The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-02-14
RI. Loyal, Debtor. Law.

The IRtetUgehCefl VI 'h0 AVA 80
,,s,s tLat there are cases IN whlei
creditor who participated IL
,ba late rebellion or resided with
:, ,he rebel lines, ought not to b'
,rowcd TO collect interest that accrued
his debt during the time Cf such par
,;o;natiop or residence, and insists thai
.h.L;l before the House of Delegate:
~ that subject, neither impairs the
ohIication of u contract, nor Is eS pos
m,to But that paper completely repu
dates the bill reported TO the House
Ii says: :.
NJ. admit that the proposed act is IL
able 10 ohiectiOn-to very grave oo
isrtiou We think. 1t opens wlde dooi
80 men, who were neither ready mol
willing TO pay their debts at any time
dnripg toe, war, 10 now avail them
uairsg NJ an excuse TO avoid the pay
.atof interest. Perhaps there are
~ sneb who are looking to the pass.
So of the hill before the House. And
-, hi, reason the prOprlety OF any
,r,rtu.ut uu the subject may be doubt
rI If the debtor has protection III the
Cnprt, under the law as II now stands
AGAINST an unjust eXacllOn OF interest,"
tiot ou.rht 10 suffice. No temptations
10 fraud should be opened up II they
c,n he avoided. The fact Of the rebel
Ion san work no release to any man
frnm his honest debts. As between
debtor and creditor no such issue should
be allowed TO intervene, save only
:, prnt.rt the debtor as before stated.
And if he is already protected by law
AGAINST wrongful eXactiOn, Is II wisdom
10 seek 10 add to or simplify that pro-
lection by legislation that may become
quite the shelter instead Of the terror
of evil dOerst
When men who were neither ready
ner willing to pay their debts at any
tim, during the war, are relieved from
the paymeut of interest which by their
contracts they bound themselves TO pay
why does not the law which relieves
them impair the obligation of their
contractsi When the interest justly
due from such u debtor, to ! creditor
sho has participated in the rebellion,
or resided within the lines of the reb'
els, is forfeited, not as rerdrd TO tn,
debtor for has GnreadiHess or uH'rili"gHes'
10 pay his debt, but as an additional pun
ishment 10 the creditor for al Otfenc,
already punishable blythe law i'll force
at the time OF its commission, or rs q new
punishment iur an act not before pun
ishable, why is not the law which, 10y
such forfeiture inflicts such punishment
an ,T post tdctO law
When the debt was not due, and the
debtor was not himself i'll default be
fore tue creditor engaged in the rebel
lisu or absented himself, if, when th,
debt bee anne due, the debtor had tn,
money and, without using it, retained
it for the payment of the debt, and afte
the creditor returned rendered him tb,
principal, We think he ought TO be re
lieved from the payment Of the interest
If, in fact, in any case the debtor haC
the money at the creditors Servic
all the tine during his absence, W
agree with the IHtslligtRcrr that it woul,
he q hardship to let the creditor com
baSk OH the debtor and collect interes
on the debt But such cases are rare
and We have no doubt would, withou
legislation, furnish grounds of relief b.
the Courts. 1t is not for such cases thd
the bill before the House Of Delegate, is in
tended.
The Mt.lIigeHcer frankly announce
these fundamental propositions, which
because of their justice and force, we re
peat: "The fact Of the rebellion cal
work no release to any man of his hon
est debt Gas between debtor an,
creditor no such cause should DO allow
ed 10 intervene save only TO protect tn
debtor aforesaid" mo temptations L
fraud should be opened up if they ca
be avoided" If these propositions b
true-as none can doubt they sre-wh
are all who gave aid or comfort to an
Person-even . son-engaged in the re
bellion, by the application of test osths
denied the right to sue for the recover
Of debt, till il is barred by time
Does not this work release to man
men from the payment Of their homes
debtsi
Does it not directly raise an issue a
10 the rebellion between debtor an,
creditori Does it not open up tn
temptation to fraud, in the contrivsnc
of uefarious defence to avoid the pay
m-nt of just debit Ii it be gravel
Objectionable TO deprive a creditor o
the interest on his debt, is il not pro
foundedly corrupt, by precludiug hin
from the Courts that he is take,
10 support, to defraud him o
both his principal and interest
When q law deprives a credito
Of remedy which it gave him at tn
time the debt was contracted, an,
leaves him none by which he may en-
force his contract till it is too late +
do so, does not this in effect completed,
destroy the obligation of the contract
When law violates these first princi
pies not because of any merit of tn
debtor, but to forfeit the debt as a pun
ishment to the creditor for an offenc
committed before the passage Of th
law in question, what is this but q
sE peat Jacto lswi
DR.. Bellows don't like the circumlocr