Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1871-04-07
[For the Vindicator.1
ssGOne up the Spout

GOne UP the Spout.
BRowN.-Hello good mornin' neigh
Dor How's all your folks?
JONES. oh, tollible like, thank ye;
how's yourn? ?
BRowN.-Well middlin'. The ole wo-
mans about agia, and Jake's nigh on to
well Any news?
JONES No, bcli' We not, ceptin they
do say the Squire over the way is about to
ego up"
BRowN.-Why, what's the matter?
JoNEs.-Been going security for Dave
Sharp. Dawes took the bankrupt, aud
Squire has the money to pay, and the talk
is that he has more 10 pay for others, and
that, with his own debts, will about swamp
him.
BRowN.-Thunder you say Well Pm
nation sorry to hear it, He's valuable
man in the neighborhood but I hope they
wont sell him out of house and home
Couldn't he give deed of trust to some
body, and cover up his property that way
JoNEs.-Oh, yes; reckon he could, but
it would make more cost and be worse in
the long run.
Blame this going security [ wish it had
never been heard Of There's no sense in it
any way.
Brown. That's So Where's the Justice
of my robbing my family of every thing to
pay another mans debts Especially when
[ had no chance to make anything by it.
I'm down on the whole thing, and wouldn't
60 q mans security hardly to save his life
JoNEs.-Don't say that neighbor. For
sometimes man has to give security, and
no gettin around it. We couldn't have any
officers hardly without bonds and security
BROWN Yes, that's so, but it all comes
Of these Internal laws-and yet the lawyers
keep making new ones. and twisting the old
ones till you would hardly know 'em. Now,
I'll bet son lawyer invented this security
trap, and its the al-fredest thing to catch a
good hearted fellow in
JONES Yes, wouldn't doubt it, And
the pesky thing lasts so long. Why, lock
there's Major B sued on security he
went nigh seventeen years ago, and had for
got all about it and now its close onto sew
en- thousand dollars.
You don't catch me endorsing for no.
body.
BRewS.- That's SO; nor me neither
Well, | must be going. Good day
JONES' Good day neighbor
The above really occurred, and is no un-
common thing. Throughout the country
the victims are bewailing and lucky specta-
tors are execrating the effects of a custom in
more general use among Virginans than
any other people, because they are more
generous and confdlng: viz, of endorsing
for one another. The principle is unsound
and unnatural, and the practice often unlus-
tifable upon any common sense reasoning.
The number of ''good neighbors" and s'hon-
est men," sho are daily going down under
its effects, is startling the community, and
men are auzously trying to remember
whether their name is on any body's bond
and inwardly resolving that if not they new
er will be-
1t has been suggested by some. that to
limit the binding force of an endorsement to
two or three years would make the practice
omparatively safe, and no doubt it would
be great improvement.
"But why not abolish the custom alto
gether, by law p asks one Because"
say the business men, ''it is found necessary
that security should be given by Sherifs,
Treasurers, Executors, Administrators,
Guardians, and Fiduciaries generally"
This reply grants that it might be dis
pensed with in ordinary business transac-
tons, and have no doubt it could with
very great advantage to the real good Of the
people. Refuse to deal with men you can't
trust and at once you place deserved pre-
MUM on honesty and integrity Of charac-
ter.
Let US look briefly at the cases mentioned
in the objection to a law entirely abolishing
the binding force of an endorsement
l would respectfully suggest, that as
Sherifs, Treasures and other bonded"
officers are elected by the people, their in
tegrity should be endorsed and their deficits
paid by the people This would be more
just and entail less suffering, and would tend
to the more careful selection of faithful AMI
competent officers.
As to Executors and Administrators,
security seems quite superfuous, inasmuch
as under existing laws they can not be com
PEELED to pay anything except costs.
The question Of Guardians is difficult.
The sacredness of an orphans claim i'm
pels every true man to throw around their
rights every protecting shield that human
ingenuity can invent ; and here the greatest
objection to individual security is, that it is
not safe enough. I'D
Could not the County in its corporate ca
pacity take charge Of, and be responsible for
funds belonging to orphans-paying over
annually to guardians enough to cover actu-
al expenses? Certainly the ability of our
thinking men should be able to solve this
delicate problem, and thus help to rid US of
a law and custom which have caused inf
mite destruction of energy, prosperity and
happy homes.
But times up I'll call round again.