But
the Court did not pass upon the question. of
its expediency. that was not the point
presented for adjudication. If it had been
the decision might have been different. The
COURT Was conlpel i'll it's deliberations to tn,
naked question that was decided. That question
l am not now discussing; it is simply the ques-
ton OF expediency that Ihave been considerinR;
whether General Orders No. 10 have been the
cause Of the evils which your correspondent has
to them. To bring reproach and con-
tempt upon these orders, he attempts to produce
the impression that they are the result OF the ct
forts OF debtors only, who, from interested mo-
tives,' have pressed them upon the military au-
after the Courts had decided the princi-
pie which they involved to be wrong. He would
have your readers believe that the Legislature was
either composed of, or was controlled by, sdebt-
ors" during the space OF four years, as well as tho
Convention which met after the close of the war.
l have always supposed that, other things being
equal, wealth exerted superior power. But in this
case it would seem that the poor and needy have
the Legislation Of the country, not only
against the Constitution, but against the rich and
powerful; that falsehood and stupidity have out. |
wltted truth and wisdom, and fastened upon the
State measures which have Frustrated. her credit
and inflicted the deepest wounds upon her honor
and prosperity. Does sny one believe this 2 If SO |
1 would regard him ais Surprising even q Charles |
ton factor in credulity.
Blu not only have these unprincipled debtors,
'who have notspaid their debts in twenty years
without the Interpolation Of the sheriff, " had their
own waysin the Legislature, but they have also
made a dupe of General SIcKLEsl
This attempt to impugn the motives and asperse
the character OF those who differ with sAnti-Stsy
men Is characteristic, Iregret to. say, Of the
manner in which the latter have always discussed
this question. Such attempts are generally the
resort OF a %disputant who is conscious Of the weak
ness of the cause he advocates. They are not
only unbecomihg, sbut impertinent; they have
nothing to do with the merits OF the question. |
rhgy. exhibit jbad iesiing as well as bad taste, and +
are Especially Inconsistent WITH the character OF
an Intelligent sbpsiness man. " In his article
headed ''Rurafss.tiewS on !Mlercdleas Creditors"
".Anti-stay Law has transgresaed In this respect
to q still greater, extent. Before, indnlging ip the
c~onceited atyb4Sppeat Wit ansdethSsaoess doblsv Which,
mark that p&&Raaa6tsoas anal rshlch! SSonnsttate It'll
Iohidf merit, heSshbhid Have rehectsf that he
thrSw the ;dFst atohas; that hs ID wsas who appeared
in your paper for the purpose Of making light the
'dark places n the subject OF Stay Laws; that he
Get phtto show that this iegislstion was. ths real
SAuse Of capital not seeking Investment In this
State, and Of the indebtedness which now weighs
down theipeogpts:: He was met II, argumsnt ana
chailaAnggssdss Sa II PROOF sSoft his assertions. What Il
his ansffsra fDoeshe present facts or argunfents
to sastata his p6sition7 No. For these he shows
a perfecs contempt, and runs OF on a line that
suits him and his cause better; talks about it's be-
ing an easy matter "to get up a good cry on this
subject; ito win local popularity tTebys telling
debtors thissigsv' no time topay;', fgnres q msenabar
OF the Legislature, to be ''seen ON the Courthouse
steps whiting q stick and telling his rustic friends
that 'tthis is no time to pay debts;;" that s'ssoorne
people consider that to be asked for their debts is
. great gr,isvencsgg' deprecates /. disrsputable state
Of public opinions" says. that '.those, non-paying.
dsbtora:thnkI that Ia Asimplls Iaastsr Sidafdt and
credit y sbnainsss raanssis not y prsopser Yrsfsrse; s.